November 06, 2011

Are We Learning Yet?

I do hope so.

Often, to know where we are going, we need to know where we've been. The wise amongst you will know that there is nothing new under the sun. We treat each other atrociously. Acts of barbarity and unimagined cruelty have been the norm since we stood erect.

That, of course, is bad enough, but when we learn that we have been bamboozled by the greedy, the corrupt, and the downright criminal, it sticks in the craw. When we learn that there really is no such thing as justice, and that the whole thing is a wheeze to extract your money, it's time to do one of two things: learn the rules of the game (for that is all it is), or give up and go with the flow. Be a good cash cow. Stay in your field, and do exactly what they want you to do. The choice was always yours to make.

I didn't like history much as a child. It was mostly dull, with dozens of even duller dates to remember for when you were tested on the subject. I wish I had paid more attention. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, as the old saying goes. Now that I am no longer a child, I can do something about my lack of attention at school. I can begin afresh. I can start learning history now, before they (TPTB) rewrite it to suit themselves.

I can think of no finer way to learn than to listen to the words of Alan Wilson. He is known as a "controversial historian", which is probably why I like hearing his version of past events. His agenda, if he has one, is to tell us what he has learnt over the years. He seems to have avoided the standard school-issue textbooks and gone directly to the source. Those thousands of dusty tomes, preserved in museums and libraries up and down the land. He knows that people like me (and possibly you) will never trawl these annals for the truth. Largely because we don't have the time. We are being taught/steered into shorter sentences. If Twitter is a guide, those who cannot condense their thoughts into 140 characters or less are dinosaurs. Texting is another way of butchering our language. Vowels are removed, it takes far too long to insert them into the words they belong in.

Alan speaks, for almost three hours, on the true history of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales. Although he has a sheaf of notes, I don't think he refers to them. An incredible feat, and a sign that here is a man who has our history running through his veins. He has some fascinating/shocking/disturbing things to say so I suggest you break up the sessions so that it takes residence in your head.

I now believe we are entering into a new phase. All around me I see signs that the slumbering giant is rousing. The Arab Spring, whilst it may be engineered, causes people (whether intended by the engineers or not) to take a fresh look at their own governments, their own treatment, their own surveillance, their own control. "They are incomparable" you will no doubt tell me, but I don't really think they are. A despot is a despot is a despot. Just because ours wears fine suits, has millions (of his own?) in the bank, and has had a "superior" education, is he (and his familiars) not capable of tyranny? 

I contend that he is. I contend that he is no better or worse than Stalin or Mugabe. To me, it's just a question of subtelty. A tyrant with finesse? Why not? He may not have slaughtered 20 million of his kinsmen, or (yet) started to print billion pound notes that will buy only a loaf of bread, but I deeply suspect that that will happen, if we stay on the course we are on now. The world is in an unholy mess, and you don't need to be a genius to know it. Stay the course, or change direction. It's a stark choice. Actually, there is no choice, not really.

The only one with the power to alter that trajectory is, unfortunately, you. I say unfortunately because you really don't want to do anything. You don't want to stand out. You don't want to draw attention to yourself. You don't want to rock any boats. It's partly fear, partly conditioning, and partly because it may well affect your ability to feed, clothe and house your families. They can make life difficult. They can ensure that you are penniless. They can intervene with your employers. They can take your freedom, and they can take your life.

And yet, I am living proof that they may also choose to ignore random, or planned, acts of rebellion. Three years on, and I have yet to see the inside of a gaol, a courtroom, or even a police interview room. I have done that thing which annoys them the most: I have withheld monies that they were certain were heading their way. Did it take the mind of a master criminal? No. Did it require acts of supreme bravery? No. Was I in harms way at any time? No. Do I feel better for it? Absofuckinglutely.

The more I learn, the more fights I want to pick. I want, and I really do mean want, to distress and distrain them in all possible ways. But even your humble and slightly thick author knows that he has to learn how to defeat them at their own game. Here's an example for you. When these bewigged peeps yell "Contempt!" at you in court, you will know how to respond. The knowledge we need is all around us. It isn't hidden, it isn't arcane (although it may be writ funny) and it is not beyond the wit of someone with a functioning braincell. Again, I offer myself as proof of this.

One thing I know for sure: people are getting as mad as hell and I don't think they are going to take it any more.

Not when they know how they are being manipulated, conned, watched, robbed, and brainwashed into thinking that this, life in 21st century Britain, is right, fair or normal.

It isn't.

But until you decide that it isn't, they will be content for you to fool yourself for another thousand years.

Your own rebellion begins with a simple little word:


What are you waiting for?



Anonymous said...

"Are We Learning Yet?"

No becacause Alan Wilson's Books are full of errors,

For a start the Greek word for Celtit

The word Celt is the Anglicised form of the Greek word Keltoi, which means "the people who are different.*" In Scripture, all nations, except the Twelve Tribes of Israel, are referred to as Gentiles (Foreigners), so the only people who are different are Israel. The word Celt is therefore another word for Israelite. The Celts are part of the Ten "lost" Tribes of Israel; as are the Tuatha de Danaan and Milesians. The Irish people are a mixture of Celts; Danaans; Milesians; Judah/Zarahites (of the "Red Hand" - Genesis 38:28-30§); (Dan-ish) Vikings and Norsemen and are all racially cousins.


The word Israel means "Champion of God" and anyone who champions the Cause of God (the Cause of Good/Go[o]d) in the world is automatically an Israelite and grafted-in (Romans 11; Malachi 4) even if they are not racially a child of Jacob's.

F***W*T TW****R said...

Great post CR and the eg is very informative.

Anonymous said...

Captain Ranty said...

Anon (14:33),

I found this:

Israel Israel

Israel is the name given to Jacob after his fight with the Angel of God (Genesis 32:28).

The meaning of the name Israel is not clear, although Israel is most likely a compilation of the verb sara (sara) and the noun el (El), the common abbreviation of Elohim.

The meaning of the verb sara (sara) is uncertain and explained in many ways, chiefly because it is limited to contexts which discuss the struggle of Jacob with the Angel of the Lord, insinuating that where our language uses the common verb 'struggle,' the Hebrew uses a word that is specifically reserved for a certain action: the action of struggling with God.

BDB Theological Dictionary reports for sara (sara) the Arabic cognate of persist, persevere, and relates it to the word sora (sora), rows, which only Isaiah uses, in 28:25. More interesting even is the word misra (misra), a unique word that probably means rule or dominion, and which Isaiah uses in the highly Messianic passage of 8:6, "...and the government is on His shoulder." Nobody knows what the root of this word is but linguists have arrived at the conclusion that it must be identical to sara, the word that gave rise to the name Israel.

It gets even better when we look at the verb sarar (sarar), meaning to rule, reign, act as prince. Derivative sar (sar) means prince, and sara (sarah) means princess and is (near) equal to the both the name of Jacob's grandmother Sarah and the root-word of Israel.

We can not say with certainty what the name Israel is supposed to mean, although it seems to reflect a certain inability of the Almighty God, namely the not being able to defeat a man like Jacob. We can be sure that God doesn't lack the physical strength to eradicate any human being, so we must conclude that the destruction of Jacob would go against the very nature of God. Perhaps the name Israel denotes God's continuous effort to keep Jacob going, even though Jacob continues to fight God.

The name Israel means God Strives (NOBS Study Bible Name List), or El Persisteth, Persevereth (BDB Theological Dictionary). BDB offers an alternative meaning of Let El Persist.

Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names, uppity as ever, renders He Will Be A Prince With God.

From here:


Celt- 1715, from L. ghost word (apparently a misprint of certe) in Job xix:24 in Vulgate: "stylo ferreo, et plumbi lamina, vel celte sculpantur in silice;" translated, probably correctly, in KJV as, "That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever." But assumed by others to be a genuine carving tool, since it was in the Bible, and adapted by archaeologists as a name for a class of prehistoric implements.

Celt Look up Celt at
c.1600, from L. Celta, singular of Celtæ, from Gk. Keltoi, Herodotus' word for the Gauls (who were also called Galatai). Used by the Romans of continental Gauls but apparently not of the British Celtic tribes.

From here:

Depends what you read and where you find it I suppose.

You say his books are "full of errors". Do you have another example?


Captain Ranty said...




Captain Ranty said...

Anon (14:39),

Thanks. I'll go watch them.


Anonymous said...

Great link Captain.

At the BCG meeting yesterday Roger Hayes said that our Common Law Courts have been abolished without our consent or knowledge and that - essentially - there is no longer any true court, only 'unlawful administrative hearings', so surely there can no longer be such a thing as 'contempt of court'? Another deception on their part?


Anonymous said...

"Israel is the name given to Jacob after his fight with the Angel of God (Genesis 32:28).

The meaning of the name Israel is not clear, although Israel is most likely a compilation of the verb sara (sara) and the noun el (El), the common abbreviation of Elohim."

EL is Hebrew for God


32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel (Champion of God): for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

"You say his books are "full of errors". Do you have another example?"

"No-one has ever understood the story of Arthur and Excalibre – the Sword of Power (Ex-calibre - without equal) that he drew from the Stone. The story is very simple and perhaps that is why no-one has ever understood it, because people always try to physicalise and humanize things that are spiritual. "He who draws the Sword from The Stone shall be king", means quite simply that he who draws the Sword of the Spirit (God’s Truth) from The Stone (Christ) will be king."

Anonymous said...

Hugely enjoyable, CR :) I have come across some of the things referred to in that video but not all of them. Now I cannot say whether Alan Wilson's work is or is not full of errors; however, at least two examples spring to mind that corroborate what he says.

Firstly, Wilson makes reference in the Q&A to an incident in the House of Commons where Paul Flynn quoted Chaucer and was interrupted by Betty Boothroyd. This actually happened, albeit in 1992 not 1987; here it is.

Flynn is recorded speaking Welsh a few years later, with another MP saying that he would “have to spell it out for Hansard” afterwards, so the rule must have changed at some point.

Secondly, one of the many writings he mentions is the letter of Honorius, “generally accepted” to refer to Britain. Wilson refers to two historians, Zosimus and Olympiodorus, saying that they did not write "Britain" or "Britannia" but "Bruttium" which is in the southern Italy.

Olympiodorus was writing just slightly after the time; his work was a history of the period c.407 up to 425. He was around during the invasions, and spent time with the Huns before going to the court of Theodosius II.

Zosimus was writing later, around 500. His work is almost entirely based on the writings of others, particularly Olympiodorus for the period concerned. The only known copy of Zosimus comes to us via our friends at the Vatican; this edition dates to the 10th-12th centuries so any older edition has been lost.

Historically, there has been a debate over what Zosimus wrote in respect of this letter from Honorius. (It appears at 6.10 of his history). AFAIK this began in the 17th century when Jacques Gothofredus published a new edition of the Codex Theodosianus.

Gothofredus also included his own commentary and references. The work is in Latin and in the passage at 11.28.7 we have: "Campaniae Tusciae Piceno Samnio Apuliae Calabriae, sed et Brittiis et Lucaniae ex omni praestationis modo..."

The key word is "Brittiis". Gothofredus posits that this refers to Bruttium, and that this is also meant by Zosimus, not Britannia.

Several centuries later this theory was purportedly becoming accepted by those studying Roman Britain. And so it was thusly "torpedoed" by Oxbridge academics, who then proceeded to rubbish any similar argument on the part of modern historians. See here for their viewpoint. And present translations stick with “Britain”, and established history continues.

Now, I don't know whether they are right, Wilson is right, or Gothofredus is right, but I do know that the word "Brittiis" is present in another work that dates from the late 4th Century, not too much earlier than Olympiodorus:

"Postea Pyrrus, coniunctis sibi Samnitibus, Lucanis, Brittiis, Romam perrexit...” (Eutropius, Breviarium 2.12, writing about the invasion by Pyrrhus of Epirus in 280BC.)

And the translation: "Pyrrhus afterwards, having united to him the Samnites, the Lucanians, and the Bruttii, proceeded towards Rome..."

So “Brittiis” = the Bruttii, and the Bruttii would be? Inhabitants of Bruttium!

Make of that what you will!

As to the new phase, CR:



Anonymous said...

Wales also adopted the Harp of David as an emblem and their national musical-instrument. Another "Sign" of the British-Hebrew/Israelite ancestry and heritage is the fact that, as in Hebrew, Berit or Brit means "Covenant" in the Welsh language.

The word BRIT-ISH is Hebrew:-

BRIT means the "COVENANT"

ISH means exactly the same in Hebrew as it does in English - that is:- "the people of..."

Therefore the BRIT-ISH are "the People of The Covenant" or "the People Israel of The Covenant."

A COVENANT is a solemnly binding CONTRACT.