KKK/masons in washington dc

[Guest guest]

http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/scottishriteproject.htm

 

[stonehearted]

This stuff is of course lots of fun to contemplate. I found that some of the stuff on Bill Clinton made me wonder whether the author meant to imply things throughout the article that may actually not be the case.

 

One point that struck me: "As for Bill Clinton: A spokesman for the Freemasonic Grand Lodge of Arkansas told me that although Clinton was a

member of Freemasonry's Order of DeMolay as a young man, he is not now a Mason. I have been informed,

however, that DeMolay membership is in fact a life membership."

 

Is this meant to imply that Clinton has an ongoing relationship with the Masonic order? Don't take this stuff for granted. I was also a member of the Order of DeMolay as a boy. I held the highest offices in my chapter, was Virginia State Chaplain twice, and held a couple of the highest titles, Representative DeMolay and Chevalier. However, I have had no connection whatsoever with the Order or with Freemasonry since then. I guess, as a Senior DeMolay, I could attend a meeting whenever I wanted, but I don't have a card to identify me. And I have many other old friends in similar positions. Many of us saw through the hypocisy while we were still active and eventually dropped out. I stopped participating after making a speech in my chapter protesting many of the Order's policies. Although their professed ideals are loyalty and toleration, I found a pervasive intolerance I found repugnant.

 

So I just want to caution readers against making too much of this.

 

And as an English professor, I also want to caution all readers not to take anything there for granted; rather, you should try to independently investigate any claims you find worthy of attention.

[Guest guest]

yeah i know, all he says isn't compeltely correct,

yet the history stuff is .

 

As for the demolay society, in fact most members do not

know that it is an offshoot of masonery.

 

Jacques De Molay was the last grand master of the knights Templar, he was tortured to death when the king of france

and the catholic church conspired to destroy the order.

the freemasons were created by remnants of that order,

or so they believe.

 

Bill Clinton has many diverse connection, of course he went

to georgetown a jesuit university, then on to oxford

on a rhodes scholarship,given by the cecil rhodes trust,

an originator of many current conspiracy theories.

 

the connections between pike and masonery are well documented, as are the the other connections , with the KKK.

 

Sure the author i believe gives to much credit to

wealthy families, after all even the mightiest families

can be cowed into submission by fear.

 

For example the head of the Rothschild clan was murdered

in his own bathroom a few years back, they made a lame attempt to make it look like a suicide for the press, but it

was so badly done it was clear that a message was being sent , by the murderer, to the clan.

 

so those who make it seem that the whole world are the subjects of the kings of finance often overlook the simple

realities, when a gun is pointed at your head,

even the high and mighty shake !

 

[Guest guest]

hey , why was my opus dei link taken off ?

[stonehearted]

In fact, it's hard for any member to not know the connection between DeMolay and Freemasonry. The connection is explicit, and many chapters meet in masonic lodges. All the advisors to each chapter are members of a particular masonic lodge, which sponsors the chapter; many are friends of the DeMolays' fathers, who may also be odge members. And many are subtly encouraged to petition one lodge or another when they turn 21. Many of us in my chapter were condsidering petitioning the lodge George Washington had belonged to.

[Guest guest]

 

seems that senator lott is gettin his comeuppance

of late, for his remarks about strom thurmond

being his role model or whatever.

 

Seems to add credence to the link i gave, huh ?

[stonehearted]

shiva wrote: "seems that senator lott is gettin his comeuppance of late, for his remarks about strom thurmond

being his role model or whatever."

 

I dunno about comeuppance, but he is getting a little well-deserved criticism. As embarrassed as many of his fellow Republicans are by his remarks (I almost wrote fellow travelers) he'll never really own up to what he really said. If I had been there, I'd like to think I would have asked him up front, "All of what problems, precisely, Senator?"

 

"Seems to add credence to the link i gave, huh ?"

 

Where there's smoke, there's fire. There's always something there, but the magnitude may or may not be what conspiracy folks would like to think. Let's face it: it's Kali yuga. Everything is rotten. This is no place for gentle folk, so let's get the hell out.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

check out this

http://www.guthriescottishrite.org/srmasons.html

[Guest guest]

both thurmond and lott are on the list .

[stonehearted]

There are a couple of more extensive lists, too. Try this one:

 

http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous.htm

 

They're everywhere; however, for most Freemasons (and I can't remember what the distinction was between the Scottish Rite Masons and the Free and Accepted Masons) it's a matter of social connections at least as much as anything else. A lot of them like the rituals, but I'm not sure how many are really plugged in to the mysticism and other stuff (or even really aware of them). Remember, I was part of that culture, so I have a good idea of how pervasive and influential Freemasons are.

 

Have a blast with this.

[Guest guest]

Neither are vouched for... which sugests an inexact listing...Henceforth, inconclusive information!

 

Watchout.... Words are merely symbols..All translations are incomplete.

 

Grey McCowan

G.H.D.

E.B.&U.M.

[Guest guest]

I am a DeMolay from Painesville Chapter, in Painesville, Ohio. Currently, I'm more of a perminent visitor to Alexandria- Washington Chapter now since the military has brought me to Arlington, Va. I am a Fellowcraft Mason from North Olmstead Lodge No. 741 of Free and Accepted Masons in North Olmstead, Ohio. Just to give you some background...

 

As for encouragement for brothers to join the lodge, the ancient land marks of the lodge state that we can not ask anybody to join lodge. In certain places, we are allowed to say something to the effect of, "I think you'd make a good mason." That would then spur their courisioty and then we may be able to invite that person to a social function.

 

DeMolay is a Masonic "sponsored" organization, not necessarily a Masonic subordinate body. It has strong masonic ties such as: a lodge sponsoring a chapter must furnish an advisory council. Because these advisors interact with these young men, the young men see the example the advisors put out to them, and then that may spur their interest into freemasonry.

 

I have traveled to 4 jurisdictions of DeMolay and I'm working on another one. In all my travels, I have not yet met a DeMolay who did not know the relationship between DeMolay and Freemasonry.

 

To the author of the 03/29/02 article, the connections between Pike and Freemasonry is that Pike is considered a MASONIC SCHOLAR! His books are on the shelves of Masonic libraries in almost every Masonic Temple, Hall, Center, Lodge, etc!!!

 

I do not completely understand the "beef" with Sens. Lott and Thurman. Perhaps somebody could explain this to me in detail?

[stonehearted]

Dear Brother DeMolay,

 

As a fellow Senior DeMolay, charter member of the Mount Vernon chapter in N. Va. (I had many friends in the Alexandria chapter), I can vouch for the accuracy of your description of the relationship between DeMolay and Freemasonry. Although I was an RD and Chevalier, as well as a state officer for a couple of years, my involvement with the Order waned in the mid-'60s due to a perceived disjunction between the ideals and the practice, at least in Virginia at the time. Although the Demolay degree initiation is meant to teach loyalty and tolerance (I was our chapter's JD for several years, so I knew the ceremony inside out), I found a strong anti-Catholic bias. I was particularly disturbed by the blackballing of a Catholic friend who petitioned for membership in Mt. Vernon chapter.

 

You're correct, of course, that Freemasonry forbids canvassing for membership; the prospective member must petition the lodge. However, I clearly remember advisors suggesting which lodge we may want to petition at seniority. I remember that my preference was for GW's lodge in Alexandria rather than ours out at Mt. Vernon, just because of the prestige and the fact that they met at that cool temple in Alex.

 

I think any animus you see here for Lott and Thurmond may be partly for their racist histories, but largely because of their reputed affiliation with Freemasonry. The Masons are seen by many as being part of a world-wide conspiracy that includes the Illuminati, Masons, Rothschilds and other international Jewish financiers, The Council on Foreign Relations, etc., etc., etc.

[Kulapavana]

There are many groups of people (both secret and open) seeking to control this world, often using very devious methods. Most of those who truly control such groups are in fact demonic in nature. While devotees should not be overly concerned about influence of such people (since Lord Krishna is the real controller) we should also not be a blind tool in their hands...

[Guest guest]

the beef with lott and thurmond was a while ago,

thurmond was a leader of segregation in the senate

during the civil rights years in the U.S.,

Lott praised thurmond, saying that the world would be a better place if thurmond had won his presidential bid.

 

the KKK and american scottish rite freemasonery

are two branches of the same tree here is some history.

 

http://freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/albertpikeandkkk.html

 

 

http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/kol_cult.html

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/kkk_in_doj.html

[stonehearted]

Kulapavana:

There are many groups of people (both secret and open) seeking to control this world, often using very

devious methods. Most of those who truly control such groups are in fact demonic in nature. While devotees

should not be overly concerned about influence of such people (since Lord Krishna is the real controller) we

should also not be a blind tool in their hands...

 

You're right, of course. I'm not sure what I wote that makes you think I'm such a blind tool. I stopped particpating in DeMolay in 1965 and never petitioned a Masonic lodge. I got into other things, the most important of whichis Krishna consciousness. All I did was confirm what our guest wrote based on my own experience.

 

I've been practicing Krishna conscoiusness since 1969, and over the years I've known several devotees whogot carried away by the different conspiracy theories. Although I think there may be some substance to many of these ideas, the devotees I've seen get really excited about them no longer practice Krishna consciousness.

[Guest guest]

many of the british freemasonry crowd believe

in this

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/BI.html

 

[Guest guest]

this is from Laurence Gardner,

official geneologist of many european royal

familes, from his books "genesis of the grail kings"

and "bloodline of the grail kings".

 

 

 

"In the context of our talks, we have stepped beyond the bounds of the Bible to witness the alchemical and scientific process which facilitates the genesis of the Grail Kings. This line of succession from Cain, through Egypt to King David and onward to Jesus, was purpose-bred to be the earthly Purveyors of the Light. They were the true Sons of the Gods, who were fed firstly on Anunnaki Star Fire from about 3800 BC and,subsequently, on "high-spin" metal supplements from about 2000 BC. In short, they were bred to be leaders of humankind, and they were both mentally and physically maintained in the "highward" state: the ultimate dimension of the missing 44 per cent-the dimension of the Orbit of Light, or the Plane of Sharon.

 

Only during the past 150 years or so, and more specifically during the past 80 years, have the great storehouses of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Syrian and Canaanite records been unearthed from beneath the desert sands. Firs-hand documentary evidence from before Bible times has now emerged on stone, clay, parchment and papyrus, and these many tens of thousands of documents bear witness to a far more exciting history that we were ever told. Had these records been available through out the generations, the concepts of a particular race enjoying a single Divine revelation would never have arisen, and the exclusivity of Jehova-which has blinded us for the longest time, setting us in warlike fashion against those of other faiths who follow their own traditions- would never had taken such an arrogant hold.

 

 

Gradually, as new discoveries are made, it is evident that we are now emerging from the darkness of our preconcieved but unfounded notions. Even so, our centuries of Church-led indoctrination make it very difficult to discard the restrictive dogma of inbred third-hand tradition in favour of a greater enlightment from those who were there at the time.

 

 

The truly inspiring prospect is that the learning curve has still not ended. Just as a single glacier is but a continuation of age old activity, so too are the ancient wisdoms that now fall to us one by one, with each new facet of learning ready to be stacked upon the former knowledge.

 

 

Fortunately, the dawn of consciousness is already behind us and, although some will choose to look backwards beyond its veil, many will step with vigor into the new millenium to witness a bright new sunrise - a revelation of unbounded possibility and a restoration of our true universal inheritance."

 

---------------------------

 

 

"

J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is one of the most enchanting and successful tales of all time. First issued in the 1950s, this famous trilogy could just as well have emanated from the Dark Ages or medieval times, for it has all the qualities and attributes of the most ancient Grail and Ring traditions. This was made possible by the fact that Tolkien (an Oxford professor of Anglo-Saxon and English language) had the legendary wealth of ages at his fingertips and moulded his story accordingly.

 

 

In considering the history of the Ring Quest, its parallel association with the Quest for the Holy Grail becomes increasingly apparent, as do the origins of fairies, elves, pixies, sprites, gnomes and goblins. Ring lore is also deeply rooted in many of the best loved nursery tales, and provides the essential facts behind numerous time-honoured characters of popular legend.

 

 

Grail stories are generally associated with Arthurian knights roaming the Wasteland in search of the sacred relic. But the genre also embodies many other questing tales, incorporating such characters as Cinderella, Robin Hood, Sleeping Beauty and Count Dracula. Each account holds its own separate mystery and fascination, but it is not generally understood that they all stem from a common historical base which is rooted in the ancient culture of the Ring Lords.

 

 

Even though some of the themes have their origins in very old lore, the majority of these tales were newly slanted from the Dark Ages onwards, when the Church set its sights against the Ring tradition. This was especially the case from medieval times when the persecution of heretics was in full swing, leading to the brutal Inquisitions which began in the 13th century.

 

 

From around 4000 BC, the Ring was a primary device of the Anunnaki overlords, who were recorded as having been responsible for the establishment of municipal government and kingly practice in ancient Mesopotamia. In view of this, it is of particular relevance that, in 1967, when Professor Tolkien was asked about the Middle-earth environment of The Lord of the Rings, he wrote that he perceived its setting to be about 4000 BC.

 

 

In this respect, the root of Tolkien's popular tale was extracted directly from Saxon folklore and was not actually new in concept. Indeed, the early Saxon god Wotan (the equivalent of the Sumerian Lord, Anu) was said to have ruled the Nine Worlds of the Rings – having the ninth Ring (the One Ring) to govern eight others.

 

 

The contested ownership of the One Ring, as related in The Lord of the Rings, is little different to the enduring quest for the Holy Grail; they are both quests for the maintenance of sovereignty. But, in both fact and fiction, the Ring and the Grail are each seen to be misappropriated by those who perceive them as weapons of power.

 

 

As the generations passed from ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian times, the ideal of dynastic kingship spread through the Mediterranean lands into the Balkans, the Black Sea regions and Europe. But, in the course of this, the crucial essence of the old wisdom was lost and this gave rise to dynasties that were not of the original kingly race. Instead, many were unrelated warrior chiefs who gained their thrones by might of the sword.

 

 

The sacred culture of the ancients was, nevertheless, retained in the Messianic line of King David of Judah (around 1008 BC), whose significance was in his pharaonic heritage, not in his generally portrayed descent from Abraham and the Shemite strain. It was because of this particular inheritance that David's son, Solomon the Wise, was enabled to create his Egyptian-style Temple project in Jerusalem.

 

 

This led to a Holy Land revival of the pharaonic and one-time Mesopotamian Rosi-crucis movement at a time when Egypt was beset by foreign influences, first from Libya, Nubia and Kush, and then from further afield. Resultantly, the traditional marriage arrangements of the pharaohs and princesses gave way to diplomatic alliances.

 

 

The Rosi-crucis (whose supporters were called Rosicrucians) is often misidentified as if it referred to a Rosy (or Red) Cross - but in fact the term has a rather different origin. It stems from the old Greek 'rosi', meaning 'dew', and from 'crucis' meaning 'fire-cup' (as in the word 'crucible'). Hence, the Rosi-crucis was the dew-cup of fire – or fiery cup of the waters.

 

 

In symbolic form, the Rosi-crucis was the original and longest standing mark of sovereignty – and this is where the secondary Rosy Cross definition comes into play, for this insignia was indeed a red cross within a ring. The early Bible writers condemned this royal device as being the Mark of Cain.

 

 

This same emblem was deemed to be symbolic of the Holy Grail, whose representative form as the Dew-cup (or Chalice) emanated directly from the Sumerian word 'gra-al'. This defined the 'nectar of supreme excellence' – the prestigious legacy of the Anunnaki queen Nin-kharsag, great mother of the kingly bloodline.

 

 

Originally, and for the longest time, the Ring was a symbol of perpetually divine justice, which was measured by the Rod. In ancient depictions various Sumerian overlords, kings and queens are individually portrayed holding the Rod and Ring devices - characters such as Marduk and Lilith, Shamesh, Ur-Nammu, Ashur, Samael and others from the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BC. In some instances the Rod is clearly marked in calculable units (like a modern ruler). In Babylonia it was referred to as the Rule – and the one who held the Rule was the designated ‘ruler’: which is from where the governmental term derives.

 

 

In time, rather than holding the golden rings, the sovereigns began to place them on their heads where, from a general course of ornate embellishment through the ages, they ultimately became crowns, while the Rod (or Rule) evolved into the royal sceptre. In the course of this, the Rosi-crucis emblem of the cross and circle also became a solid object – a cross surmounted on a sphere – to become the Orb of sovereign regalia.

 

 

In all the Grail romances, and in the tales of the Ring, the message is relentlessly clear: in the wrong hands, both the Ring and the Grail can bring disaster. The power of the Ring has to be withstood, otherwise it will enslave its master, whereas the Grail will retaliate with a vengeance if misused. Either way, the moral is the same in that, ultimately, power is self-destructive when achieved through selling one's soul. Consequently, the Ring can be a halo or a crown, but it can equally become a noose.

 

 

There is, however, an essential difference between Tolkien's 'One Ring', which is portrayed as dark and divisive, and the Golden Ring of Grail romance, which is a ring of love and enlightenment. The latter (the ring with which Arthur made his vow to Guinevere) was further symbolised by the iron-clad ring of knights who sat at the Round Table – a Ring that was broken (leading the land into chaos and waste) when Guinevere was unfaithful to Arthur with Lancelot.

 

 

Prior to the year 751, kings of the Grail succession were priests in their own right; they were priest-kings, known as Fisher Kings. But, when their rights to priesthood were undermined by the Church, the legacy was forsaken in all but the Gaelic realms."

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

http://graal.co.uk/

 

 

[Kulapavana]

My post was not directed towards you in particular stonehearted prabhuji. I'm sorry if it came out that way and it was not meant to be critical in general. I have also seen devotees consumed by various conspiracy theories (including those pertaining to our own society) and lose sight of the important stuff, like our mission or their own spiritual progress.

[Kulapavana]

In many prominent families in the past and present there are also much less wholesome influences: Rakshasa and other demonic beings who bred with humans, sometimes specifically in order to gain control over human affairs

[stonehearted]

No apologies are necessary; I'm sorry if I took your note more personally than it was intended.

 

I know that most Freemasons and DeMolays aren't witting participants in any world-dominance conspiracy. They're mostly ordinary people looking for opportunities for fellowship and service, and the mystical trappings add a little exoticism to their lives. I also know, though, that many of them really like the mysticism and connections with ancient, even "sacred" history. I was trying to let our Masonic guest know that he's not alone here.

 

And yes, I also know too many devotees consumed by worries about conspiracies within ISKCON. One of the leaders of the "poison" fuss lives on this island. I consider preoccupation with these things distractions, as you say, from our real business.

[Guest guest]

 

 

the stewart family is THE scottish rite masonic family.

 

The Stewart Kings while in Britain and later while in exile were the very forefront ot the Scottish Rite Freemasonry. The Scottish Rite was founded on the most ancient of all arcane knowledge and Universal Law. Their Breton heritage was closely allied to the noble families of Boulogne and Jerusalem. This back ground was largely Templar inspired.

 

During the reign of Charles I and Charles II the 'invisible college' of the Royal Society emerged. The 'college' revealed many great scientific discoveries of all time. The Freemasons and Templar posed a hugh problem for the Puritans. The puritans were very narrow minded people who accused many innocent people of witch craft that lead to the death of the innocents.

 

The 'invisible college' brought out discoveries such as; the Copernican heliocentric principle of the solar system, Boyles Law, Halley's Comet, Law of Gravity, Laws of Motion and the invention of the reflecting

telescope.

 

The Scottish Rite taught many freedoms like every country in the UK should have their own parliament, schools should be free to the public, public libraries, freedom of religion and freedom of brotherhood.

 

The Scottish Rite became very popular in America and France during the Colonial days. After Bonnie Prince Charles was put down at Culledon, America was talking independence. The United States declared their independence based on their teachings of the Scottish Rite.

 

The exiles from Culledon were mostly Freemasons. There was a group of Knights Templar better known as the 'unknown superiors' that were banished. Most of these men were sent to the Colonies. These men helped to shape the struggle for independence. General George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were both Knights Templar.

 

Once the United States won their independence, they wanted George Washington to be president. Washington refused by telling them the people want a monarch of the Holy Bloodline. Representatives of the USA were sent to France to invite Bonnie Prince Charles to become the King of the new formed country. Prince Charles declined the offer due to his age and ill health. There was no one else who was of legitimate bloodline to become the King so George Washington was elected the President.

 

The Scottish Rite is still upheld to the day. Freemasonry spread through out the world. The Shriners which is a part of the Freemasons had some of the best hospitals in the world.

 

A military religious order that began thousands of years ago by the Nazarenes had survived through the ages to be known as the Scottish Rite. The order had it's days of darkness and many days of light. But the members of the Scottish Rite continue their search for enlightenment with the theory, ' be good to all mankind and protect the great gifts God has bestowed upon them.'

 

 

On March 26, 1371, The Royal House of Stewart was founded by King Robert II of Scots. Before taking on the crown, they had served as hereditary "Stewards" to the previous Scottish kings, including Robert the Bruce, and that is where the family name (later corrupted into "Stuart") came from. They have been one of the most prominent Grail families in history, and their official guardians were the Knights Templar. According to Laurence Gardner, the family's current historiographer royal, "The Stewarts' maternal forebears were seneschals in Brittany, and they were of the same ancestral stock as the earlier Merovingian Kings of the Franks, in descent from the Royal House of Judah." As his best-selling book Bloodline of the Holy Grail claims, "Their Scots lineage was of the Arimathea succession, and their Breton heritage was that of Christ himself, through the Fisher Kings." Their coat of arms contained the fleur de-lys, the Lion of Judah, and the unicorn, whose horn supposedly represented "the virile Jesus."

After the death of England's Queen Elizabeth in 1603, James VI of Scots was chosen as her closest living relative, and invited to become king over England as well. Britain was in Stuart hands until James' son, King Charles I married Henrietta Maria, daughter of French King Henri IV, and more importantly, a Catholic. Anglicans and Puritans in parliament were both enraged, and the tension that this caused resulted in civil war between the parliamentary Roundheads, lead by Oliver Cromwell, and the royalist Cavaliers, who were loyal to the king. The Roundheads won the day, and after hanging King Charles, Oliver Cromwell appointed himself as the dictatorial "Lord Protector", dissolving parliament and enacting martial law to enforce his sanctimonious rules. Cromwell died in 1658, and his son Richard succeeded him, only to be overthrown two years later by King Charles Stuart II.

 

Charles II was a popular king, and it was under his patronage that the Masonic "Invisible College" (A.K.A. "Royal Society") was formed. However, when he was succeeded by his brother, King James VII (II of England) more bad luck ensued. For when James issued his Declaration of Liberty of Conscience, granting freedom of worship to all British citizens, he was deposed by the Whig parliament and run out of town. The reigns of power were offered to his daughter, Mary, and her husband, the Dutch William of Orange. This resulted in the rise of a new, Masonically-influenced Royalist opposition known as the Jacobites (reminiscent of the "Jacobins" of the French Revolution.) Over the next several years they staged a number of attempted insurgencies on behalf of James and his successors, James Edward Stuart (The Old Pretender), and later grandson Charles Edward Louis Stuart, better known as Bonnie Prince Charlie. The latter campaign culminated in the "45" of 1745, in which Charlie's force of 2000 men won three battles in Scotland, invading England as far as Derby. They were defeated at the battle of Culloden, however, and Prince Charlie fled back to exile in France.

 

Afterwards, Prince Charlie's inheritance was said to have passed onto his brother Henry, a Catholic cardinal who died childless, supposedly ending the line of succession. This is what has gone down in history ever since. However, what has been ignored is that Charles was married at the time of his death, and had a legitimate son, Edward James Stewart, whom Charles had declared his successor in his most recent will. And over the years, the bloodline has been kept intact, resulting six generations later in Prince Michael James Stewart, who in 1976 returned to Scotland to reclaim his inheritance. Now Prince Michael and the Royal House of Stewart are making a comeback, with an independent Scottish monarchy at the forefront of their agenda. In the pages that follow, we offer an in-depth interview with both Prince Michael and his industrious American Ambassador, HE Sir Scott Stewart. The result is a startling look into family secrets that have been passed down from generation to generation, secrets which have a profound importance to humanity at large.

 

 

 

 

here is an interview with the head of the Clan Stewart.

 

http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/index.html?articles/rhs

 

bunch more stuff.

http://www.dagobertsrevenge.com/index.html?articles/rhs

[Guest guest]

sorry, i gave two links that were the same,

 

here is the interview with the head of the Stewart clan,

supposedly in the bloodline of King David, and Jesus,

the many books on this topic, "holy blood holy grail",

"the Da vinci code' etc, are all about the Priory of sion/knights templar/freemason conspiracy to install

a king of royal(holy) blood over the planet !

 

 

ther are many pretenders to the throne, according

to the authors of "holy blood,holy grail",

the knights templar were the miltary arm

of this conspiracy run by the mysterious group

of "descendents" called the "priory of sion".

 

in their book they state that there was a schism

between the priory and the knights templars

and the two groups split, with the templars

evolving into Freemasonery, and the Priory

remaining hidden.

 

here is the interview of the head family of

the freemasons.

 

 

-------------------------

 

Interview by Tracy R. Twyman

 

"Born in exile" in Belgium, 1958, Prince Michael Stewart inherited numerous titles, among them, 7th Count of Albany, Titular Prince of France and Poland, and Scots King de jure. Although his family had lived in Belgium for three generations, Prince Michael had long held a heartfelt desire to return to Scotland and become their king instead. So, at the age of 18, with the disapproval of his immediate family, Prince Michael flew to Scotland, with money he'd saved from working in an insurance firm, to pursue his dream. After a bit of a struggle, he achieved official recognition from the Westminster government as the Head of the Royal House of Stewart. Now he is the elected President of the European Council of Princes, a constitutional advisory body within the European Union. In addition, he is the Knight Grand Commander of the Chivalric Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Grand Master of the Noble Order of the Guard of St. Germain, and the Sovereign Head of Scotland's Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba. He is also the author of the best-selling book, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland.

 

DR: You've been called Prince Michael since birth, right?

 

PM: Yes, I have.

 

DR: So have you always known that you were the rightful King of Scots? Did your parents tell you that?

 

P.M.: Well, yes, I mean it's been in the family for centuries, you know, it's from generation to generation. However, when you live in Europe and you've been in exile for just below 300 years it's not something that you tend to be obsessive about. You know, there is the concept that you have to survive in 20th century history, and we've had, you know, two world wars and so forth, so family fortunes have had ups and downs, and basically it's a case of survival more than anything else.

 

DR: OK, but there has been a plan ever since Bonnie Prince Charlie...

 

PM: Oh, there's been a plan even before Bonnie Prince Charlie, there's been a plan since James VII, you know, who lost the three crowns due to the betrayal of the Church of England. Yes, I mean, we have always wanted to come back to this country.

 

DR: OK, so then I don't understand why you had to fight with your parents about it.

 

PM: No, it's a question basically of, you know, my mother had other priorities for me, like a 9-5 job kind of thing behind a desk. Mum's a strong socialist, as was my grandfather...

 

DR: Oh, so they don't even like the idea of monarchy.

 

PM: Well, they think that it's a bit of an anachronism this century. However I'm of a different kettle of fish, you know. I just don't think that particular way - notwithstanding the fact that I was born the King of Belgians, which has had a monarchy since 1831. I believe in the concept of monarchism. What my mother does not believe in is the kind of monarchism as we have in Britain. She's quite happy with the kind of monarchy you have in Europe. But bear in mind that to be a King or Queen means to lose a tremendous amount of privacy. My mother and my grandfather being extremely private people, you know, the idea of acceding to that particular status in life did not interest them.

 

DR: I see. But you had support from other members of the family?

 

PM: Yes, yes, but I must admit that, you know, we have been Belgians since 1892, so I must admit I'm the only throwback within the family thinking of himself as a purely Scottish Stewart. My mother, my father, my grandparents were born in Belgium. They are Belgians. I have never considered or termed myself to be a Belgian citizen. I personally was born in exile, which I hated, and I came back to Scotland when I became of age, and that was that, you know. I'd rather die a citizen of Scotland not on the throne than a Prince of Scotland in exile in Belgium.

 

DR: When did you get this idea in your head that you would go back to Scotland and try to reclaim the throne?

 

PM: I was five years of age at the time.

 

DR: Yeah, I remember reading that story. I kind of questioned it. It seemed like a strange thing to come out of the mouth of a five-year-old.

 

PM: Not really. (Laughs.) Not if you know anything about my family! We can be strange people occasionally. But I did make that - I tend to call it an "utteration." And basically yes, I was five when I became Head of my house, because my great uncle died in 1963, so in 1963 I then succeeded as Head of my house. And the question was being asked on my 5th birthday, and out of the blue I just answered, you know: "When I am 18 I shall leave you all to go to Scotland to live and die there", quote. Take into account that my parents had just separated. This, you know, being told by your only child that he was going to leave you when he's 18 years of age was not particularly welcome by my mother. But yes, I did make that particular comment, and when I was 18 I came to Scotland and, you know, that's it.

 

DR: I see. Well, when it was explained to you as a child, you know, who you were and what your birthright was and stuff, did they mention the connection with Jesus and the House of David?

 

PM: No, not really. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's something that many families in Europe are aware of about themselves. However, bear in mind that Europe is extremely Catholicized in any case. Even from a Protestant point of view this would still be termed heretical. It's not something that we mention to anyone. You know, it's 2000 years old, so it's pretty much in the past. We have a concept of Christianity that is very much different from the norm, that's true. None of us have ever considered the virgin birth as explained by the Roman Catholic Church to be correct. These kinds of things, yes. But then of course we do live within a Christian world, either according to the RC - Roman Church, or C of S, Church of Scotland, or whatever, you know, it's either orthodox Greek or Russian, or then it's Roman Catholic or Presbyterian or Protestant. All of them still declare Jesus to have been born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Make what you wish out of that, but frankly - (laughs riotously) - we have definite and very different views on that matter, simply because, yes, we are of that bloodline. If I had to describe Jesus to any one I would say, "Well, imagine Bonnie Prince Charlie 2000 years ago making a bid for a new kingship, and unfortunately it went astray and it didn't work." And whoever actually survived after he died - and we're not talking A.D. 33 or A.D. 37, you know, it's much later than that. Christianity was not created during the lifetime of Jesus Christ, it's after his death in A.D. 64. Actually I always say there is no such thing as Christianity. What we have is "Churchianity."

 

DR: Right. Well the Ambassador told me that this was very significant to you guys, your descent from David, because, well, he said that you considered that to be the basis of your legitimacy, kind of a Divine Right.

 

PM: Well, yes and no. I mean, I think people have to make a definite difference between, say, English Divine Right, which is totally different from the Scottish point of view. Prior to Christianity being imposed in Britain, do bear in mind that any king would have been termed a reincarnation of, you know, one of the gods that prevailed in Britain. So even before Christianity, the fact is that a king was considered to be a living god, an incarnation of a particular god, and his wife would be an incarnation of a particular goddess. The concept of Divine Right is extremely old. The Egyptians had it, the Sumerians had it, the Jews had it. Whether Jews today would admit to that I don't know, but certainly during the days of Solomon and David, all actually came upon the throne as an incarnation of something. So I wouldn't call it "Divine Right". I would simply explain it as a continuation of a concept that is older than Christianity, basically. I mean, I don't consider myself to be divine in any sense.

 

DR: All right. Well, I've read things put out, what seems like propaganda for the Grail families, where they intimate that the Grail families are special and significant because they're descendant from some intermarriage between Iraelites and extraterrestrials.

 

PM: No.

 

DR: No?

 

PM. (Laughs.) No. Whoever wrote that, take it with a pinch of salt. There is nothing extraterrestrial about us. However, we could get into the concept of the fact that all of us are made of extraterrestrial, um, how can I put it? If you think of what hits the Earth every day for the past millions of years, there are items which actually enter our atmosphere and become part of the living planet, which we eat, which we drink, whatever, you know. It becomes part of our everyday intake. Considering that this has been going on for millions of years, you can see that particular concept being understandable. But the idea of actual extraterrestrials coming down, you know, beaming down from Planet Mars and actually intermingling with earthlings, I'm afraid no.

 

DR: OK. Well I got kind of a different answer from the Ambassador. He said that "We (and I assume he's speaking for the Grail families at large) consider God to be an extraterrestrial." But again, he -

 

PM: (Shocked.) Scott said that?

 

DR: He said that, but then he kind of qualified it by saying that "we" don't imagine Him to be coming down in a flying saucer, or anything. He said that "we believe that God has both physical and spiritual form", and that he is an extraterrestrial. I really pressed this issue, so maybe I kind of forced him into saying that.

 

PM: Right. No, I would actually think that particular way. I mean, I consider God to be a universal concept, you know, it spans the universe. It is the universe, and it's not just planet Earth, it is every one of them. It is living within things, be it rocks, flowers, people, animals. It transcends everything, really. I mean, we're all part of this universal understanding which expands as the years go by. But I don't think of God as being anything more than that. I mean that is my own. I think if you were to ask 11 people in a room to actually define their understanding of God you'd probably get twelve answers. So my own is, call it the Great Architect, like the Masons do, or God, as the Church does, or whatever, however you understand God to be, that will be your God. Mine is something which actually transcends the entire universe.

 

DR: OK, yeah. I was just wondering if there was, like, a concept of God that gets taught to you when you're a member of these families, or perhaps when you join the Templars.

 

PM: Not particularly, because at the end of the day, I mean, we're all individuals, so our understanding and definition of the word God will be distinctly different from one to another. What some families have in common is a particular pedigree, which takes you to a particular man which has been defined by Church fathers as the living incarnation of God, Jehovah or Yahweh upon earth. Now neither of us see it like that. That's the way the Church perceives it, that what Paul imposed with his dogma upon the people he preached to. Bear in mind that in those days in order to become a god you had to be born of a virgin. Look at Greece, look at Rome, Babylonians, Sumerians, all of these people, the ones that became extremely popular and became heroes in their own right, you know, what historians would call mythical heroes today were all born of a god and a virgin. So that seems to have been the prerequisite thing, was to have been born of a virgin and a god. But you and I know perfectly well that all these people were born from proper human beings.

 

DR: At what age did you join the Templars?

 

PM: Well, I was born into it. There are three families in Scotland where the heads of those families are born into the Order of Knights Templar, which are the Setons, the Sinclairs and the Stewarts. We're known as "The Three Ss".

 

DR: So when you were a kid you always knew -

 

PM: Well, how can I put it? The concept of something that you inherit, you know, through the principle of heredity - it's not something you're told as a child. My grandfather, for example was a Knight Templar. It's not something that I was told: "Oh, by the way, you were born a Knight Templar." Because it never occurs to any of us to tell the successive generation. Well, some of them do. But as a rule it's something that you're born with. You know, if you have one title, you usually have about three or four titles attached to it, minor ones, that you're not aware of. That is why some people, some families, for example, get into hard times, and then they ask: "What minor titles do I have which I could sell?" And it's only in this particular fashion that they find out what belongs to them by the principle of hereditary. The concept of the Knights Templars, from generation to generation it was dictated after 1314 was that the successive head of the House of Stewart, Seton and Sinclair would be Knights Templars from birth. I'm also the 54th - 54th or 57th? I'm actually the 57th Archpriest of the Kindred of St. Columba in Scotland. It's something you're born with. You carry it from the time you're born until the time you die. It's difficult to explain if you're not part of that particular concept, which is a historical one.

 

DR: Well, how about other members of the Templars? I mean, how do you even become a Templar if you're not born into it?

 

PM: Well, basically, you're supposed to be invited to join the Order. You do have three kinds of Templars which are proper orders, which is the Order of Christ in Portugal, The Order of Our Lady of Montèzar in Spain, and then you have the Order of Knights Templar of St. Anthony in Scotland.

 

DR: And do you have to be Scottish to join?

 

PM: Not particularly.

 

DR: Of Scottish descent?

 

PM: Well, of Scottish origin, yes. And then you have pseudo-orders, which date back from, say, the 19th century, and you have thousands of those, unfortunately. And this is where the problem arises, you know, which are the true ones and which are not the true ones? The pseudo-orders are so numerous that it becomes practically impossible to extricate the right ones from the wrong ones. But certainly the Order of Knights Templar of St. Anthony in Scotland, the Order of Christ in Portugal, and the Order of Our Lady of Montèzar in Spain are the only three recognized Templar orders which have a succession going back to 1317.

 

DR: I see. Do have to be male to join?

 

PM: Not particularly. No no no no no. As a matter of fact, I'm writing my second book on the matter, it's actually on Scotland, Templars and Freemasons. And basically most people are not aware of this, and again it's the dogmatic history which has been presented by some historians to the people stating that Templars certainly had to be celibate, or at least unmarried, which is a load of rubbish, because they had lots of married Templars in the Order. The only difference was that they actually wore a black mantle with a red cross instead of a white one. That was to differentiate between the married ones and the unmarried ones. You also had women Templars who were called "Cisterciennes." And they survived well into the 14th century, so when people say to you it was a male order only, it's a load of rubbish. As a matter of fact, what the female Templars did was to take care of the education of children born to Templars, who would become Templars themselves. So there is within the Order, even in medieval days, already a kind of hereditary concept attached to it.

 

DR: Were the women initiated into the same secrets?

 

PM: I still have to find that one out. I reckon not. I reckon there was - how can I put it to you? To each organization in the world, you know, whether you are a business or political organization, you will have those who belong to the inner board and those who belong to the periphery of the inner board. And your inner board is the one that actually decides on the agenda. But you are never going to present that agenda as you people of the inner board have it in your mind. You're going to present it in some way that will be more acceptable to the rest in the group. And that's basically what happened with the Templars as well. In fact, in order to choose a Grand Master - and again, history tends to present the idea that all the knights had a say in who gets to be Grand Master, and that is quite wrong. Only 12 people had the right to choose a Grand Master, and on top of them, part of the twelve were the Grand Commanders of the Order. Now that was male only.

 

DR: If you were a member of the of the outer order, could you move up? Are there degrees?

 

PM: I suppose there were, because you keep that particular post for your lifetime. Then when you die you have to get replaced, because there can never be less than twelve people. So yes, I suppose that people could actually go up the ladder.

 

DR: And then they learn the real agenda?

 

PM: Possibly. Probably.

 

DR: And what exactly is that agenda? What can you tell me, at least?

 

PM: Well remember, you know, this is not the agenda now, because the Order as it was no longer exists. The agenda was merely to, um - OK, historically speaking, the Order of the Knights Templars existed since 1094, although you will be told 1118. So they existed before they arrived in Jerusalem. So they arrive in Jerusalem in 1099, together with Godfroi de Bouillion, and they are settled in the royal palace together with the royal family of Jerusalem, i.e. Godfroi de Bouillion and his brother, Baldwin. Now it is interesting to note that although these two gentlemen are Christian, as soon as Bouillion was declared "Advocatus", which means Guardian of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem - and it's his brother, Baldwin I who is the first King of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem - both of them actually became Jews. They converted to Judaism.

 

DR: Strange.

 

PM: Yeah. Precisely. So they actually acceded to the rulership of Jerusalem not as Christian aristocrats but as Davidic Judaic kings.

 

DR: So do you think they did that just strategically or because they had learned something that made them change?

 

PM: No, they knew who they were and at the end of the day they went back home where they belonged. And as such they decided, you know, "We're going to rule Outremer as our ancestors did", and so they became Judaic. They converted. And they became more Eastern than they were Westerners. And at the end of it the order was created as a bodyguard, both a spiritual one, i.e. Temple guard, as well as a royal one, you know, a royal bodyguard.

 

DR: For...?

 

PM: For the Latin Kings of Jerusalem. So when you look at the descendants, for example, of Hughes de Payen, who was the first Grand Master of the Order, you'll soon find out that his lineage is to the House of Brittany, which of course takes him back to the Merovingians, and hence, you know, further on down the line. And then you realize that basically what they have done is: there is a spiritual Messiah, which is the Grand master of the Order of Knights Templar, and then there is a temporal one, which is of course the Latin King of the Crusader Kingdom. So basically you're going back to the roots, where you had a High Priest, and then you had your King.

 

DR: OK, well how about the agenda of the Templars now, then?

 

PM: Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think personally that these pseudo-orders have an agenda, for the good and simple reason that very few of them understand what the history of the real Order, you know, the old, ancient order, is all about.

 

DR: But what about the ones that you consider to be legitimate?

 

PM: Well, the Order of Knights Templar in Portugal is now under the headship of the royal house of Portugal, the House of Breganza. So again it's support to the restoration of the Royal House of Breganza. The Order in Spain is under the headship of the Royal House of Bourbon in Spain, and the Knights of the Order of Templars of St. Anthony is favoring the restoration of the Royal House of Stewart in Scotland.

 

DR: OK, well, that's what I thought.

 

PM: (Laughs) You have to support your own royal families, and in Scotland, the Order of the Knights Templar was known as, um, um, hold on a minute... "The bodyguard of the Kings of Scots by day and by night."

 

DR: In Scotland, how many Scots at large do you think are aware of your claim and support you?

 

PM: Well, the book is now #2 as a Scottish bestseller, so I'd reckon quite a few, actually. And the problem that we have in Scotland, politically, is that, at present, neither the SNP or Labour Party or the non-existing Conservative Party in Scotland wish to debate the role of the monarchy in a free independent Scotland. I did a tour, a rather extensive tour of Scotland for promoting the book, and during my talk I would ask people a question, which is: "Now if we had to vote for total Scottish independence separate from England, and it's a two question bill, i.e., Republic or Windsors, what do you vote for?" And most of them said: "Oh, we'll definitely vote for a Republic." Then my question was: "Well, is that because you are Republicans?" And most of them said: "No, it's because we don't like the Windsors. They don't really belong to Scotland as such." And so I said, "OK, it's a three- question bill: Republic, Windsors, or your own Scottish constitutional monarchy?" And in all cases, or most cases, the answer that I got back was: "Well, the third option is much more interesting." Because Scotland has a monarchical history, which is much older than England in any case, we have a crown, of which people are extremely proud, and it's the oldest crown in Europe, it's older than the crown of England. And the idea of being properly, constitutionally represented, at home and abroad was much more interesting than, you know, a President. Notwithstanding the fact that, you know, I'm not saying that kings are angels. They're not. Everybody's human. But I think that with a presidency corruption at the top is much more obvious and certain than if you have proper constitutional monarchy set up in a country. I mean, at least a king, when properly drilled on constitutional matter - and this is it, you see. In Britain, when the Queen opens Parliament every year, she will read the Queen's speech. It is not the Queen's speech. It's a speech she has been given by a secretary of the Prime Minister. So it's the Prime Minister's speech read by the Queen. It's his speech. But it is not what the Queen expects from her government. It's very much what people can expect from a government which most people haven't voted for in the first place. You see? So from a constitutional point of view you also have to remember that Scotland is the oldest constitutionally-formed country in Europe. In 1320 we had the Declaration of Arbroath, which actually explains the fundamentals of civil rights and liberties of the entire Community of the Realm of Scotland. Nobody else in Europe had this, least of all England. So you have to bear in mind that from a Scottish point of view, civil rights and liberties are much older in Scotland than say, America. In fact the American Constitution is based on the Declaration of Arbroath. As a matter of fact your Constitution was actually written by Scots.

 

DR: Uh, what do you mean?

 

PM: Well, what I mean is that if you look at the history of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the Declaration of Independence of 1776, you will soon find out that actually the people involved in the writing of both documents were Scottish. They were not what you would call "American Americans." They were Scots. And basically what they did was to update a medieval constitution, the Scottish one, to an 18th century understanding of democracy, which had been taken away in Scotland in 1707. And remember in America alone you have 23,000,000 people with Scottish names today. And when you look at those people who actually fought for American independence, you will find a tremendous amount of Scots in there as well.

 

DR: So you're talking, like, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton...

 

PM: Yep, all those. Paul Jones.

 

DR: I did not know that.

 

PM: Ah, there you have it. Very few Americans are aware of their history, which is a great pity, because they will then find out very, very soon that the Declaration of Independence and the tenets of their Constitution were given to them thanks to people from Scotland who actually decided to leave. In fact, they were kicked out of Scotland after the "45." They went to America. They settled there, and then they realized: "Well, if we couldn't actually make it at home, let's make it here." You know, Washington was a direct descendant of the Royal House of Scotland.

 

DR: Huh. I didn't know that. I remember he was offered kingship and he declined it.

 

PM: That's right, and he sent a delegation to Florence, where Bonnie Prince Charlie was residing at the time and offered the crown to him.

 

DR: Yeah, I remember reading that. I just didn't know that Washington had any -

 

PM: Oh yes, he had royal blood. I mean, you know, it's far away in history, but it's there. He would have been aware of his family tree. He was extremely well-connected.

 

DR: All right. Let's go to the proposed constitution that you put in the appendix to your book. Did you come up with that all on your own?

 

PM: More or less, yes. It's an updated version of the Declaration of Arbroath. It's possibly more European than anything else as well. You know, Britain is the only country not to have a written constitution in the world. I don't think people are aware of this, but in Britain there is no such thing as a written constitution.

 

DR: Yeah. I noticed that in it you guarantee your citizens health care, and a job, and a home...

 

PM: Well it's not a question of guaranteeing a job. It actually a question of saying to the government that "Your role is to make sure that people can have a job, certainly can have a roof over their heads, and certainly can have free health care and a free education." It's a constitution about rights. It's not a constitution about privileges.

 

DR: But if you're homeless in Scotland, does that mean that once this constitution comes into being that you now have a right to a house, whereas before you didn't?

 

PM: Well, if my constitution comes into being than yes. Presently, if you're homeless, you haven't got the right to work, you haven't got the right to draw benefits, you haven't got the right to vote. In other words, you have no rights whatsoever. Now, I don't know how you feel about this, but I find it appalling that in the latter part of the 20th century - you know, we're two years away from the year 2000 - we still have people facing that situation. Notwithstanding the fact that, if you look around - and I don't know what it's like on your side of the ocean, but on our side of the ocean there are empty houses, there are empty flats boarded up that could actually be a home to a homeless person. And to my mind there is no need for people to be homeless regardless of the situation they got themselves into.

 

DR: Well, that's nice.

 

PM: Yeah, well surely that stands to reason. I mean if one believes in the tenets of Christianity in the first place, and let's face it: everyone, or at least most people in Europe will call themselves Christian. But I find a tremendous amount of un-Christian attitude, most of all from politicians. For example, in 1979 - I don't know how many people today are homeless in London - but in 1979 there were 50,000 between the age of 18-25 homeless in London, you know, below the windows of Her Majesty the Queen, and very little was done about these people. Very little is done about these people. So it's about time we get into the concept of helping, and forget about the view that if they can't provide for themselves than they are no good to anybody else. I find that quite appalling.

 

DR: On the Council of Princes, I assume there are other members of the Grail families, right?

 

 

PM: Well, there's 33 of us, you know, 33 royal houses represented on the Council. Most of us are connected to one another at one point or another. So yes, most of us are of Grail families.

DR: Do all the Grail families kind of have a common goal? I mean, do they network and collaborate together for a specific cause?

 

PM: No, not particularly. At the end of the day, the idea is that, you know, all of us should be restored to where we belong. On an individual basis it's bad enough working for yourself, never mind having to help and try to work on behalf of somebody else as well. Europe is quite a big continent, you know. So no, it's more on an individualistic basis. But at present how the Council works is as a constitutional advisory body. So think in terms of Straussburg and Brussels legislating new laws. Every country in Europe has a written constitution. Some of that legislation will impinge upon on or two or three or more constitutions, so that's what we're dealing with. We're pointing out that this particular legislation, say, would not or could not apply to either Spain or Holland or whatever because of a particular point of their constitution. Either they amend that legislation or it's the constitution of that country that has to be amended, which of course becomes a bit frightening because you can make so many amendments that at the end of the day you produce a constitution which has nothing in common with the original one. So we'd rather change the legislation in Brussels of Strausburg against changing or amending a constitution in Europe.

 

DR: On your website you have a picture of the Honors of Scotland, and the "Stone of Destiny" is there. Is that the real one?

 

PM: No. (Laughs.) No, basically what Edward I was given in 1296 was a masonry stone, i.e. it's a stepping stone. And funnily enough, we had this symposium few months ago in Edinburgh, and, you know, you had several historians talking about the Stone, and this and that, whatever. And then we had a stone mason talking about the Stone and describing the Stone, and it was extremely boring and most of us were falling asleep until the chap said (and I quote): "...but the most interesting feature about the Stone is that it's a stepping stone and you step on it with your left foot." Well, I'm not joking; all the heads - and you have about 500 people in there - all the heads, it was like an American wave literally happening there. All the heads went up. And most of us actually said or thought: "Well, if that's the case then it's not the real thing." Because it's not for stepping, it's for sitting, and you would only sit on it once in your life, at your coronation. You would never step on it. And the fact is there is an indentation showing a step, a left foot step as the chap was explaining to us. So I know for a fact that what Edward I was given was not the Stone. And let's face it: it was not used as a coronation stone with the kings of England until Henry IV acceded to the throne of England. Not before then. And it was known as the Victory Stone, not the Stone of Destiny. It was merely known in England as the Victory Stone, and it was then entrusted to the monks of Westminster to commemorate St. Edward. But not before the accession of Henry IV was the Victory Stone brought from Scotland to London used as a coronation item as we're thinking of in England.

 

DR: Well, in the book, you say that you know where the Stone is, the real Stone.

 

PM: No, what I say is that the Stone is in Scotland, and it's probably in the trust of a family or families. Again it's that hereditary thing, you know, from father to son, or whatever, from father to daughter if you have no son. But Pat Gerber, who actually wrote a book on the Stone of Destiny, tends to believe that particular concept as well.

 

DR: What's his name?

 

PM: Pat Gerber. It's a she. She actually lectures at the University of Glasgow.

 

DR: So you don't know where it is specifically?

 

PM: I think it will be produced at the right time, basically. Whenever Scotland becomes independent, and whosoever will then succeed us as King of Scots, I think that the Stone will then be brought forward. The real thing.

 

DR: Do you know about any Merovingian descendants who are trying to reclaim the throne, the French throne?

 

PM: Oh, there is Ludwig of Anjou, who lives in Spain. He actually is the rightful heir to the throne of France. You can forget about, um, what's that chap's name again?

 

DR: Pierre Plantard?

 

PM: Pierre Plantard de Saint-Claire. No no. Forget about that.

 

DR: So what, he was lying?

 

PM: Yeah, I think it was more wishful thinking than anything else, personally. Yeah.

 

DR: So you dismiss all that.

 

PM: I dismiss the Plantard claim, yes.

 

DR: And the Prieuré de Sion? You dismiss them?

 

PM: Well, there certainly was once upon a time the Order of Sion, yes. Again, that became defunct in medieval days. I'm not saying that it didn't survive in some other means. It probably did. But again, you'll find that historically speaking the Holy Blood, Holy Grail book, for example, by Michael Baigent and so forth, what they forgot to say was that it wasn't until post-WWII that all organizations had to register, whether you were spiritual organization, temple or whatever. If you were an association of any kind, after WWII you had to register. Now WWII finished in 1945 and the Order of Sion as mentioned in Holy Blood, Holy Grail did not register before the late 1950s. So you have to ask yourself, you know, considering they had to register after 1946, why did they do it in 1958? And the answer to that is that they only became an association in 1958. It was only created in 1958.

 

DR: So what we know as the Prieuré de Sion today is probably not the real Order of Sion.

 

PM: It's not really the real Order, no. I'm quite sure that within some families the concept of the Order still applies. But it will be individuals that are descended from an organization which was prevalent in medieval days. It's like the Templars. You still have many families with Templar names today in France and Scotland and Portugal and such. And their ancestors were once upon a time Knights Templar. It can be said they are Templar families. But whether that makes, in effect, a live order or not, this where I have my doubts, because most of these, if you ask them: "Do you believe yourselves to be a member of the Order of Knights Templars?", the answer to that probably would be: "No, I don't." They would say: "My ancestor was a Knight Templar, but I am not."

 

DR: Well, that's kind of disappointing. I kind of liked the idea that was put forth in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It was neat.

 

PM: Yeah, but it was too many ifs and whats, you see. That's the problem I had with that particular book. In Bloodline of the Holy Grail, we're concerned with, you know, a family tree. That's it. And of course it's a book about the history of the Church vs. the family. It's no longer ifs and whats. You've got dates, you've got names, you know, it's all there. The problem I have with claims of certain historians or researchers is what they are given, they are given this by some very weird individuals, and they tend to actually believe what they're told. I think it's very naive, personally. If Michael Baigent and Co. had actually checked the data they were given, I'm quite sure they would have thought twice before writing the book, or they would have written something in a different vein, still about this particular concept, but written differently. When the book came out, I was quite taken aback, because I thought to myself: Well, they haven't really done any research, because, they haven't really scratched the surface. In fact, they haven't really scratched at all. You've been given this data by one individual, claiming to be the head of one particular order. And they swallowed it, you know, like champagne. And it was an interesting book, but - which is why Bloodline of the Holy Grail was written, really, to put the whole thing back in perspective.

 

DR: So you would say that Pierre Plantard and friends are charlatans?

 

PM: I don't like the word "charlatans". I think, basically, like many people, he just jumped on the bandwagon. One thing you could say in your article is that Mary, Queen of Scots, for example, was very aware of her Merovingian and Davidic descent, because she actually had a book that had her family tree back to King David via Jesus and so forth. And that came from the Lorraine family, de Guise-Lorraine. And again, if you go back to The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland then you see the descent of Marie de Guise-Lorraine from the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, i.e. Baldwin II.

 

DR: I see. All right. Thank you very much.

 

PM: No problem Tracy. My pleasure.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

"The committee feels that the link between Cosa Nostra and institutions is mostly through the "Massoneria" (freemasonry):

 

The fundamental terrain on which the link between Cosa Nostra with public officials and private professions was created and reinforced is the Massoneria. The Massoneria bond serves to keep the relationship continuous and organic. The admission of members of Cosa Nostra, even at high levels, in Massoneria is not an occassional or episodical one, but a strategic choice. The oath of allegence to Cosa Nostra remains the pivot point around which "uomini d'onore" (men of honor) are prominently held. But the Massoneria associations offer the mafia a formidible instrument to extend their own power, to obtain favors and privileges in every field: both for the conclusion of big business and "fixing trials", as many collaborators with justice have revealed. "

 

Commissione Parlamentare d'inchiesta sul fenomeno della mafia e sulle altre associazioni criminali similari

(CPA: Commissione Parlamentare Antimafia)

Relazione sui Rapporti tra Mafia e Politica, Page 59

Roma, 1993

 

--------------------------

for the whole story

 

http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/mafia.html