Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest

Author Topic: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest  (Read 8450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« on: November 07, 2010, 09:26:38 PM »
Was just reading this and it gave me the thought....

Notice how many of the "Elite" do not pay Taxes for their conquered property.
Notice that we as a people are being subjected to various forms of "Tallage".
Notice foreclosed people "begging" to keep their homes and lands.


BOOK VI.: FROM THE QUARREL BETWEEN KING WILLIAM AND HIS ELDEST SON ROBERT, TO THE LAST VISIT OF WILLIAM TO THE CONTINENT. 1077—1087. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856] 
...
Another claim on his part was, that every domain which had paid any rent or service to king Edward, should pay the same rent or service to him, although held by a Norman.

This claim, founded on a regular succession to the rights of the English king, which could not be admitted by those who had forcibly dispossessed the English race, was at first ill received by the conquerors.

Exemption from taxes or any money service beyond a voluntary contribution now and then, appeared to them the inviolable prerogative of their victory, and they regarded the condition of customary tax-payers as peculiar to the subjugated nation.2

Many resisted the demands of the king, scorning to have personal servitude imposed upon them for the land which they had conquered.

But others submitted; and their compliance, whether voluntary or purchased by William, weakened the opposition of the rest.

Raoul de Courbespine long refused to pay any rent for the houses he had taken in the city of Canterbury; and Hugh de Montfort for the lands he occupied in Essex.3 These two chiefs might act thus cavalierly with impunity; but the haughtiness of less powerful and less considerable men was sometimes severely punished. One Osbern le Pecheur (Fisher), having refused to pay the dues which his land formerly paid to king Edward, as depending on his domain, was appropriated by the royal agents, and his land offered to any one who would pay the dues demanded. Raoul Taille-Bois paid, says the great roll, and took possession of the domain forfeited by Osbern le Pecheur.4

The king thus endeavoured to levy from his own countrymen, in the cities and lands of his demesne, the tax established by the Saxon law.

As to the English in these cities and demesne lands, besides the tax rigorously exacted, as being the custom of the place, and which was often doubled or tripled, they were further subject to a casual, arbitrary, variable impost, capriciously and harshly levied, which the Normans called taille or taillage (tallagium).

The great roll enumerates the tallagable burgesses of the king, in cities, towns, and hamlets. “The following are the burgesses of the king at Colchester:1 Keolman, who holds a house and five acres of land; Leofwin, who holds two houses and twentyfive acres; Ulfrik, Edwin, Wulfstan, Manwn, &c.” The Norman soldiers and chiefs also levied tallage on the Saxons who had fallen to their lot in town or country.2

This is what, in the language of the conquerors, was called having a free burgess or Saxon; and in this way the free men were reckoned by the head, were sold, given, exchanged, lent, or even divided among the Normans.3

The great roll mentions that a certain viscount had in the town of Ipswich two Saxon burghers, the one on loan, the other in pledge;4 and that king William, by authentic deed, had lent the Saxon Edwig to Raoul Taille-Bois, to keep him so long as he should live

 Some of the dispossessed Saxons ventured to present themselves before the commissioners of inquiry to set forth their claims; many of these are registered, couched in terms of humble supplication that no Norman employed.

These men declared themselves poor and miserable; they appealed to the clemency and compassion of the king.1

Those who, by the most abject servility, succeeded in preserving some slight portion of their paternal inheritance, were obliged to pay for this favour with degrading or fantastic services, or received it under the no less humiliating title of alms.

Sons are inscribed in the roll as holding the property of their fathers by alms. 2 Free women retain their field as alms.3

One woman preserves her husband’s land on condition of feeding the king’s dogs.4

A mother and her son receive their own property in gift, on condition of each day saying prayers for the soul of Richard, the king’s son.5
...
The English towns and villages were unceremoniously farmed out by the Norman earls and viscounts, to men who then worked them for their own profit, and as though they were their own property.3

“He let out to the highest bidder,” say the chronicles, “his towns and his manors; if there came a bidder who offered more, he let the farm to him; if a third arrived, who offered a still higher price, it was to the third that he adjudged it.4

He gave it to the highest bidder, quite regardless of the enormous crimes which the farmers committed in levying taxes upon the poor people.
He and his barons were avaricious to excess, and capable of doing anything by which they could gain money

...
The other law of the Conqueror to which we have referred was designed to increase in an exorbitant manner the authority of the bishops of England. These bishops were all Normans: it was deemed just and necessary that their power should be wholly exercised for the advantage of the conquest; and as the warriors who had effected this conquest maintained it with sword and lance, so the churchmen were called upon to maintain it by political address and religious influence
...
In concluding the narrative of the events just related, the chroniclers of English race give way to touching regrets as to the miseries of their nation.

“There is no doubt,” exclaim some of them, “that God will no longer permit us to be a nation, or to possess honour and security.
3

Others complain that the name of Englishman has become an opprobrium;4 and it is not only from the pens of contemporaries that such complaints proceed; the remembrance of a great misfortune and of a great national shame is reproduced, century after century, in the writings of the sons of the Saxons, although more faintly as time advances

----

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
...

 Commissioners went over the whole extent of country in which the army had left garrisons; they took an exact inventory of property of every kind, public and private, carefully registering every particular; for the Norman nation, even in those remote times, was already extremely fond of deeds, and documents, and law forms
...
King William, with his chosen troops, had not advanced beyond Hexham; it was his captains, who, penetrating further, conquered the rest of Northumbria, north and west. The mountainous district of Cumberland was reduced to a Norman county;

one Renouf Meschin took possession of it, and the land of marsh and moor, called Westmoreland, was also brought under the power of a foreigner,4 who divided among his soldiers the rich domains and beautiful women of the county.

He gave the three daughters of Simon Thorn, proprietor of the two manors of Elreton and Todewick, one to Onfroy, his squire, another to Raoul Tortesmains, and the third to one Guillaume de Saint Paul
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2010, 12:27:08 AM »
More history lessons please

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2010, 12:45:25 AM »
I recently found this book online , and I must say it is the only one I've seen so far that puts a true picture on the fall of the saxons and the aftermath it created.

The Normans had the MSM at the time of the Conquest:

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed mocked the virtuous efforts ... of the friends of independence.

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
 

...
Similar instances of daring vengeance, of which the historians cite but a few, must certainly have taken place in many districts; but however numerous they may have been, they could not save England.

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed, mocked the virtuous but impotent efforts of the friends of independence.

The patriots themselves, with their great chiefs, whose names alone called forth many men, lost all courage, and again capitulated. Waltheof, Gospatrik, Morkar, and Edwin, made their peace with the conqueror
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2010, 01:05:31 AM »
 TPTB O.K. the conquest .... Bilderberg acquires the resources

 BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
 


Whatever might before have been the secret negotiations of the duke of Normandy with the Roman church, henceforward there was afforded them a fixed basis, a distinct direction. An oath sworn upon relics, however absurd the oath might have been, called, if it were violated, for the vengeance of the church; and in such a case, in the opinion of the period, the church struck legitimately.

Whether from a secret presentiment of the perils with which England was threatened by the spirit of ecclesiastical revenge, combined with the ambition of the Normans, or from a vague impression of superstitious terror,

a fearful depression came over the English nation. Gloomy reports were spread from mouth to mouth; fears and alarms spread abroad, without any positive cause for alarm;

predictions were dug up from the graves of the saints of the old time. One of these prophesied calamities such as the Saxons had never experienced since their departure from the banks of the Elbe;1

another announced the invasion of a people from France, who would subject the English people, and abase their glory in the dust for ever.2

All these rumours, hitherto unheeded or unknown, perhaps indeed purposely forged at the time, were now thoroughly credited, and kept every mind in the expectation of some vast and inevitable evil.
...
Presently after this, the consecrated banner and the bull authorizing the invasion of England arrived from Rome, which greatly increased the popular ardour; every one brought what he could; mothers sent their sons to enrol their names for the salvation of their souls.3  William published his ban in the neighbouring countries;

he offered good pay and the pillage of England to every able man who would serve him with lance, sword, or cross-bow. A multitude accepted the invitation, coming by every road, far and near, from north and south.

They came from Maine and Anjou, from Poitou and Brittany, from France and Flanders, Aquitaine and Burgundy, from the Alps and the banks of the Rhine.1

All the professional adventurers, all the military vagabonds of Western Europe hastened to Normandy, by long marches; some were knights and chiefs of war, the others simple foot-soldiers and sergeants of arms, as they were then called;

some demanded money-pay, others only their passage and all the booty they might make. Some asked for land in England, a domain, a castle, a town; others simply required some rich Saxon in marriage.2

Every thought, every desire of human avarice presented itself. William rejected no one, says the Norman chronicle, and satisfied every one as well as he could.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2010, 01:01:57 PM »
Hastings - 1066 Before the Battle - Fight or Surrender

BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]  

Quote
the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt

One of them spoke: “We ought,” said he, “to fight, whatever the danger may be; for it is not here the question of receiving a new lord, as if our king were dead; the matter in hand is very different.

The duke of Normandy has given our lands to his barons, his knights, and all his people, most of whom have already rendered him homage for them; they will all have their donations carried into effect if the duke becomes our king, and

he will be bound to give them our goods, our wives, and our daughters, for all is promised them beforehand.

They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, to take from us the country of our ancestors; and what shall we do, or where shall we go, when we have no longer any country?”

And hereupon the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt.”


At the Battle of Hastings, Wace records that the housecarls of the Saxon army cried "Olicrosse!" and "Godamite!" ("Holy Cross" and "God Almighty", respectively), while the fyrd  cried "Ut! Ut! Ut!" ("Out! Out! Out!").

[ In Anglo-Saxon times, defences were based upon the fyrd. It was a militia called up from the districts threatened with attack. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions ]
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2010, 01:20:29 PM »
Making a list of names

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
  


A close inquiry was made into the names of all the English partisans of Harold, who had either died in battle, or survived the defeat, or by involuntary delays had been prevented from joining the royal standard.

All the property of these three classes of men, lands, revenues, furniture, houses, were confiscated;

the children of the first class were declared for ever disinherited;

the second class were, in like manner, wholly dispossessed of their estates and property of every kind, and, says one of the Norman writers, were only too grateful for being allowed to retain their lives.

Lastly, those who had not taken up arms were also despoiled of all they possessed, for having had the intention of taking up arms; but, by special grace, they were allowed to entertain the hope that after many long years of obedience and devotion to the foreign power, not they, indeed, but their sons might perhaps obtain from their new masters some portion of their paternal heritage.

The immense product of this universal spoliation became the pay of those adventurers of every nation who had enrolled under the banner of the duke of Normandy.

Their chief, the new king of England, retained, in the first place, for his own share, all the treasure of the ancient kings, the church plate, and all that was most rare and precious in the shops of the merchants.

After the king and clergy had taken their share, that of the soldiers was awarded according to their rank and the conditions of their engagement.

the barons and knights had vast domains, castles, villages, and even whole cities; the simple vassals had smaller portions.

Some received their pay in money, others had stipulated that they should have a Saxon wife, and William, says the Norman chronicle, gave them in marriage noble dames, great heiresses, whose husbands had fallen in the battle.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2010, 03:22:16 PM »
The Landing - Exotic Weapons- Budget Unlimited



BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]  

The vessel in which William sailed was in the van, bearing at its mast-head the banner sent by the pope, and a cross on its own flag. Its sails were of different colours, and on them in various places were painted the three lions, the arms of Normandy; at the prow was the carved figure of a child, bearing a bow bent, with the arrow ready to quit the string. ... This vessel, a better sailer than the rest, outstripped them during the day, and at night left them far behind.

Four hundred ships with large sails, and more than a thousand transport vessels, made for the open sea, amid the sound of trumpets and a shout of joy, sent forth from sixty thousand mouths as from one

D-Day June 6, 1944 - Number of ships used in the NORMANDY Invasion: MORE THAN 5,000 ships
...
The troops of William thus landed, without resistance, at Pevensey near Hastings, the 28th of September 1066, three days after the victory of Harold over the Norwegians.

The archers landed first; they wore short coats, and their hair was shaved off;

then came the cavalry, wearing coats of mail and helmets of polished steel, of a nearly conical form, armed with long and strong lances, and straight double-edged swords.

These were followed by the workmen of the army, pioneers, carpenters, and smiths, who brought on shore, piece by piece,
three wooden castles, ready prepared beforehand.


The duke was the last to land; at the moment his foot touched the sand, he slipped and fell on his face.

A murmur arose, and voices exclaimed: “God preserve us! this is a bad sign.” But William, rising, said immediately: “Lords, what is’t you say? What, are you amazed?

I have taken seizin of this land with my hands, and, by the splendour of God, all that it contains is ours.”

The repartee prevented the effect of the evil presage.

The army took the road towards Hastings, and near that place marked out a camp, and raised two of the wooden castles as receptacles for provisions.

Bodies of troops overran the neighbouring country, pillaging and burning houses.

The English fled from their dwellings, hiding their goods and cattle, and hastened in crowds to the churches and churchyards, which they deemed the surest asylum against enemies, who were Christians like themselves. But, in their thirst for booty, the Normans paid little heed to the sanctity of places, and respected no asylum.

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/timber-castles.htm

The first of the pre-built Norman Wooden Castles was erected at Pevensey Bay in 1066.

Pevensey castle was built on high ground on the site of an old Roman Fort. Information from Norman chroniclers state that a total of three pre-built wooden castles were brought from Normandy on the invasion fleet of Duke William of Normandy, which consisted of nearly 3000 vessels.
The famous Bayeux Tapestry illustrates the process of building Norman Pre-Built Timber Castles.

The aims of building the Timber Norman Castles
The pre-built timber Norman castles were perfect for the strategy of William the conqueror.
But the Normans needed more timber castles and they needed them quickly.

The conquest of England by the Normans needed castles to:

Provide a safe base where men, provisions and horses could be housed

The Psychological effect - these timber Norman castles were constructed to overawe and frighten the indigenous population

The timber Norman Castles provided a site from which the Normans could govern the surrounding district

Timber Norman Castles and Feudalism
...the Normans were rewarded with English lands and they needed a strong power base to hold off the rebellious English. Well constructed Norman timber castles provided them with this. They used local timber and forced local labour to build their timber Motte and Bailey castles.  
The Normans kept their new land.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2010, 11:21:47 AM »
Merkel and Sarkozy call for deeper union
10 December 2010
, by Gerrit Wiesmann in Berlin and Peter Spiegel in Brussels (The Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/825119d8-0463-11e0-8a3c-00144feabdc0.html

Excerpt:

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, on Friday called on their European Union partners to draw a fundamental lesson from the eurozone debt crisis and take steps towards closer political integration.

Before a regular joint meeting of the German and French cabinets in Freiburg, Ms Merkel said the crisis demanded a “stronger and harder” look at economic co-ordination, with the aim of “better show[ing] the coherence of economic policies” of individual member states.

She called for more “coherence” between national policies in the EU. “With that we’d show this is not just about currency issues, but also about political co-operation, which has to be deepened.”

Her comments reflect a growing appreciation in Berlin that the sovereign debt crisis that has gripped the 16-nation single currency zone is as much the result of failed fiscal harmonisation as of the oft-cited greedy speculators.

“We are also going to jointly table structural answers” to the eurozone crisis, said Mr Sarkozy, adding that coming up with a joint crisis-mechanism plan was “a task for the first weeks of the new year”.

The two governments already have a working group looking at what the Germans call better “economic governance” – a term officials have adopted to steer clear of the French “economic government”, which Berlin has long mistrusted as a French ruse to gain a say over German economic policy.


German troops enter France
10 December 2010
, Strasbourg (AFP)
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/12/10/16501761.html

Excerpt:

A battalion of German combat troops is to be officially stationed in eastern France on Friday for the first time since Nazi forces ended their occupation at the end of World War II.

The battalion, part of the joint Franco-German Brigade, will be stationed at Illkirch-Graffenstaden outside Strasbourg, near the German border, and will eventually consist of 600 soldiers.

The historic move, aimed at cementing friendship between the neighbours who fought three devastating wars in 75 years, was agreed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a Munich summit in 2009.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2010, 11:27:30 AM »

German troops enter France
10 December 2010
, Strasbourg (AFP)
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/12/10/16501761.html

Excerpt:

A battalion of German combat troops is to be officially stationed in eastern France on Friday for the first time since Nazi forces ended their occupation at the end of World War II.

The battalion, part of the joint Franco-German Brigade, will be stationed at Illkirch-Graffenstaden outside Strasbourg, near the German border, and will eventually consist of 600 soldiers.

The historic move, aimed at cementing friendship between the neighbours who fought three devastating wars in 75 years, was agreed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a Munich summit in 2009.

WOW!!!  well its finally moving forward
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2010, 11:32:41 AM »
Vichy Soisse anyone?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2010, 11:37:27 AM »
Surrendering again... this time no De Gaulle
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2010, 11:38:47 AM »
Surrendering again... this time no De Gaulle

quickest War France has lost.  :D
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2010, 09:10:49 AM »
Merkel wants Czechs and Poles to join the euro: report
11 December 2010
, by Jana Mlcochova - Prague (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BA17H20101211

Excerpt:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Czech and Polish prime ministers that she would welcome their countries into the eurozone, daily Lidove Noviny reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

The paper said Germany's stance on how to heal the bloc's debt crisis was supported only by the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Slovakia.

This leaves it in a minority against France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Greece and Ireland (Berlin: IIK.BE - news) who oppose sanctions for excessive debt and reject orderly bankruptcy.

Any new country that entered the bloc would also be obliged to contribute to its aid mechanism, booting its cash reserves, the paper said.

The paper said Merkel asked the Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas to enter the bloc during his official visit to Germany in September.

Before this, she had a meeting with Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk and also asked him to apply for the euro, the paper said, without indicating sources of the information.

----

But Czech public debt, another entry criterion and the euro zone's periphery countries Achilles heel, is at some 37% of output, comfortably below the bloc's-prescribed 60 percent threshold, and about a half of the EU 27 average.

Necas' cabinet had said it would not set any euro adoption date and in the Lidove Noviny interview Necas, who took office after a May general election, reiterated he saw no reason to apply for membership in the club.

Poland was the only country in the 27-strong EU to avoid recession during the peak of the global economic crisis.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2010, 09:25:48 AM »
Merkel wants Czechs and Poles to join the euro: report
11 December 2010
, by Jana Mlcochova - Prague (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BA17H20101211

Excerpt:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Czech and Polish prime ministers that she would welcome their countries into the eurozone, daily Lidove Noviny reported on Saturday, citing unnamed sources.

The paper said Germany's stance on how to heal the bloc's debt crisis was supported only by the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Slovakia.

This leaves it in a minority against France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Greece and Ireland (Berlin: IIK.BE - news) who oppose sanctions for excessive debt and reject orderly bankruptcy.

Any new country that entered the bloc would also be obliged to contribute to its aid mechanism, booting its cash reserves, the paper said.

The paper said Merkel asked the Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas to enter the bloc during his official visit to Germany in September.

Before this, she had a meeting with Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk and also asked him to apply for the euro, the paper said, without indicating sources of the information.

----

But Czech public debt, another entry criterion and the euro zone's periphery countries Achilles heel, is at some 37% of output, comfortably below the bloc's-prescribed 60 percent threshold, and about a half of the EU 27 average.

Necas' cabinet had said it would not set any euro adoption date and in the Lidove Noviny interview Necas, who took office after a May general election, reiterated he saw no reason to apply for membership in the club.

Poland was the only country in the 27-strong EU to avoid recession during the peak of the global economic crisis.

NATO strike? Polish elite assassinated in downed plane for not accepting €Euro
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=166259.0
4/10/10
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2010, 10:28:42 AM »
That's why!

Digital Enhancement Of Amateur Plane Crash Site Footage (w / English Subtitles) In Smolensk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEx7HL4H5yk

deshaked version of the plane crash footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyGWiU0LuUg
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2010, 12:12:38 PM »
German minister says open to EU fiscal union talks
12 December 2010
, (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6BA07120101212

Excerpt:

Germany is open to a discussion over whether countries that share the euro currency should harmonize their fiscal policy, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said.

In an interview published on Sunday in Bild am Sonntag newspaper, Schaeuble said the decision made at the euro's creation to not integrate state finances into a European framework could be addressed anew.

"The basic decision was for fiscal and budgetary policy to be decided on the national level. If that is to be changed, then we can talk about it," he said.

Berlin has opposed calls by Spain and other countries to move toward a full-fledged "fiscal union" in the 16-nation bloc but appeared last week to have agreed to a limited form of policy coordination.

Looking forward, Schaeuble predicted that member states of the European Union would come ever closer politically.

"In ten years we will have a structure that corresponds much stronger to what one describes as political union," he said.

----

Germany and France have pledged to better align their tax and labor policies to foster convergence in the euro zone, but have rejected calls for an increase in the bloc's rescue fund and joint sovereign bonds.


France and Germany want more unity on tax
11 December 2010
, by Derek Scally in Berlin and Arthur Beesley in Brussels (The Irish Times)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1211/1224285301579.html
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2010, 12:30:35 PM »
Britain and France just agreed that their separate nuke arsenals should now be regarded as one arsenal with complete cooperation.

The NATO monster is really getting scared shitless and starting to make some of the stupidest moves ever.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Online Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,755
  • It's the TV, stupid!
    • JACKSON HOLLY'S OLD HOME PLACE
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2010, 12:38:14 PM »
Britain and France just agreed that their separate nuke arsenals should now be regarded as one arsenal with complete cooperation.

The NATO monster is really getting scared shitless and starting to make some of the stupidest moves ever.

I agree ... it is almost laughable: "We gotcha big ole' nukes! We can blow your rebel *sses to Kingdom Come!"

THAY SOUND LIKE SUICIDE BOMBERS!

St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself."

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #18 on: February 07, 2011, 01:18:43 PM »
Food is a Weapon

(office of war information) 1943


BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]


When the conquest grew flourishing, not merely young soldiers and old captains, but whole families, men, women, and children, emigrated from almost every corner of Gaul to seek their fortune in England; this country had become for foreigners, as it were a land newly discovered, which had to be colonised, and which belonged to every comer.
...
A second time master of York, the Conqueror did not stop there; he continued the rapid march of his troops northwards. They precipitated themselves on the land of Northumbria in the very frenzy of vengeance;4 they burned the fields under cultivation, as well as the hamlets and towns, and massacred the flocks with the men.5

This devastation was prosecuted upon a studied and regular plan, in order that the brave men of the north, finding their country uninhabitable, might be compelled to abandon it, and to disperse in other districts
...
Famine, the faithful companion of conquest, followed their steps; in the year 1067 it had already desolated the counties which had been invaded; in 1070 it extended over all England, manifesting itself in its utmost horrors in the newly conquered districts.

The inhabitants of Yorkshire and of the territory further north, after feeding on the flesh of the dead horses left by the Norman army on their way, ate human flesh.5

More than an hundred thousand persons, of all ages, perished of famine in this district.6 “It was a frightful spectacle,” says an old annalist, “to behold, in the roads and streets, at the doors of houses, human bodies devoured by the worms, for none remained to scatter a little earth over them, all being destroyed by famine or the sword. This distress was felt only by the natives; the foreign soldier lived in plenty; for him, in the heart of his fortresses, there were vast stores of provisions, and more was sent him from abroad, in return for the gold wrung from the English.

Moreover, famine aided him entirely to quell the conquered; often, for the remains of the repast of a groom in the Norman army, the Saxon, once illustrious among his countrymen, in order to sustain his miserable life, came to sell himself and his whole family to perpetual slavery.1

The act of sale was registered upon the blank page of some missal, where may still be found, half effaced, and serving as a theme for the sagacity of the antiquaries, these monuments of the wretchedness of a bygone period.
...

The reader must fix his imagination upon these; he must repeople ancient England with her conquerors and her conquered of the eleventh century;

he must figure to himself their various situations, interests, and languages; the joy and insolence of the one, the misery and terror of the other; the whole movement which accompanies the deadly war between two great masses of men.

For seven hundred years these men have ceased to exist; but what matters this to the imagination?
With the imagination there is no past, and even the future is of the present.



BOOK V.: FROM THE FORMATION OF THE CAMP OF REFUGE IN THE ISLE OF ELY, TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LAST SAXON CHIEF. 1070—1076. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]  


To meet this new peril, William resorted to the means he had more than once found successful,
promises and lies


The whole country of the Anglo-Saxons was conquered, from the Tweed to Cape Cornwall, from the English Channel to the Severn, and the conquered population was overrun in every direction by the army of the conquerors.

There were no longer any free provinces, no longer masses of men in military organization; there were only a few scattered remains of the defeated armies and garrisons, soldiers who had no chiefs, chiefs without followers.

War was now continued against them in the form of individual persecution;

the most prominent were tried and condemned with some show of form;

the remainder were handed over to the discretion of the foreign soldiers, who made them serfs on their domains,1

or massacred them, with circumstances which an ancient historian declines to detail, as incredible and monstrous to relate.

2 Those who retained any means of emigration proceeded to the ports of Wales or Scotland, and embarked thence, as the old annals express it, to carry their grief and misery through foreign lands.3

Denmark, Norway, and the countries where the Teutonic language was spoken, were generally the goal of these emigrations; but English fugitives were also seen journeying to the south, and soliciting an asylum among nations of an entirely different language.
...

Of the Saxons who could not or would not emigrate, many sought refuge in the forests with their families, and, if they were rich and powerful, with their servants and vassals
...

It was more especially the north country, which had most energetically resisted the invaders, that became the land of these armed wanderers, of this last protest of the conquered. The vast forests of Yorkshire were the abode of a numerous band, who had for their chief a man named Sweyn, son of Sigg
...

When the hour of rest arrived, at the moment of closing up everything, the head of the family arose and repeated aloud the prayers which were said at sea on the approach of a storm; he concluded thus: “The Lord bless us and help us;” and all present answered Amen. This custom subsisted in England for more than two centuries after the conquest.
...

The sad destiny of the English seemed to be irretrievably fixed. In the absence of all opposition, the calm of entire hopelessness reigned throughout the land.

The foreign merchants fearlessly displayed in the towns and villages, stuffs and weapons fabricated on the continent, which they exchanged for the booty of the conquest.2 A man might then travel, says the contemporary history, having with him his weight in gold, and get none but good words addressed to him.3 The Norman soldier, more at ease in the possession of his share of land or money, less disturbed by midnight alarms, less frequently obliged to sleep in his hauberk, became less violent and less malevolent.

The conquered themselves had some moments of repose;4 the English women no longer feared for their chastity: many of them, who had sought refuge in the nunneries, and had taken the veil as a protection against the brutality of the conquerors,5 becoming weary of this enforced retirement, wished to return to their friends and families. But it was not so easy for the Saxon women to quit the cloister as it had been to enter it.

The Norman prelates held the keys of the monasteries, as the Norman barons held those of the towns; and it was deemed necessary for these sovereign masters of the souls and bodies of the English to deliberate, in solemn assembly, upon the question of setting free the Saxon women who had become nuns against their inclination, and solely from necessity.

[ Many Saxon women had entered the nunneries to avoid being forced to marry the Norman conquerers. In some cases this was after their husbands had been murdered... i.e. they were "widows" ]
...

JFK/RFK?

The execution of Waltheof completed the prostration of the conquered nation. It would seem that the people had not lost all hope, so long as they saw one of their countrymen invested with great power, even though under foreign authority.

After the death of the son of Siward,  { Waltheof }
there was not in England, of all those invested with honours and political functions, one single man born in the country who did not look upon the natives as enemies or brute-beasts.

All religious authority had also passed into the hands of men of foreign race, and of the old Saxon prelates there remained only Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester...

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/behead.html
Beheading in Britain.
In Britain, beheading was used in Anglo Saxon times as a punishment for certain types of serious theft.  It was reintroduced during the reign of William the Conqueror for the execution of Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland on the 31st of May 1076 on St. Giles Hill, near Winchester. Waltheof had been convicted of treason for taking part in the Revolt of the Earls against the King and was beheaded with a sword.  

BOOK VI.: FROM THE QUARREL BETWEEN KING WILLIAM AND HIS ELDEST SON ROBERT, TO THE LAST VISIT OF WILLIAM TO THE CONTINENT. 1077—1087. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]

Bishop Eudes pillaged the church of Durham, and carried away all that remained of the sacred ornaments that Eghelwin had saved by removing them to Lindisfarn.4 He renewed throughout Northumberland the ravages made there by his brother in 1070; and it was this second devastation which, added to the first, impressed upon the northern counties of England that aspect of desolation and gloom which they presented for more than a century afterwards.5

“Thus,” says an historian, who lived seventy years later, “thus were cut the nerves of this county, once so flourishing [Internet?] . Those towns, formerly so renowned, now so abased, those lofty towers, which threatened heaven, now in ruins, those pasture fields, once smiling and watered by sparkling rills, now wholly waste, the stranger who sees them, beholds with a sigh, the old inhabitant no longer recognises.”6

In this county, ruined as it was, the population, half Saxon, half Danish, long preserved its ancient spirit of independence, and of somewhat savage pride.

The Norman successors of the Bastard dwelt in full safety in the southern provinces; but it was scarcely without apprehension that they journeyed beyond the Humber; and an historian of the twelfth century tells us that they never visited that part of their kingdom without the escort of an army of veteran soldiers.1 It was in the north that the tendency to rebel against the social order established by the conquest longest endured; it was the north which, for more than two centuries, furnished those bands of outlaws who were the political successors of the refugees of the camp of Ely, and of the companions of Hereward.

History has not understood them; it has passed them over in silence, or else, adopting the legal acts of the time, it has branded them with names which divest them of all interest, with the names of rebels, robbers, and bandits.

But let us not be misled by these apparently odious titles; in all countries subjugated by foreigners, they have been given by the victors to the brave men who in small numbers took refuge in the mountains or in the forests, abandoning the towns and cities to those who chose to support slavery.2

If the Anglo-Saxon nation had not the courage to follow their example, it at least loved those who gave it, and accompanied them with its blessing. While ordinances, drawn up in the French language, required all the inhabitants of the cities and boroughs of England to hunt the outlaw, the man of the forest, as a wolf,3 to pursue him from hundred to hundred, with hue and cry,

the English sang ballads in honour of this enemy to foreign rule, who, as they expressed it, had the earl’s purse for his treasure, and the king’s deer for his herd. The popular poets celebrated his victories, his combats, his stratagems against the agents of authority. They sang how he had outstripped the men and horses of the viscount, how he had taken the bishop, had put him to a thousand marks ransom, and made him dance a measure in his pontifical robes
...
In the year 1083 died Matilda, wife of king William. An old narrative says that the counsels of this lady more than once softened the soul of the conqueror; that she often disposed him to clemency towards the English, but that after her death. William abandoned himself without reserve to his tyrannical humour.1

Facts are wanting to substantiate this aggravation of oppression and misery for the conquered people, and the imagination can scarcely supply the deficiency, for it is difficult to add a single shade to the dark picture of the unhappiness of the preceding years.

The only difference observable between the epoch of the conquest which followed the death of Matilda, and those which have been already narrated is, that William, having nothing further to gain in power over the natives, began to create for himself a personal domination over his companions in victory.

Necessity had probably as large a share in this enterprise as ambition; nothing remaining to take from the English, the king found himself obliged to levy contributions on the Normans themselves for the maintenance of the common property.

In the year 1083 he exacted sixpence in silver for every hide of land throughout the kingdom, without distinction of possessor.2 The Norman warrior, worn out by twenty years of combats, found himself obliged to pay, out of the revenues of the domain he had conquered in the days of his youth and strength, the hire of a new army.

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2011, 03:36:24 PM »
Are you Free in the King's er.. "National" forests?  Do curses come true?

BOOK VII.: FROM THE DEATH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, TO THE LAST GENERAL CONSPIRACY OF THE ENGLISH AGAINST THE NORMANS. 1087—1137. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]


Historians less laconic have transmitted to us some details of the sorrows and torments that the conquered nation suffered.

Wherever the king passed in his journeys through England, the country was ravaged by his people.3 When they could not themselves use all the provisions or goods that they found in the houses of the English, they made the owner himself carry them to the neighbouring market, and sell them for their profit; at other times they burned them for amusement, or if it were wine or other beverage, washed the feet of their horses with it.

“The ill treatment to which they subjected the heads of families, their outrages upon the women and girls,” adds the contemporary historian, “one would blush to relate; accordingly, at the first rumour of the king’s approach, all fled from their abodes, and retired, with whatever they could carry, to the depths of the forest or other desert places.”4

Fifty Saxons who, by some happy chance or perhaps by a little political cowardice, had managed to retain a remnant of their property, were accused, falsely or justly, of having hunted in the royal forests, and of having killed, taken, and eaten deer; such were the terms of the criminal charge brought against them.

They denied the charge, and the Norman judges inflicted on them the ordeal by fire, which the ancient English laws only sanctioned when demanded by the accused. “On the appointed day,” says an eye-witness, “all underwent the sentence, without any mercy; it was piteous to behold; but God, in preserving their hands from burning, showed clearly their innocence, and the wickedness of their persecutors.”

When it was reported to king William that after three days the hands of the accused were unscathed: “What of that,” said he; “God is no judge of these things; these matters concern me, and it is I who ought to judge them.”1 The historian does not relate what the new sentence was, or what the fate of the unhappy English, whom now no pious fraud could save.

The Saxons, persecuted by William Rufus for transgressing the laws of the chase, far more rigorously than they had been even by his father, had no other way of revenging themselves than by calling him, in derision, keeper of the forests, and wild beast-herd, and spreading sinister rumours as to these forests, into which no man of English race could enter armed without risking his life.

They said that the devil, under terrible forms, appeared there to the Normans, and told them of the terrible fate that he reserved for the king and his counsellors.2 This popular superstition obtained authority by the singular chance which rendered hunting in the forest of England, and especially in the New Forest, fatal to the race of the Conqueror.

In the year 1081, Richard, eldest son of William the Bastard, had mortally wounded himself there; in the month of May of the year 1100, Richard, son of duke Robert, and nephew of William Rufus, was killed there by an arrow carelessly shot;3 and, singular circumstance, this king himself also met with the same death there in the July of the same year.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ordeal
Trial by ordeal was used to decide the guilt or innocence of a suspected criminal by invoking divine justice. There were several forms of ordeal in Anglo-Saxon and Norman England. In one the accused held a red hot iron or put his hand in a flame. If the wound healed, the accused was deemed innocent.

http://www.berkshirehistory.com/legends/emma_wargrave02.html
Royal Ordeal by Fire
Queen Emma & her Berkshire Manors (wife first of King Aethelred the Unready, and afterwards of Canute the Great...the mother, therefore, not only of Harthacnut, but also of Edward the Confessor)

Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuades the King that Emma, forty-eight years after her first marriage, fifteen years after the death of her second husband, Canute, had been guilty of too close an intimacy with Aelfwine, Bishop of Winchester
...
On the morrow, the King with his attendant courtiers assemble; the nine ploughshares are made red-hot, and placed upon the pavement in the Church. Emma now enters, and after making a long invocation, which commences, "Oh God, who didst save Susannah from the malice of the wicked elders, save me," treads with her bare feet upon the glowing metal: but she senses nothing. She has touched it, yet enquires of the Bishops who lead her by the hand, "When shall we come to the ploughshares?" They show her she has already passed over them. Upon examination, her feet are found to be uninjured - "See the Miracle". The King is now thoroughly convinced of her innocence, and repenting his cruelty, casts himself at his mother's feet, exclaiming, "Mother, I have sinned before heaven and before you," receives stripes both from the Bishop and his mother, restores all their confiscated property, and banishes the Archbishop.

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Trial_by_ordeal
Ordeal of fire
In one instance, the accused would walk nine paces with a red-hot iron bar held in both hands. Depending on the custom of the time, innocence would be shown by a complete lack of injury from the ordeal or the wounds would be bound and regularly examined for healing or festering. An English version had nine red-hot ploughshares placed on the floor; the accused was blindfolded and if they successfully crossed the floor without injury they were judged innocent.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2011, 01:51:06 PM »
Quote
It is impossible to say how many projects of national deliverance, well or ill conceived, were formed and destroyed at this period.  History scarcely deigns to mention some two or three of the men who preferred war to servitude ;
the same power which defeated their efforts, effaced the memory of them...

Eugenic's - Agenda 21 - Local Financial Bankruptcy - Lick the Conqueror's boots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Harrying of the North

The Harrying (or Harrowing) of the North was a series of campaigns waged by William the Conqueror[1] in the winter of 1069–1070 to subjugate Northern England, and is part of the Norman conquest of England. It effectively ended the quasi-independence of the region through large-scale destruction that resulted in the relative "pacification" of the local population and the replacement of local Anglo-Danish lords with Normans.

The death toll is believed to be over 100,000, with substantial social, cultural, and economic damage.[2][3]

Because of the scorched earth policy, much of the land was laid waste and depopulated, a fact to which Domesday Book, written almost two decades later, readily attests.

BOOK IV.
FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS.  1066—1070.  


William, pursuing the wreck of the free Saxon forces, advanced to the foot of the great Roman wall, the remains of which still extend east and west from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway Firth.

He then returned to York, whither he had brought from Winchester the gold crown, the gilt sceptre, the mantle lined with fur, and all the other insignia of English royalty; these he displayed with great pomp during the feasts of the Nativity, as if to challenge those who some months before had fought for king Edgar and their country.1

There no longer remained any one capable of accepting the challenge; a last assembly of patriots on the banks of the Tyne had been dispersed;2 and such, in the northern provinces, was the end of resistance:
the end of liberty, according to the English; of rebellion, according to the Normans
.3

Upon both banks of the Humber, the cavalry of the foreign king, his counts, his bailiffs,4 could for the future freely travel on the roads and through the towns.

Famine, the faithful companion of conquest, followed their steps; in the year 1067 it had already desolated the counties which had been invaded; in 1070 it extended over all England, manifesting itself in its utmost horrors in the newly conquered districts.

The inhabitants of Yorkshire and of the territory further north, after feeding on the flesh of the dead horses left by the Norman army on their way, ate human flesh.5

More than an hundred thousand persons, of all ages, perished of famine in this district.6

“It was a frightful spectacle,” says an old annalist, “to behold, in the roads and streets, at the doors of houses, human bodies devoured by the worms, for none remained to scatter a little earth over them, all being destroyed by famine or the sword. This distress was felt only by the natives; the foreign soldier lived in plenty;

for him, in the heart of his fortresses, there were vast stores of provisions, and more was sent him from abroad, in return for the gold wrung from the English.

Moreover, famine aided him entirely to quell the conquered; often, for the remains of the repast of a groom in the Norman army,

the Saxon, once illustrious among his countrymen, in order to sustain his miserable life, came to sell himself and his whole family to perpetual slavery.1

The act of sale was registered upon the blank page of some missal, where may still be found, half effaced, and serving as a theme for the sagacity of the antiquaries, these monuments of the wretchedness of a bygone period.

The territory on both sides of the Humber, devastated as it lay, was partitioned out among the conquerors with the same order which had regulated the division of the southern countries. Several allotments were drawn out of the houses, or rather the ruins of York; for in the two sieges which this city had suffered, it was so devastated that, several centuries afterwards, the foundations of the ancient suburbs were still seen in the open country, more than a mile distant.2 King William appropriated the greater number of the houses which remained standing;3 the Norman chiefs shared the rest, with the churches, shops, and even the butchers’ stalls, which they then let out.4 William de Warenne had twenty-eight villages in Yorkshire alone, and William de Percy more than eighty manors.5

Most of these domains, in the list drawn up fifteen years after, had for their description these simple words: waste-land.6   [ Detroit ??? ]


A property which, in the time of king Edward, had produced sixty pounds rent, produced less than five in the hands of its foreign possessor, and upon a domain in which two Englishmen of rank had lived at their ease, there were found after the conquest only two wretched serfs, scarce able to render their Norman lord a tenth of the revenue of the ancient free cultivators.7

Vast districts of land, north of York, were the portion of the Breton Allan, whom the Normans called Alain, and whom his countrymen in their Celtic tongue surnamed Fergan, that is, the Red.

This Alain constructed a strong castle and works of defence, near his principal manor, called Ghilling, on a steep hill which was nearly surrounded on every side by the rapid river Swale. This fortress, says an old narrative, was designed to protect him and his men from the attacks of the disinherited English.1 Like most of the other captains of the conquering army, he gave a French name to the castle which became his dwelling, calling it Richemont, from its raised situation, commanding the surrounding country.2

....
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #21 on: May 17, 2011, 03:08:35 PM »
Man Is Not An Animal - Drug Wars On People Says Al Adask

http://adask.wordpress.com/
http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/
...
This suggest that 70% of the prison industrial complex, and possibly 70% of the modern police state are built on the War on Drugs—which, in turn, is built on a tiny legal definition that expressly declares man to be an “animal” and thereby violates fundamental constitutional and religious principles. The whole, goddamned police state is built on the presumption that people are animals, and to the best of my knowledge, I may be the first layman to read the law in almost 100 years to realize the spiritual implications of the phrase “man or other animals”.




Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2011, 09:52:18 PM »
After the Conquest - 1196 - In the time of Robin Hood - there was a Saxon man - William Longbeard

William Fitz Osbert or William with the long beard (died 1196) was a citizen of London who took up the role of the advocate of the poor in a popular uprising in the spring of 1196



the Execution of the Saxon, William Longbeard
...
There were Saxon families who, by an hereditary vow, had bound themselves, from father to son, to wear the beard long, as a memory of the old country and a token of disdain for the customs introduced by the conquest.3 But these families could do nothing, and the sons of the conquerors, not fearing them, allowed them to display in peace the mark of their descent, and the futile pride of a time which could never return.


In the year 1196, when king Richard was occupied in warring against the king of France, and his officers were levying money for the expenses of his campaigns and the payment of the balance of his ransom, the city of London was called upon to pay an extraordinary tax.4

The king’s chancellor addressed the demand to the chiefs of the city, who, by a singular association of the two languages spoken in England, were called mayor and aldermen.5 These convoked, in the Guild-hall, or husting, as it was designated in the Saxon tongue, the principal citizens to deliberate, not as to granting the subsidy, but simply as to the proportions in which it should be paid by the citizens.6 In this assembly, composed for the most part of native English, there was a certain number of men of Norman, Angevin, or French race, whose ancestors, settling in England at the time of the conquest, had devoted themselves to commerce or trade. Either by reason of their foreign descent or of their riches, the citizens of this class formed in London a sort of ruling party; they governed the deliberations of the council, and often silenced the English, whom the habit of being oppressed rendered timid and circumspect.

But there was, at this time, in the class of natives, a man of very different character, a genuine old Saxon patriot, who let his beard grow, that he might in no way resemble the sons of the foreigners.1

His name was William, and he enjoyed great consideration in the city, on account of his zeal in defending, by every legal means, those of his fellow citizens who underwent injustice.2

The child of parents, whose industry and economy had secured him an independence, he had retired from business, and passed all his time in the study of jurisprudence.3 No Norman clerk surpassed him in the art of pleading in the French tongue, before a court of justice, and when he spoke English, his eloquence was vigorous and popular. He devoted his knowledge of the law and his power of language to save the poorer citizens from the embarrassments in which legal chicanery had involved them, and to protect them from the vexations of the rich, the most frequent of which was the unequal partition of the taxes.4 Sometimes the mayor and aldermen altogether exempted from the payment of taxes those who were best able to pay them, sometimes they called upon every citizen to contribute the same amount, without any regard to the difference of means, so that the heaviest burden fell upon the poor.5 These had often remonstrated, and William had pleaded their cause with more ardour than success.6

His efforts had rendered him dear to the citizens of lower condition, who named him the poor man’s advocate;7 on the other hand,
the Normans and their party surnamed him, ironically, the man with thebeard, and accused him of leading the multitude astray, by giving them a measureless desire for liberty and happiness
.1

This singular personage, the last representative of the hostility of the two races which the conquest had united on the same soil, appeared in his accustomed character at the common council of 1196.

As mostly their habit, the leading citizens were for a distribution of the common charges that should throw only the smallest portion on themselves;

William Longbeard alone, or almost alone,2 opposed them, and the dispute growing warm, they overwhelmed him with abuse, and accused him of rebellion and of treason to the king.

“The traitors to the king,” answered the Englishman, “are they who defraud his exchequer, by exempting themselves from paying what they owe him, and I myself will denounce them to him.”3 He passed the sea, went to Richard’s camp, and kneeling before him and raising his right hand, demanded from him peace and protection for the poor people of London. Richard listened to his plaint, said that he would do it right, and when the petitioner departed, thought no more of the matter, too much occupied with his great political affairs to descend to the details of a dispute between simple citizens.
...
Hubert Gaultier, archbishop of Canterbury and grand justiciary of England, enraged that a Saxon should dare to denounce to the king men of Norman race, and apprehending a recurrence of the circumstance, ordered by edict every citizen of London to remain in the city, under penalty of being imprisoned as traitor to the king and kingdom.5

Several merchants who, despite the orders of the grand justiciary, went to Stamford fair, were arrested and imprisoned.6

These acts of violence caused a great fermentation in the city; and the poorer citizens, by an instinct natural to man in all times, formed an association for their mutual defence. William with the Long Beard was the soul and chief of this secret society, in which, say the contemporary historians, fifty-two thousand persons were engaged.1

They collected such arms as citizens, half serfs, could procure in the middle ages, iron-headed staves, axes, and iron crow-bars, wherewith to attack the fortified houses of the Normans, if they came to blows.

Urged by a natural desire to intercommunicate their sentiments and encourage each other, the poor of London assembled from time to time and held meetings in the open air, in the squares, and the market-places. At these tumultuous meetings William was the spokesman, and received applause which, perhaps, he was too fond of receiving, and which thus made him neglect the moment to act and to strike a decisive blow for the interests of those whom he sought to render formidable to their oppressors.

A fragment of one of these harangues is given by a contemporary chronicler, who declares that he had it from the mouth of a person who was present. The speech, though its purpose was entirely political, turned, like the sermons of our days, upon a text from scripture, and this text was:

“With joy shall ye draw water of the wells of salvation.” William applied these words to himself: “It is I,” he said, “who am the saviour of the poor; you, poor, who have felt how heavy is the hand of the rich, draw now from my well of water a salutary doctrine; and draw thence joyfully, because the hour of your relief is at hand. I shall separate the waters from the waters, that is to say, the men from the men; I will separate the people, humble and of good faith, from the proud and faithless; I will separate the elect from the reprobate, as light from darkness.”

 Under this vague and mystic phraseology, the imagination of the hearers doubtless discerned sentiments and desires of a more precise nature; but the popular enthusiasm was not promptly turned to account; and the advocate of the poor allowed himself to be forestalled by the high Norman functionaries, who, assembling in parliament at London the bishops, earls, and barons, of the surrounding counties, cited the orator of the people to appear before this assembly.3

William obeyed the summons, escorted by a great multitude who followed him, calling him the saviour and king of the poor.

...
Notwithstanding the influence given them by the anxiety which prevailed in London as to the fate of the hostages, the justiciaries dared not publicly arrest the man whose destruction was contemplated in all these proceedings. They resolved to watch a moment when William should be from home alone, or with but few companions; two rich citizens, probably of Norman race, and one of whom was named Geoffroy, undertook this duty.4

Followed by armed men, they watched for several days all the movements of the Man with the Long-Beard; and one day, as he was quietly walking with nine friends, the two citizens approached him with an air of indifference, and, suddenly, Geoffroy laid hands on him, and gave the signal for the men-at-arms to advance.5 William’s only weapon of defence was one of those long knives which, at that period, were worn in the belt; he drew it, and with one blow laid Geoffroy at his feet.

The soldiers came up at the same moment, armed, from head to foot, in dagger-proof mail; but William and his nine companions, by dint of courage and address, got clear of them, and took refuge in the nearest church, dedicated to the Virgin, and called by the Normans the church of Saint-Mary de l’Arche.1

They closed and barricadoed the doors. Their armed pursuers endeavoured unavailingly to force an entrance; the grand justiciary, on learning the news, sent couriers to the adjacent castles for more troops, not relying, at this critical juncture, on the garrison of the Tower of London alone.

The report of these events caused great fermentation in the town: the people were sensible to the danger of a man who had so generously taken up their defence;3 but in general they exhibited more of sorrow than of anger. The sight of the soldiers marching into the city, and occupying the streets and market-places, and above all the conviction that, on the first outbreak, the hostages would be put to death, kept the citizens in their shops.4 It was in vain that the refugees awaited assistance, and that a few determined men exhorted their fellow citizens to march in arms to Saint Mary’s church. The masses remained motionless as if struck with stupor.5

Meanwhile, William and his friends prepared, as best they might, to sustain a siege in the tower, whither they had retired; repeatedly summoned to come forth, they pertinaciously refused to do so; and the archbishop of Canterbury, in order to force them from their post, had a quantity of wood collected, and set fire to the church.6

The heat and the smoke which soon filled the tower, compelled the besieged to descend, half suffocated.7 They were all taken, and as they were being led away bound, the son of the Geoffroy whom William had killed, approached him, and with a knife ripped open his stomach.8

Wounded as he was, they tied him to a horse’s tail, and dragged him thus through the streets to the Tower, where he appeared before the archbishop, and, without any sort of trial, received sentence of death.

The same horse dragged him in the same manner to the place of execution.1 He was hanged with his nine companions; “and thus,” says an old historian, “perished William Longbeard, for having embraced the defence of the poor and of truth, if the cause makes the martyr, none may more justly than he be called a martyr.”2

This opinion was not that of one man only, but of all the people of London; who, though they had not had the energy to save their defender, at least wept for him after his death, and regarded as assassins the judges who had condemned him.

The gibbet on which he had been hanged was carried away in the night as a relic, and those who could not procure any part of the wood, collected pieces of the earth in which it had stood. So many came for this earth, that in a short time a large pit was formed on the place of execution.

People went there not only from the vicinity, but from all parts of the island, and no native Englishman failed to fulfil this patriotic pilgrimage when his affairs called him to London.3
...
Here should properly terminate the narrative of the national struggle which followed the conquest of England by the Normans; for the execution of William Longbeard is the last fact which the original authors positively connect with the conquest. That there were, at subsequent periods, other events impressed with the same character, and that William was not the last of the Saxons, are indubitable propositions, but the inexactitude of the chronicles, and the loss of ancient documents, leave us without any proofs on this subject, and reduce us, all at once, to inductions and conjectures.

The main task of the conscientious narrator, therefore, ends at this point; and there only remains for him to present, in a summary form, the ulterior destiny of the persons whom he has brought upon the stage, so that the reader may not remain in suspense.

And by the word personages, it is neither Richard, king of England, nor Philip, king of France, nor John, earl of Mortain, that is to be understood; but the great masses of men and the various populations who have simultaneously or successively figured in the preceding pages.

For the essential object of this history is to contemplate the destiny of peoples, and not that of certain celebrated men; to relate the adventures of social, and not those of individual life. Human sympathy may attach itself to entire populations, as to beings endowed with sentiment, whose existence, longer than our own, is filled with the same alternations of sorrow and of joy, of hope and of despair.

Considered in this light, the history of the past assumes somewhat of the interest which is felt in the present; for the collective beings of whom it treats have not ceased to live and to feel; they are the same who still suffer or hope under our own eyes. This is its most attractive feature; this it is that sweetens severe and arid study; that, in a word, would confer some value upon this work, if the author had succeeded in communicating to his readers those emotions which he himself experienced while seeking in old books names now obscure and misfortunes now forgotten.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2011, 02:43:10 PM »
THE MEMORY OF 1066 IN WRITTEN AND ORAL TRADITIONS
by Elisabeth van Houts

Anglo-Norman Studies XIX Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1996

...
The monks of that time, it seems to me, were acutely aware that fifty or sixty years after the Conquest they were losing touch with the past. In that climate the loss of a relic dating from the Conquest seemed a much more serious matter than it had seemed to Abbot Henry in the late 1090s.

There is a pattern here, or so I maintain, which can be traced elsewhere.

First comes the epic event, a moment of triumph, or disaster, according to one's point of view.

About two generations later comes the realisation that aspects of the event which were once common knowledge are common knowledge no longer; hence the urge to collect information and pass it on, usually by oral communication to younger people, but sometimes in writing.

About two generations later still come the first attempts at detached historical analysis, such as the account which the Battle chronicler set down in the 1170s.

[ Think of the JFK/RFK/MLK Wallace assassinations - Vietnam  ]

Likewise at Waltham Abbey, about a century elapsed before crucial information about the true burial place of its one time patron, King Harold, was written down, though that information had been collected orally about fifty years previously. In this case the writer was an elderly canon, who composed his history of the abbey in about 1177 in order to ensure that the memories of his community would not be forgotten if Henry II carried out his threat to close it down.
...
So far I have concentrated on stories of 1066 which were passed on two generations later by oral means and not written down until the fourth generation.

Some stories, however, were written down in the second generation. The first accounts of the Conquest to be written down in England, all of them brief and all of them written by monks, took the form of additions to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: the contributions made by Eadmer of Canterbury, John of Worcester, Simeon of Durham and William of Malmesbury are the most significant

In recent years Richard Southern, James Campbell and Antonia Gransden have argued that one effect of the Conquest was to turn English monks back to their Anglo-Saxon past in an attempt to salvage what they could of it. (21) They sought to link that past with the present by interpreting the defeat of the English by the Normans as God's punishment for English sins.
...
A few fragmentary remarks about 1066 are to be found in sources which predate the monastic versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which I have been discussing, and those which reflect the English point of view, are bleaker still.

The earliest such source is the Life of King Edward, written at the request of his wife Queen Edith in the years 1067.

The queen lost three of her brothers in the battle of Hastings and her mother Gytha and other relatives were obliged to flee to Flanders to escape the wrath of the Normans, (26) yet the battle is only hinted at in the Life.

The catastrophe was too appalling and too recent, I suggest, for an author to face it. The various entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, all condemning the invasion, are equally brief.

Version 'D' may have been written as contemporary comment on events immediately after the Conquest, but due to interpolations it is difficult to distinguish what was written when in the only copy available, written after 1100.

Version 'E' copied at Peterborough is based on Canterbury material up to 1120 and, here too, it is impossible to tell what the annalist wrote in 1066. In both versions, therefore, revisions date from a time when England was firmly under Norman control. (27)

Amongst this meagre harvest, the E-version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is unique in expressing the anguish and frustration of the English; it seems to have been focussed on the Aetheling, who pops up here, there and everywhere without being able to rally effective groups of resistance fighters around him. (28)

The most evocative expression of grief comes in a poem written by the skald Thorkill Skallason for his master Earl Waltheof, after he had been executed fdr treason in 1076. It is written in Old Norse but may have been based on an Old English version used much later by William of Malmesbury. (29)

The most intriguing aspect of this poem is its theme of Waltheof's betrayal by William the Conqueror, which neatly reverses the official Norman charge of treason against the earl: 'William crossed the cold channel / and reddened the bright swords, / and now he has betrayed /i noble Earl Waltheof. It is true that killing in England / will be a long time ending.' Thorkill may here be revenging Waltheof's death by hinting at the fact that it was Waltheof's wife Judith, William's niece, who betrayed her husband. (30)
...
My study of the formation of oral and written memories of 1066 clearly shows the circulation of stories about the Conquest through several generations into the reign of Henry II.

The stories were local, centred on specific aspects of the Conquest and were quite personal.

This oral tradition for a time ran parallel to a written tradition, which attempted to cope with the past by seeing the defeat of 1066 in terms of God's punishment for the sins of the English nation.

By the reign of Henry II the theme of 'national guilt' had evaporated and made place for more discussion of military matters. Tales of military defeat and resistance survived.

But what strikes the modern historian most is the almost total amnesia in the long term of individual loss and grief. The psychological reason of trauma is as likely an explanation for the complete lack of a memorial to the English dead of 1066 (66) as other explanations, which blame the fear of abbots of association with the memory of rebels 6r the lack of patronage for literary activity in general.

In Normandy the situation was different. The written memories concentrated first on the victorious leader, his legitimisation of the use of force and the justification of military action. The second and third generation continued and expanded the moral justification of their actions. Meanwhile oral tradition kept alive the memories of fighters lower down the social scale. These were rescued by Wace and incorporated in his vernacular Roman de Rou, which became a memorial for those who had fought at Hastings.

What my study also shows is that it is not enough to study the history of the Norman Conquest purely in terms of questions about the continuity of Anglo-Saxon customs. The modem emphasis on the long-term survival of Old English modes of justice and administration after 1066 could easily create the impression that the Conquest was just a mere hiccup in the course of English history. (67)

The very fact that the English were so traumatised that they could not bring themselves to write down their memories proves how deeply shocked they remained for a very long time
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2011, 03:19:13 PM »
One of the issues I have not covered due to the sensitive nature of the subject, is the introduction of
[ Think - Formation of the Federal Reserve ]

Jewish money lenders (Lombards) into England with the Conquest.

There is a very good reason the Lombard Jews came to England along with the William the Conqueror, He owed them a great deal of money. You see William borrowed tremendous sums from the Lombards for the invasion, leaving nothing to chance, failure was not an option. He made great proimises to everyone and anyone who would come fight with him (and I assume paid many up front ) . We've gone over all the ships and all the arms and the special weapons developed , these were not free.

So here is some documentation ...


569 -   Saxons accompanied the Lombards into Italy
772-804 - Saxon Wars - Saxons are conquered by Charlemagne in a long series of annual campaigns

927 - "Rolo"  Robert I - First Duke of Normandy under Charlemagne. - Rollo is great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror. - ancestor of the present-day British royal family, as well as an ancestor of all current European monarchs - 'As Rollo's death drew near, he went mad and had a hundred Christian prisoners beheaded in front of him in honour of the gods whom he had worshipped


Detail of the Gundestrup cauldron. Scene of human sacrifice while armed men make ready for war. The ritual sacrifice is presumably associated with the God Teutatis.

1053 - Battle of Civitate: Normans Defeat Papal-Lombard Army, Capture the Pope  
1066 - Normans receive the blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II for the conquest of England.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/apology.htm

Apology for the Jews

By Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel— Manoel Dias Soeiro (1604–November 20, 1657), also known as Menasheh ben Yossef ben Yisrael and the Hebrew acronym, MB"Y. A Portuguese rabbi, kabbalist, scholar, writer, diplomat, printer and publisher, founder of the first Hebrew printing press (Emeth Meerets Titsma`h) in Amsterdam in 1626.

Introduction and Background

There is no evidence of Jews residing in England before the Norman Conquest.

William the Conqueror was financed by Jews expelled from Spain, and having secured the benevolent neutrality of Holy Roman emperor Henry IV and with solemn approval by Pope Alexander II, he invaded England in 1066 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p. 609).

He brought 2,600 Jews into England with him from Rouen (William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, The History of the English Kings, p. 500). They were at first treated with special favour and allowed to amass considerable wealth, "They brought to England their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it . . ." (Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings (1960) p. 94).

They established the Exchequer and subsequently converted into a class of "royal usurers" so abhorrent to the English that in 1290 Edward I expelled them all, over 16,000 Jews, principally owing to the problem of usury. (See the trilogy of historian Sir Arthur Bryant, JCR-UK - Jewish Communities of the U.K., and jewishencyclopedia.com).

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Ludovici/The_Jews_in_England_part3.html
The Jews,  and the Jews in England

by  Cobbett (Anthony Ludovici) Boswell Publishing Company, 1938
III.  History of the Jews in England

...

There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that William I was responsible for the influx of a large crowd of Jews into England. They came from Rouen, and the fact that he no doubt granted them extraordinary privileges, which were more or less extended to them by every monarch of the Norman and Plantagenet lines up to the time of Edward I, is most significant.

It indicates the explanation of a phenomenon otherwise inexplicable -- namely, that the crowned head of the land could have held under his protecting wing for over two centuries a community of foreigners who exploited the people often quite intolerably, and who never pretended to have another qualification for their sojourn in the country than precisely this function of exploiting the people.
...

Although we cannot discover many details about the Jews under William I, except that they were plentiful, that they helped to fill the royal treasury and diverted much of the odium that would otherwise have fallen on the king and his chief officers, we are justified in inferring from the conduct of the subsequent monarchs towards the Jews, and their functions in the state, that what the Jews did and how they were treated in the 12th and 13th centuries more or less followed the precedents first established by the Conqueror.

What, then, was the function of the Jews and what was their relationship to the sovereign?

There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the Jews of the late eleventh century in England were chiefly occupied with moneylending, and probably generally fulfilling the function of middlemen capitalists, some centuries before capitalism became a reality in the land. In addition to lending out money at interest, they therefore probably bought and sold as wholesalers, and it is also not unlikely that they may even have cornered markets in certain commodities.

They had the coin, they had the financial knowledge and experience, they were alone in the field (because the laws of the Church forbade usury to Christians), they had the protection of the most powerful in the realm, and, above all, they enjoyed extraordinary privileges.

None, however, but an invading and victorious dynasty, feeling itself still a stranger in the land and conscious of no traditional ties to its inhabitants, could ever have dropped such a cloud of harpies upon the country without considering that it was violating a duty and a trust.

And what were the privileges granted by the Norman and early Plantagenet monarchs to the Jews, and probably originally suggested by the Conqueror’s own treatment of them?

They were, by law, permitted to charge a very high rate of interest for their loans. Twopence per £1 per week -- i.e., 40 per cent to 50 per cent per annum -- was quite common. [5] And Abrahams tells us that "loans were freely contracted which accumulated at 50 per cent". [6]

They were allowed to claim redress if molested, hold lands in pledge until redeemed, probably excused all customs, tolls, etc., [7] and permitted to buy anything except Church property. They had the right to be tried by their peers and, what was most extraordinary, a Jew’s oath was held to be valid against that of twelve Christians.

In return for these exceptional privileges, the king levied a tax on all their transactions, sometimes resorted to direct demands on money from them, and, in addition, often accepted money from their debtors, in order to use his influence on the latter’s behalf. [8] Thus he derived a double profit from the activities of the Jews.
...

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/expulson-jews.htm

The Edict of Expulsion  Enacted 1290
...
In the years following the Conquest of 1066 the Jews were an important part of Norman English society. The nobility of England were constantly in need of money, and as a result, they borrowed heavily from Jewish moneylenders. William the Conqueror recognized the importance of the Jewish moneylenders to Norman society, and offered them special protection under law.

Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the king, not subjects of their local feudal lord. Because of this special status, however, English kings saw the Jewish moneylenders as a convenient source of funds. The king could levy taxes against Jews without needing the prior approval of Parliament. So when a king needed money - as they often did - he could simply levy a special tax on the Jews. This system would work as long as the Jews were allowed to accumulate money, but that was about to change.


[ By the time of the edict of 1290 - The English Kings no longer felt they "Owed" the Lombard Jews anything and moved to kick them out...  But note that the Jews in England were the King's property and no one else was to harm them but him. ]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/sephard.htm

http://www.wingtv.net/secretempire1.html


Sephardim
These quotes taken from The Secret Empire by Cushman Cunningham illustrate how the Sephardim have intermarried with the Canaanites, Philistines and Perizzites. This book provides a thorough, easy to read overview of the hidden hand behind the major events of the past two thousand years.
...

Several centuries later the Jewish banking system secretly financed (and helped to organize several major events which changed the direction of world history). They organized and financed the Moorish invasion of Spain in AD 711, which destroyed the Visigothic Empire, and this reshuffled the power alignments of all of western Europe. It also made the Mediterranean for a time an Islamic lake, and ignited forces which led to the Renaissance and the supremacy of Lombard bankers in northern Italy.

The Sephardic Jewish bankers also financed (and thus made possible) the invasion of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror.

More:

http://dunhamwilcox.net/me/me_bio_phinney.htm
 It is said that the Lombard family trace back to the time of William the Conqueror and by history of undoubted creditability to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, who finally dispersed, settling in Germany, France and elsewhere.

Rudolph de Lambert (French spelling), of Normany, France, went to England with William the Conqueror as his knight of arms, and from his son Hugh all of the name of England and America are said to be descended.

Genealogical and personal memoirs relating to the families of ..., Volume 2
...
The Lambert family can LAMBERT trace its descent from high antiquity and can go back with all the certainty of written records to the time of William the Conqueror, in the eleventh century, and by history of undoubted credibility to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy.

That such was the origin of the family cannot be doubted, for were there no proofs of it in the records of heraldry, the name itself would indicate such to be the fact (according to the ancient orthography), as it was formerly spelled Lombard. This spelling some branches of the family still retain.

The earliest accounts of the Lombards indicate that they were a roving clan from Scandinavia (Norway), that they settled and lived for a time in Vindili (in Germany), until attracted by the fine plains of Modena they quit their mountain fastnesses and took possession of and founded one of the most powerful states in Italy.

The significance of the name Lombard in their language was "long beard," as history informs us that the members of this clan parted their hair and suffered it to grow to whatever length it might attain; and from this circumstance the ancient state in which they established themselves took its name.

When William the Conqueror invaded England he took with him Rodolph de Lambert, as his armor bearer or knight at arms. His name appears to indicate that his family was from Lombardy, as the "de" signifies "from" or "of."

It appears by English heraldry that Rodolph de Lambert had a family in Normandy, previous to his going into England: "Of this ancient family of Norman French extraction, one branch settled in Bologna in Italy, and has always been considered one of the most illustrious in that place.
...

http://www.statuscapital.co.za/about-status-capital/history-of-collateral-pledging
History of Collateral Pledging
...
In England the pawnshop came in with William the Conqueror, with an Italian name, Lombard.
...
Symbol of pawn brokers.



The pawnbroker's symbol is three spheres suspended from a bar.

The three sphere symbol is attributed to the Medici Family of Florence, Italy, owing to its symbolic meaning of Lombard. This refers to the Italian province of Lombardy, where pawn shop banking originated under the name of Lombard banking.

The three golden spheres were originally the symbol which medieval Lombard merchants hung in front of their houses, and not the arms of the Medici family. It has been conjectured that the golden spheres were originally three flat yellow effigies of bezants, or gold coins, laid heraldically upon a sable field, but that they were converted into spheres to better attract attention.

Most European towns called the pawn shop the "Lombard". The House of Lombard was a banking family in medieval London, England.

see: The Hidden History of Money and Feudal Order Usury Secrets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards


Lombard domination at its greatest extent under Aistulf and Desiderius, ca. 750–785.


Italy around the turn of the millennium, showing the Lombard states in the south on the eve of the arrival of the Normans

http://chefwalter.blog.com/2011/06/25/history-of-italian-jews/
History of Italian Jews
...
During the first Dark Ages there were flourishing communities of Jews in Rome, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Messina, Agrigento, and in Sardinia.
 
When Italy came into the possession of the Lombard’s, Jews lived in peace in the territories under their rule. Even after the Lombard’s embraced Catholicism Jews were not persecuted. Pope Gregory I treated them with much consideration.

Under succeeding popes the condition of the Jews did not grow worse; and the same was the case in the several smaller states into which Italy was divided.
 
Under Norman rule the Jews of southern Italy and of Sicily enjoyed a great freedom.
 
When Benjamin of Tudela visited the country between 1160 and 1165 he found large communities “old of centuries” on his route. First he visited Genoa, Pisa and Lucca. From other sources we know that at that time Jews lived also in other towns of the North (Aquileia, Ferrara, Mantua, and Padua).

| - - - -

http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/pre-1290/background.htm
...
Exchequer of the Jews – (Also know as Scaccarium Judaeorum), a branch of the Royal Exchequer in England from about 1194 to 1290, set up to supervise the affairs of the Jews, and presided over by Royal Wardens (or Justices) of the Jews specially appointed.  

The establishment of the Exchequer was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in 1194.  Initially, its principal function was to act as the central authority supervising the system of archae that had been instituted throughout the kingdom, but it developed into something an institution far more important than originally planned, evolving certain judicial functions.  Initially, the Wardens of the Jews (who were Christians) worked in collaboration with a Jewish representation.  From about 1199, the was no Jewish representative, and the office of Arch-Presbyter (or Presbyter Judaeorum) emerged.

Archa (plural Archae)– An official chest, provided with three locks and seals, in which a counterpart of all deeds and contracts involving Jews was to be deposited in order to preserve the records.  

The introduction of archae was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in light of the massacres of Jews that took place in 1189-1190 at, and shortly following, his coronation, and which had resulted in a heavy lose of Crown revenue partly as a result of Jewish financial records being destroyed by the murderous mob (in order to conceal evidence of debts due to the Jews).  

The archae were intended to safeguard the royal rights in case of future disorder.  All Jewish possessions and credits were to be registered and certain cities were designated to serve as the centres for all future Jewish business operations and the registration of Jewish financial transactions, each such city having an archa.  

In each centre, a bureau was set up consisting of two reputable Jews and two Christian clerks, under the supervision of a representative of the newly established central authority that became known as the Exchequer of the Jews.

...
Finally, on July 18, 1290 (which corresponded in the Jewish calendar to 9th of Av, the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples as well as other tragedies that befell the Jewish nation), all Jews were ordered to leave the kingdom before All Saints Day (November 1) of that year.  They could carry with them their movable property.  

Their homes were generally escheated to the Crown and the debts owed to the Jews became collectable by Edward (principal only), which amounted to nine thousand pounds.

 Most of the Jews made their way to France (only to be expelled in 1306), but about ten per cent went to Flanders.

( Notice this coincides with the end of the Templars in 1308  )
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2011, 01:54:24 PM »
1066 views!!!!

The Norman castles were built with forced labor by the defeated Saxons. Fusion centers anyone?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/motte_and_bailey_castles.htm
...
No-one is quite sure how many motte and bailey castles were built in England by the Normans. However, by counting the number of mottes that exist in England, archaeologists believe that
the Normans built around 500 - one every two weeks between 1066 and 1086.

They were used to keep the Saxons tamed. After William's response to the rebellion in the north of England, many areas were simply too scared to rebel. Motte and bailey castles were a sign that feared Norman soldiers were never too far away.

Once the people of England had been tamed, William moved onto grander castles.

With the population of England seemingly subdued, William started a programme of building stone castles. No original complete motte and bailey castles exist in England, but the huge stone fortifications William started certainly are.

Dover

http://publicintelligence.net/fusion-centers/fusion-centers/
Fusion Centers

http://publicintelligence.net/fusion-center-locations-revealed/


Public Intelligence
 
Since 9/11, the U.S. Government has engaged in a multibillion-dollar effort to construct a domestic intelligence network for the ostensible purpose of combating terrorism, criminal activity and violent extremism.  One of the central components of this system is the network of “fusion centers” that have sprung up around the country over the last several years.  These entities integrate local law enforcement with a state’s police force, Department of Justice, or Office of Emergency Management and are designed to facilitate law enforcement intelligence activities throughout the jurisdiction, providing federal authorities access to local information and databases, while simultaneously allowing federal agencies to disseminate classified intelligence materials to local authorities.   There are almost always federal representatives present in local fusion centers and Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano has recently testified that DHS is “committed to having an officer in each fusion center.”  Most fusion centers also work with representatives of the private sector, particularly those industries related to so-called “critical infrastructure and key resources.”
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline LilOleMe

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:36 PM »
THANKS!!!

BRILLIANT!!!

I've made this same argument for years, and have long realized the centralized English state organized by Alfred the Great to reconquer England from the heathen horde (these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbytaH1oW8  (can you imagine sweet and innocent little English kids having to grow up listening to this crap?)) made England easy pickings for Billy the Bastard, whose statist thinking was crafted after that of Big Chucky (this jerk:


Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer

), whose invasion of the German land of Lower Saxony (which the English called "Old Saxony")  in AD773 invited retaliation from the English in the form of an invasion of the Frankish heartland, to which Big Chucky responded by burning down the Scola Anglorum (School of the English) in Rome, which he was visiting at the time.

More later, as I intend to get into the ancient roots of the Second Amendment, and it's  a lot of work.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2011, 04:14:38 PM »
Magna Carta

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/heroes_adventurers/h_knight_8.htm
THE KNIGHTS & PEOPLE OF BRITAIN
Never a dull moment defending Magna Carta  
1215 - Defending Magna Carta  - Part 8

The king had confirmed Magna Carta, peace had been established, and most of the rebel knights had renewed their homages, but a strain of anxiety trickled through the celebrations.

The promises of Magna Carta were great.

The knights were elated that hostages would be returned to their families;
foreign mercenaries would be expelled;
they had a voice in deciding how high their taxes would be;
they would have inalienable rights and protections against injustice;
their property would be protected; and
sheriffs and justices would be held to high standards.
The Welsh had their lands and liberties restored.

Farmers, labourers and merchants were not forgotten, either. Magna Carta confirmed their right under the law to their land and horses and crops. The thousands of people who depended on the common lands of forest and river for their food, fuel, and building materials and had seen their common land seized by the king and their access denied were to have these "evil" developments investigated by twelve sworn knights chosen by the honest men of the same county who would investigate and abolish these evils within forty days.

In Magna Carta they had established the fundamental rules and principles they would live by, that is to say, their Constitution. This gave the people gathered at Runnymede the brief warmth of homecoming, the fleeting feeling they had heard good news. But those who sensed John's cold fury, or looked at William Marshal's grim face, guessed that John wanted war. They must have wondered, too, if William Marshal would ride with the king.

Stephen Langton wanted peace, but he doubted John's word. The king was, as Psalm 52 put it, an evil ruler whose tongue was full of lies. And as the king pondered his next move, he saw that Stephen Langton had something which was indispensable to his campaign to recover power. John bent his will to regain that thing from Langton.

The knights dispersed to their homes. But the twenty-five knight-barons who had been appointed to make sure the king lived up to his word suspected the worst of the king and refused to give John written pledges of their fealty, or to evacuate London by the date agreed. They were right to fear him.

John had delayed the removal of foreign troops from England, as demanded by Magna Carta. He was gathering rather than dismissing his mercenaries, and he had asked the Pope to annul Magna Carta.



Rochester Castle, Kent
Rochester Castle stands where Watling Street crosses the River Medway on its way from London to Dover via Canterbury. It was crucial to holding the coast and protecting London.
Stephen Langton held it. John wanted it.

The knights reinforce the shires

The knights decided that to surrender key strongholds would be folly. Instead they "appointed several of their number to control those shires where their influence was strongest. . .Mandeville in Essex, FitzWalter in Northamptonshire, Quincy in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, d'Aubigny in Lincolnshire, Lacy in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, and Ros in Northumberland" (DNB).

Meanwhile John was moving heaven and earth to recover Rochester Castle from Stephen Langton. It may seem odd that an Archbishop of Canterbury would hold a military castle, but it was on such details, and men's willingness to stake their lives on principle, that Magna Carta hinged.

The siege of Rochester Castle

Henry I had given Rochester Castle to the custody of the Archbishops of Canterbury early in the 12th century. Confident that his archbishop would not wage war against him, Henry had been content to see him pay for the castle's upkeep. John had interfered with this arrangement when he refused to allow Langton to return to England.

John had the highly unsuccessful habit of making everything too complicated, for himself and everybody else. Where another man would have shaken hands on a simple negotiation, John by his very nature seemed impelled into tortuous agreements that he further complicated by failing to keep. This, according to entries in the chancery rolls, was a king who had devised an elaborate system of countersigns enabling him to issue orders which he did not want obeyed. He reminds us of modern bureaucrats obsessed with power and control.

John's arrangements for the return of Rochester Castle to Langton were so convoluted they would bore you to tears. Suffice it to say that Reginald of Cornhill, the constable in charge of Rochester castle, was now holding it for Langton, not John. The king tried to replace Cornhill with his man, and to take over the castle. For the next three months, knowing its strategic importance, Stephen Langton refused to surrender Rochester Castle to John.

Then, as we have written, in late August the Pope's letter arrived.

It condemned Magna Carta and demanded that Langton excommunicate the knight-barons.

Knowing this meant their death and the end of Magna Carta, Langton refused to excommunicate them. The Pope suspended Langton as Archbishop. (Keep in mind it took a messenger almost 30 days to travel from Rome to Canterbury.)

The Pope ordered Langton to appear before him in Rome. Langton prepared to go, but his resistance had bought the barons the time they needed. John bitterly called him a traitor.

Early in October, 1215, William d' Aubigné of Belvoir became commander of Rochester Castle. He was an active man in his sixties. He had only three days to gather supplies and stock the castle before John attacked across the River Medway. The defenders beat back John's troops, but were forced to retreat inside the castle when John's forces entered the town and surprised them.

For the next two months the rebel knights were bombarded by five huge stone-throwing engines. John had the castle pounded relentlessly by day and night, and set his men to undermine the foundations of the keep.

The knight-barons in London tried to relieve the Rochester garrison, but hearing that John had sent "700 horse" to intercept them, turned back at Dartford.

In November John's mines brought the tower crashing down. At the end of November the starving defenders surrendered, with Aubigné and Cornhill just escaping hanging. They were taken to Corfe Castle, and incarcerated. They were not expected to survive their prison.

John split his army, sending one half of it to harry FitzWalter, Huntingdon and Mandeville in East Anglia, and the other half to Nottingham.

http://www.jamesmdeem.com/castlestory2.htm
...
The rebels, though, were full of surprises.  Because the keep at Rochester Castle was so large, it had been divided in half when built.  The rebels managed to lock themselves behind a dividing wall inside the opposite part of the keep.

By then, the siege had been going on for well over a month and some members of the rebel force, unable to fight, were sent outside in order to save food. They were welcomed by the king's army, but at least some of them were punished by having their hands and feet cut off.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons'_War
...
Winter was now setting in, and the castle was only taken (on 30 November 1215) by starvation and not by force.

John set up a memorial to the pigs and a gallows with the intention of hanging the whole garrison, but one of his captains (Savari de Mauléon) persuaded him not to hang the rebels since hanging those who had surrendered would set a precedent if John ever surrendered – only one man was actually hanged (a young bowman who had previously been in John's service).

The remainder of the rebel barons were taken away and imprisoned at various royal-held castles, such as Corfe Castle. Of the siege – against only 100 rebels, and costing over a thousand pounds a day – the Barnwell chronicler wrote "No one alive can remember a siege so fiercely pressed and so manfully resisted" and that, after it, "There were few who would put their trust in castles".


http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/07/interview-ironclad-jonathan-english
 

Interview: "Ironclad" Director Jonathan English Talks Dismemberments And Catapulting Corpses
By Justin Monroe | Jul 12, 2011 |

Getting Medieval on that ass should mean something. A brutal period in history, the Medieval Age was filled with some of the most grotesque and cruel violence that man has ever inflicted upon his own kind. And yet the era has frequently been romanticized, depicted in films as a time of chivalrous duels and gentlemanly discourse, or turned into dull, dialogue-laden period pieces that largely ignore the skull-smashing, limb-chopping reality. Fortunately for lovers of carnage and gore, filmmaker Jonathan English’s focus is squarely on action, blood, and guts.

The English director’s new Medieval action flick, Ironclad, tells the story of the bloodshed that occurs after rebel barons force England’s inept and tyrannical ruler King John (Paul Giamatti) to sign the Magna Carta, an historic document that grants rights to freemen and limits the power of the monarchy, in 1215.

Unwilling to accept the challenge to his divine right to rule arbitrarily, King John swiftly raises a mercenary army to crush the barons and the country’s first glint of democracy and regain absolute power. To prevent his advance and preserve freedom, a Templar knight (James Purefoy) and a group of rebels and hired swords strategically hold Rochester Castle and endure a long siege, bloody battles, and catapult assaults.

Everything you loved about violent underdog movies like 300 and Braveheart, but with even crazier, previously unseen tactics of sending foes to hell, Ironclad, which hit theaters last week, is one to watch with the boys (sneak some strong drink into the theater and take a swig every time a limb gets detached from a body—we guarantee you too will be torn apart in no time).

Complex caught up with Jonathan English recently to talk about the fine art of catapulting people, sick forms of early psychological and biological warfare, and why sadistic King John wasn't such a bad guy after all.

Complex: How did you come to this story?

Jonathan English: In 2006, I visited Rochester Castle (right), which is about 15 miles outside of London, not specifically researching for this project but just because I love castles. As soon as I got there, I was completely taken by the atmosphere of the place; it feels like a building that was built for war, it’s feels like a battleship. The walls are like 15-feet thick; it’s quite impressive, even now.

I started reading about a particular battle, where a small band of rebel men had defended the castle against King John and an army of mercenaries for like six or seven months. At the end of the tour, standing in front of a particular corner of the castle, which is clearly a different color to the rest of the castle, it describes how King John collapsed an entire section of the castle, finally overcame the men inside, and won the battle. I thought that would make an amazing film, kind of like Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven, or The Alamo.

Is this a well-known, patriotic story in England the way that the stand at the Alamo is in the U.S.?

No, what’s really amazing is that nobody knows about this story, it’s a completely forgotten part of history. Most people know the history up to the point of King John signing the Magna Carta, which is a very famous or celebrated document in English history—and American history as well, because it’s the basis of the American Constitution. It was like the first democratic document, where the people of a country were seeking to control the monarch or the ruler of the country and make them answerable to the people. So I certainly, as an English person, learned all about the Magna Carta.

What I didn’t learn, and what nobody really knows, is that the Magna Carta was then actually outlawed by the Roman Catholic Church.

It was declared an illegal document, and anybody who had supported it would be excommunicated by the Church, and, with that kind of Papal blessing, King John then raised an army of mercenaries, brought them all over to England and tried to take back control of the country.

And so, even after King John had signed the Magna Carta, this incredibly significant historical moment, it still took like another year to finally quell his further uprising, and he then died. [After a period under a French king, Louis] they made King John’s son, Henry III, the new King; he was 14 years old at the time and the first thing they made him do was sign the new Magna Carta. And  that’s actually the Magna Carta that still exists to this day.

None of the copies that King John signed actually exist anymore.

I didn’t really want it to be like chivalrous swordfighting. I wanted it to feel like you were observing a serious car  accident and to have that kind of sickening quality.

How many of the details of the Rochester siege and battles did you know, and how much did you fill in?

A lot of the events of the battle were known—they were recorded at the castle—but also a lot of the events of King John’s life were known. There’s generally quite of lot documentation in writing, contemporary writing of the period by monks and priests, the Chroniclers of their time. The early Middle Ages is entering into a period where there is quite a lot of documentation existing from that period.

One of the really interesting sources was something called the Morgan Bible, which is in the Morgan Library in New York.

see: [ http://www.themorgan.org/exhibitions/exhibOnlineThumbs.asp?id=OnlineKings ]

It is, I think, about 50 full color plate illustrations that were done in 1250, so less than 30 years after our story takes place, but nonetheless in the period. They are considered to be like the Holy Grail of Medieval research because they were illustrations painted in incredible detail by monks in the period and they really show everyday life, but they also show battles,

they show fighting and violence in unbelievable graphic detail—I mean, shocking detail: people being dismembered, people being decapitated and then hung, people having their hands and feet chopped off, people being catapulted. Those illustrations were the basis for a lot of the scenes that I wanted to show in the film.

Even as someone who is pretty desensitized to violence, the violence is quite brutal and stunning.

Human beings were cruel to each other in ways that we cannot even imagine. I felt one doesn’t need to show everything; it wouldn’t be palatable for a modern audience to see exactly what was going on all the time, but I wanted to certainly try and give a taste and to paint a more graphic picture than what normally is treated to in some of the larger movies that have been  made of the period.

There’s a particular moment, when King John has just had a man’s hands and feet cut off, and then, as if that weren’t enough, he has him catapulted into a wall for a laugh and to make a statement. Apparently John never learned the meaning of the word “overkill.”

[Laughs.] Right, it comes directly from stories that I read at Rochester about things he did, and then these illustrations in the Morgan Bible, and it was like, My God, we have to! I’ve never seen that in a film
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

EvadingGrid

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2011, 04:49:06 PM »
* cat  curses the Norman Dogs

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,583
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2011, 09:20:39 PM »
 An old expression, A high IQ is a waste without  common sense. These historical writings are proof that human nature has not changed. The methods of deception have taken leaps and bound, technology has advanced, weaponry is state of the art. We have been raised, mentored from childhood and societies mindset, we can do no wrong, we are the righteous, the free, the beacon of light, DEMOCRACY.
 Our leadership has given us evidence that is falsified blatant lies, segments of our gov have manipulated resulting in illegal invasion, genocide, and torture in the millions, the majority we have slaughtered were innocent and we continue to commit murder under the guise of the war on terrorism.
 This is my bottom line. Representative democracy has had its day, does not exist, the wars  have broken this nation financially and morally. We the people, the citizenry settled this nation, in fact we built it, it was our tax money and labor. It is evident throughout history, the upper class elites, controller are the one and only segment that profit from these wars, both financially and w/power. Our money and blood and their profit.
What has changed,nothing, we have been buffaloed, raped mentally, financially and morally.
  Evils exists, they are wrapped in clever packages and are hand picked to guide the brainwashed with the old time rhetoric and manufactured scenarios to deceive the population.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2011, 03:31:45 PM »
bump - Aj mentioned "Harrying the north"  and scorched earth policy - today

1069-70 - Harrying of the North - subjugation of Northern England (Yorkshire) - death toll over 100,000 - scorched earth policy

Plus King William "Salted the Earth"

http://www.helium.com/items/2245200-the-aftermath-of-the-norman-conquest-of-england-and-its-effect-on-the-english-language
...
His cruelest campaign was the Harrying of the North.  In order to pacify the region, William laid waste to the land, and salted the earth so that no crops would grow, and it is estimated that 100,000 people died of starvation as a consequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth

Salting the earth, or sowing with salt, is the ritual of spreading salt on conquered cities to symbolize a curse on its re-inhabitation.[1][2]

It originated as a practice in the ancient Near East and became a well-established folkloric motif in the Middle Ages

When Pope Boniface VIII destroyed Palestrina in 1299, he ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa", and also salted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestrina
...
In 1297 the Sciarrillo di Colonna family, who had owned Praeneste (by then called Palestrina) from the eleventh century as a fief, revolted from the pope. In the following year the town was taken by Papal forces, razed to the ground and salted by order of Pope Boniface VIII.

see:  http://one-evil.org/people/people_13c_Boniface_VIII.htm

Of open depravity associated with cannibalism, sex and murder: (1294 – 1303 CE) That Pope Boniface VIII did open St Peters Church to regular acts of sexual orgies, ritualistic murder of children and cannibalism in the celebration of High Mass of Satanism of Christianity

In 1066 - King William creates the various "Rapes" in sussex: Think of the U.S. "Regions" today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_(county_subdivision)

At the time of the Norman Conquest there were four rapes: Arundel, Lewes, Pevensey and Hastings.

The rape of Arundel consisted of the entire area of Sussex west of the River Adur, corresponding to the boundaries of both the western division of the church in Sussex (the forerunner to the archdeaconry of Chichester)[6][7]

and the boundaries of the traditional western area of the Sussex dialect.[6]

By the time of the Domesday Book, William the Conqueror had created the rape of Bramber as an afterthought out of parts of the Arundel and Lewes rapes, so that the Adur estuary could be better defended.

A rape was a traditional sub-division of the county of Sussex in England. Their origin is unknown, but they appear to predate the Norman Conquest.[1]

Each rape was split into several hundreds.

The rapes may derive from the system of fortifications devised by Alfred the Great in the late ninth century to defeat the Vikings.[2]

Alternatively, King Alfred's system may in turn have its roots in an earlier age. If so, the Sussex Rapes, like the Kentish Lathes, go back to the dawn of English history when their main function would have been to provide food-rents and military manpower to the king
...
Under the Normans each traditional rape was now centred on a castle

Sir Henry Ellis's observation that the rapes "were military districts for the supply of the castles which existed in each" applied to the Anglo-Norman period[17]

Each rape had a single sheriff and ran as a strip, north-south, from the Surrey/Kent border to the English Channel. The castles of Arundel, Bramber and Lewes were sited on positions overlooking the rivers Arun, Adur and Ouse respectively, while those at Chichester, Hastings and Pevensey overlooked the coast. This formation was a creation of William I of England, presumably designed to protect routes to Normandy.

Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2011, 03:21:51 PM »
http://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=alfred
The Danish Invasion
In 876 the Danes attacked again, and in 878 Alfred was forced to retire to the stronghold of Athelney which was at that time an island in the Somerset Levels.

BOOK II.: FROM THE FIRST LANDING OF THE DANES IN ENGLAND TO THE END OF THEIR DOMINATION. 787—1048. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]



King Alfred "the Great" after the Danish Invasion:

Thus, when, seven years after his election, this learned king, unconsciously odious, having to repel a formidable invasion of the Danes, summoned his people to defend the land, he was fearfully astonished to find them indisposed to obey him, and even careless about the common peril. It was in vain that he sent to each town and hamlet his war messenger, bearing an arrow and a naked sword, and that he published this ancient national proclamation, to which hitherto no Saxon, capable of bearing arms, had refused obedience:

“Let each man that is not a nothing, whether in the town or country, leave his house and come.”

Very few men on this occasion accepted the invitation; and
Alfred accordingly found himself almost alone,

surrounded solely by the small circle of private friends who admired his learning, and whom he sometimes affected to tears by reciting his works to them.3
 
Favoured by this indifference of the nation towards the chief whom itself had chosen, the enemy made rapid progress. Alfred, abandoned by his people, in turn abandoned them, and quitting, says an ancient historian, his warriors, his captains, and all his people, fled to save his life.5

Concealing himself as he went, in the woods and on the moors, he reached, on the limits of the Cornish Britons, the confluence of the rivers Tone and Parret. Here, in a peninsula surrounded by marshes, the Saxon king sought refuge, under a feigned name, in the hut of a fisherman, compelled himself to bake the bread which his indigent host permitted him to share with his family. Very few of the people knew what had become of him, and the Danish army entered his kingdom without opposition.

Many of the inhabitants embarked from the western coasts to seek an asylum in Gaul, or in Erin, called by the Saxons, Ireland;

the remainder submitted to pay tribute, and to cultivate the land for the Danes.

It was not long ere they found the ills of conquest a thousand times worse than those of Alfred’s rule, which in the hour of suffering had appeared to them insupportable, and they regretted their former condition and the despotism of a king chosen from among themselves
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2012, 03:01:19 PM »
Prior to the Normans and the Bastard William , there was the Bastard Julius Caesar and his NWO Roman Empire...

This led to the subjugation of the Gauls for 500 years.
Think of Stalin/Mao - 50 years and a generation in the USSR and Eastern Europe is enslaved and subjected to a yoke of tyranny.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
The only known fact is that each man in Caesar's legions received a Gaul as a slave, which means at least 40,000 prisoners,

http://allthingsd.com/20091223/project-alesia-news-corp-s-roman-battle-cry-does-that-cast-googlers-as-the-gauls/





Taking place in September 52 BC in what is now France, the Siege of Alesia (also referred to as the Battle of Alesia) pitted Rome’s famed leader, Julius Caesar, against the Gallic tribes under the unified command of Vercingétorix of Averni.

More important–besides being cited as one of the best uses of siege warfare and “circumvallation” (see more about this below)–the battle of Alesia is considered a turning point in the bitter wars conducted by the Roman Republic to tame the Gauls, who had finally united as a single force in opposition to the Roman invasion.

The hard-fought win–in a battle where the Roman army was outnumbered five-to-one, outside a hilltop fort in Alesia–is often credited with reinvigorating Rome’s power over Gaul. After the loss, Gaul became a province of the Roman empire and was pretty much subdued for the next 500 years.

Alesia is often cited as one of Caesar’s greatest military victories and the fallout from it later led to his ascension to ultimate power in Rome (which was soon followed by his infamous assassination).


Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2012, 09:53:43 PM »
bump for Alex saying UN Agenda21 is taking over Texas ...

Quote
It is impossible to say how many projects of national deliverance, well or ill conceived, were formed and destroyed at this period.  History scarcely deigns to mention some two or three of the men who preferred war to servitude ;
the same power which defeated their efforts, effaced the memory of them...

Eugenic's - UN/Agenda 21 - Local Financial Bankruptcy - Lick the Conqueror's boots
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2012, 03:41:34 PM »
AJ mention the Norman Conquest today...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Joseon

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,062
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2012, 07:57:52 PM »
It's just empire building all over again. this time the entire planet. look at the behavior. troops positioned everywhere in the world which are strongholds and conquered lands.
http://www.H20labs.com
http://www.Mercola.com/article/mercury/mercury_elimination.htm

Drink distilled water for Pure Health:

Detox with cilantro:

Omura determined that cilantro could mobilize mercury and other toxic metals rapidly from the CNS.96 97

Spread the Word.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #36 on: December 17, 2012, 11:06:33 PM »
Again tech. advantage to subdue the population or army:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi312.htm
The stirrup was made a weapon of war in 8th-century France. It created mounted combat by fixing a rider firmly on his horse. By 1066, horse cavalry was a way of life in Europe, but it hadn't made a dent in isolated England. For years Saxons turned back Viking raids with swords, spears, battle-axes, and stone missiles. They first faced armored cavalry on a hill near Hastings when William the Conqueror claimed the English crown.
...

http://www.dibonsmith.com/stirrup.pdf
The Stirrup as a Revolutionary Device
...
The stirrup. And the moment of the adoption of the stirrup can be traced through
archaeology: “... that date may be placed in the first part of the eighth century, that is, in
the time of Charles Martel
.” 7

Professor White argued that Charles Martel quickly saw the military advantages of a
heavily armoured horseman, equipped with lance and shield. Before the introduction of
the stirrup this iron-clad chevalier would have been useless, for the unwieldy nature of
the heavy armour would have prevented the knight frommanoeuvring his steed, and once
struck, the rider would be easily toppled, rendering him helpless
.

The stirrup provided the fulcrum, the pivot point of all the charging weight of man and horse, to be delivered through the point of a horizontally poised spear. Thus man, horse and lance became one
unit, one extremely efficient weapon, and the stirrup made it all possible.

Charles Martel turned his new weapon on the enemies of his Frankish kingdom, and
later William would bring the stirrup to Hastings, with great success.

Thus, Professor White attributed great feats of accomplishment to the mail-clad
knight on his stirrupped war horse, making him eventually ‘master of Europe’
.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2012, 03:02:23 PM »
In 43 AD the Roman Empire of Claudius invaded England - Again Nothing could be left to chance - 40 thousand troops were sent across the channel:



http://www.localhistories.org/roman.html
...
The Romans invaded England again in 43 AD under Emperor Claudius. The Roman invasion force consisted of about 20,000 legionaries and about 20,000 auxiliary soldiers from the provinces of the Roman Empire. Aulus Plautius led them. The Romans landed somewhere in Southeast England (the exact location is unknown) and quickly prevailed against the Celtic army.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_conquest_of_Britain
...
In 43AD, possibly by re-collecting Caligula's troops, Claudius mounted an invasion force to re-instate Verica, an exiled king of the Atrebates.[6] Aulus Plautius, a distinguished senator, was given overall charge of four legions, totalling about 20,000 men, plus about the same number of auxiliaries

As a side note Pontius Pilate was a Scot trained by the Druids .... So why did Claudius want Britain so bad?
Later in 60 AD the Romans invaded Anglesey and WIPED OUT the Druids there.

It is thought that the Druids were in contact with the Mediterranean Essenes and wanted Pilate in place to be in Jerusalam and watch out for Jesus - didn't quite work out - but Pilate didn't send Jesus to the gallows either 



The Fortingall Yew - This famous yew tree is estimated to be approximately 5000 years old and is believed to be the oldest living thing in Europe.

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/p/pontiuspilate.html
...
There has long been a story that Pontius Pilate was actually born at Fortingall in Perthshire, also known as home to an ancient yew tree that could be as much as 5,000 years old (and, if so, is probably the oldest living thing on Earth). At first sight the story of Pilate's birth here looks unlikely. The Romans arrived in southern Britain in 55BC, but only briefly. They returned to invade what is now England in AD43, and only invaded Scotland for the first time in AD80, reaching the area including Perthshire in about AD83. Against this background, how could a Roman have been born here in, roughly, the decade either side of 20BC, which seems necessary to have allowed him to become Prefect of Judaea in AD26?

The story of Pilate's Scottish origins was set out most fully in an article published in the New York Times on 15 January 1899. It seems that between the Romans' first incursion into Britain and their later invasion, Ceasar Augustus dispatched envoys to establish diplomatic relations with some of the important British and Caledonian chieftains. These included a Caledonian chieftain called Metellanus, whose stronghold was at the head of Glen Lyon. A member of the Roman delegation to Metellanus's tribe fathered a child with a Caledonian woman, and this child subsequently returned to Rome with his father (and, possibly, his mother), and was brought up as Pontius Pilate

see: http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/fortingallyew.htm

Pontius Pilate was born at Fortingall, which translates from the gaelic placename 'Feart-nan-Gall' as the 'Stronghold of the Strangers' (The druids). Nowhere else in Scotland, or for that matter in the British Isles, has an oral tradition and association with the birth of Pontius Pilate; so why should the tiny and obscure hamlet of Fortingall lay claim to this tradition, unless there is an intrinsic element of truth in what would otherwise be deemed as an audacious presupposition.

The yew is a primordial tree and it is believed to date back for at least two hundred million years, which considerably antedates the era of the human race. It is no wonder that from time immemorial the eternal yew appears to have been seen as the immortal tree of life and held with sacred reverence throughout the ages.

According to ancient lore it would appear that the yew was seen as an arcane repository, i.e. a tree of knowledge. It has also been noted that yew trees were often associated with ancient hill forts and, true to form, on an elevated position close by the Fortingall Yew is to be found the remains of an old hill fort called Dun Geal which translates from the gaelic as 'the white fort' (and the druids wore white) . At the time of Christ, Dun Geal was the residence of the Caledonian King, Metallanus, of whom local tradition claims Pontius Pilate was a relative.

Commenting on the Fortingall Yew, Vaughan Cornish, D.Sc., in his book The Churchyard Yew & Immortality (1946) remarks: "Of Yew trees in the churchyards of Scotland the most celebrated is that of Fortingall in Perthshire. The tree as measured in A.D. 1771 by Thomas Pennant was 56 1/2 feet in circumference and as measured by Daines Barrington in A.D. 1769, 52 feet, thus being greater than that of any churchyard Yew of England or Wales. This led to the supposition that of all the trees in Britain the Fortingall Yew was monarch of antiquity. Upon this belief legends grew. One of these was embodied in a poem by W. Cowan, from which the following is a quotation:

'Here Druid priests their altars placed,
And sun and moon adored.
* * * * * * *
A tree - the sacred Yew,
Symbol of immortality -
Beside their altar grew.'

http://www.donaldcorrell.com/magicart/magicart.html

Historic scenes in Perthshire
 By William Marshall


The Roman Empire was a global slave system - the beginning of it's collapse was seen in 410AD
The sack of Rome was made by those who were targets of enslavement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(410)

The Sack of Rome occurred on August 24, 410. The city was attacked by the Visigoths, led by Alaric I.

At that time, Rome was no longer the capital of the Western Roman Empire, replaced in this position initially by Mediolanum and then later Ravenna. Nevertheless, the city of Rome retained a paramount position as "the eternal city" and a spiritual center of the Empire. The sack was to prove a major shock to contemporaries, friends and foes of the Empire alike.
 
This was the first time in almost 800 years that Rome had fallen to an enemy. The previous sack of Rome had been accomplished by the Gauls under their leader Brennus in 387 BC. The sacking of 410 is seen as a major landmark in the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

St. Jerome, living in Bethlehem at the time, wrote that "The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken."
...
Barbarian tribes grew stronger for some time, and united themselves to challenge Roman hegemony.

In the late 4th century, however, the Huns began to overrun barbarian territories. In 376, they forced many Thervings, led by Fritigern, to seek exile into the Eastern Roman Empire. Soon after, high taxes, Roman prejudice, and government corruption turned them against the Empire. ...


Sack of Rome by the Visigoths on 24 August 410 by Joseph-Noël Sylvestre

Aftermath
 
After the sack, Alaric and his forces journeyed south, where they expected to take ships to Africa. The ships were destroyed, however, in a storm and Alaric died around the same time.

Ataulf took command of the Goths, leading them north into Gaul, where they settled in Aquitaine. This sack of Rome is generally considered to mark the end of classical history with the Middle Ages thereupon commencing, characterized by the rise of small feudal regions rather than one unitary empire and Christian chivalry as opposed to secular investigation. In truth, of course, the matter is more complicated, as scientific inquiry continued to some degree during the Middle Ages and the Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire) continued for a further 1000 years.

When the Romans left Britain in 410 - the people had been so disarmed, enslaved and domesticated that is was left exposed to invasions from Picts and Anglo-Saxons. There was no longer any native militia to stop the onslaught.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_Roman_rule_in_Britain

The end of Roman rule in Britain is the period during which the Roman Empire ended its relationship with Roman Britain, thus marking the transition from Roman Britain to post-Roman Britain. No single date is correct without qualification, as Roman rule ended for different parts of Britain at different times, and under different circumstances.
 
The year 410 is the preference of most historians. In that year, the Roman Emperor Honorius replied to a request for assistance with the Rescript of Honorius, telling the Romano-Britons to see to their own defence. Some historians prefer 409 instead, the year when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman magistrates from their cities
...

http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=1071250

Germanic tribes invasion - Roman Britain ends 410

Roman Britain was attacked by Angles, Saxons and Jules who were tribes from North Germany, Denmark & Holland. Roman called them "barbarians". In 410 AD, last Romans left Britain


http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/t/the_great_torc_from_snettisham.aspx

The Great Torc from Snettisham Iron Age, about 75 BC
The torc is made from just over a kilogram of gold mixed with silver

[ Update - Some of Jesus lost years may have been spent in Scotland (possibly knew Pilate?)
Here is a good video from Barry Dunford ]



Historical & Spiritual Destiny of British Isles, part 1 - video
Uploaded on Feb 10, 2010

Talk by Barry Dunford at the Stars & Stones Conference, England, 2009. Sacredconnections.co.uk The English visionary poet and mystic, William Blake, asserted that Albion, the most ancient name for the British Isles, was actually the original and true Holy land of Christ, and Barry Dunfords revealing illustrated presentation demonstrates that there is genuine substance to this intriguing notion. Drawing on a wealth of reference source material, he investigates Blakes mystical vision of Albion as the true Holy Land of the Christ.

By deciphering clues from gaelic place names, together with well established regional traditions and legends, Barry Dunfords research supports the Blakean thesis of Jesus Christs presence in these islands. He also demonstrates that other members of the Holy Family are also likely to have travelled to Britain


Historical & Spiritual Destiny of British Isles, part 2

http://ezinearticles.com/?Monarch-of-Antiquity---The-Sacred-Yew-Tree-in-the-Heart-of-Scotland&id=4068709
Monarch of Antiquity - The Sacred Yew Tree in the Heart of Scotland  By Barry Dunford

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Barry_Dunford

Jesus: The Explosive Story of the 30 Lost Years and the Ancient Mystery Religions [Paperback]
Tricia McCannon
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #38 on: February 17, 2013, 04:21:42 PM »
Here is a good description of what is happening (NWO-Feudalism):

http://www.searchformecca.com/downloads/easternoroldworl02browuoft.pdf
THE EASTERN, OR OLD WORLD: EMBRACING ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY
HENRY HOWARD BROWNELL, A. M.
VOL. II. 1857
...

140 -

It may be remarked that the Norman conquest had made it little difference in the laws of England, or in the constitution of courts.

The principal changes were the transfer of nearly all landed estates to the new comers;
the enlargement of the feudal system;
the change in the church government; and
the separation of the spiritual from the civil jurisdiction.

The feudal system, the origin of which has been variously deduced from the Roman and Celtic customs, was of a complicated a extended nature ; but, in general, the effect was to render all land holders dependent upon the higher classes, and make them liable service in war, and various duties in time of peace.

The great barons holding lands of the king, received the feudal homage of the knights, and they, in their turn, of the yeomen and others who held under them.
...

Example Ted Turner - NWO Feudal Baron:

Land Value Taxation: Rebuttals to Common Objections

http://www.tedturner.com/ranches.asp


With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the second largest individual landholder in North America

2,000,000 acre = 3125 mi²

Yes 3000 square miles of land.... and his pal Malone has another 3000 sq miles in tow....


http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/
No. 1 John Malone 2,200,000 acres

John Malone, the 70-year-old chairman of Liberty Media, is famously reticent when it comes to discussing his business life. There is, however, one subject that makes the Denver businessman open up: his personal land holdings.

Recently, he’s had a lot more to talk about. In 2011, Malone became the largest private landowner in the U.S., wresting the top spot on The Land Report 100 from his friend and longtime business partner, Ted Turner.

...

THE FULL LIST: AMERICA’S TOP 100 LANDOWNERS 2011
 1.John Malone
 2.Ted Turner
 3.Archie Aldis Emmerson
 4.Brad Kelley
 5.Irving Family
 6.Singleton Family
 7.King Ranch Heirs
 8.Pingree Heirs
 9.Reed Family
 10.Stan Kroenke
 11.Ford Family

...

Bowing to the feudal rulers:

Ted Turner says "I think it's good US troops are killing themselves?"


Also Elite zip codes:

Coming Apart - Super Elite Zip Codes


...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/west-side-v-east-side-manhattan-zip-codes-top-contributors-obama-and-romney
West Side v. East Side: Manhattan Zip Codes Top Contributors to Obama and Romney
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 3, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - There is a distinct geographical location that exceeds all others for the money its residents have contributed to the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is Manhattan.
 
Five of the Top Ten zip codes contributing cash to the reelection campaign of incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama are in Manhattan, according to calculations made by OpenSecrets.org. So, too, are five of the Top Ten zip codes contributing to Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
...
Three of the top four zip codes contributing to Obama—10023, 10024 and 10025—are stacked one above the other on the West Side of Central Park.  The fourth—10011—is in the Chelsea district further downtown.
 
The five Manhattan zip codes among Romney’s top contributors—10022,10065,10021,10028,10128—start below Central Park at East 49th Street and then run up the East Side of the park to East 96th Street.
 
The other five zip codes in Romney’s Top Ten include two in Greenwich, Conn., one in New Canaan, Conn., one in Houston, Texas and one in Palm Beach, Fla.

______________________________Contributions
 
Obama’s Top Zip Codes
 
10024 New York..................................$1,391,238
10023 New York..................................$1,204,751
10011 New York..................................$1,202,087
10025 New York..................................$1,072,037
60614 Chicago....................................$1,045,589
20008 Washington, D.C.......................$1,032,636
20016 Washington, D.C..........................$978,729
20815 Chevy Chase, Md.........................$966,292
02138 Cambridge, Mass..........................$920,650
10021 New York.....................................$868,542
 
Romney’s Top Zip Codes
 
10021 New York..................................$1,248,194
06830 Greenwich, Conn.......................$1,189,788       (Illuminati land)
06840 New Canaan, Conn....................$1,080,698       (Illuminati land)
77024 Houston, Tex...............................$976,431
33480 Palm Beach, Fla............................$967,901
10065 New York, N.Y..............................$940,261
06831 Greenwich, Conn..........................$922,632       (Illuminati land)
10128 New York.....................................$917,457
10022 New York.....................................$904,295
10028 New York.....................................$879,777

| - - - - -

A once Loyal Old guard noble Elites are eventually replaced by NWO elites:

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/NormanConquest/a/The-Consequences-Of-The-Norman-Conquest.htm
The Consequences of the Norman Conquest
By Robert Wilde
...
Anglo-Saxon elites, the largest landholders in England, were replaced by Franco-Normans.

Those Anglo-Saxons nobles who had survived the battles of 1066 had the chance to serve William and retain power and land, but many rebelled over contentious issues, and soon William had turned away from compromise to importing loyal men from the continent.

By William’s death, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was all but replaced. In the Domesday book of 1086, there are only four large English landowners. However, there may only have been around 25,000 Franco-Normans out of a population of two million when William died.
...
Royal forests, with their own laws, were created
...
Higher taxes: most monarchs are criticised for heavy taxes, and William I was no exception. But he had to raise funds for the occupation and pacification of England.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,059
Re: Comparing the NWO to the Norman Conquest
« Reply #39 on: February 17, 2013, 07:26:22 PM »
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/Readings/norman-conquest.pdf
Impact of the Norman Conquest


Interesting article about today in England:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372919/Social-mobility-slower-medieval-England.html
Generation game: How the rich have kept their wealth in the family for 1,000 years
By Daily Mail Reporter
 UPDATED:07:08 EST, 4 April 2011

Surnames which indicated nobility and wealth in medieval times are still richer even today, research has suggested.
 
'Moneyed'  [NORMAN CONQUEST] surnames , such as Darcy, Percy, Baskerville and Mandeville continue to have more cash than those with 'poor' names, such as Smith, Mason and Cooper.
 
The research, which uses university admissions, probate records and official information going as far back as the Domesday Book, tracked what happened to those whose surnames suggest their forebears were either aristocratic or 'artisans' from the working class.
...
In his paper - which is due to be presented at the Economic History Society's annual conference - Prof Clark says: 'Despite the social and political changes in England since the Industrial Revolution and the extension of the political franchise, if anything the rate of social mobility is slower now than in medieval England.

'The huge social resources spent on publicly provided education and health have seemingly created no gains in the rate of social mobility.

'The modern meritocracy is no better at achieving social mobility than the medieval oligarchy.'
...
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5