Forging History: An Introduction To Declamatio, Pseudo-Archaeology, “Magic” and Propaganda

This article introduces the reader to the methods by which history has been forged (as in forgery) and scientific knowledge hidden, and gives you real examples.

– published Saturday, 14 April 2018 –


The Librarians say –

Hi there! You are currently
In the Reading Library—>
REAL History section


REAL History

Where we “lift the veil”


Correct The LIES


Reveal The Illusions

In today’s article we’ll be doing a bit of all three.


Forging History

An Introduction To –

Declamatio, Pseudo-Archaeology, “Magic” (Codes and Ciphers) and Propaganda

By Virginia McClaughry


The first thing we need to cover is what is meant by the Renaissance period.

Renaissance was a term coined by a 19th-century Swiss historian named Jacob Burckhardt. He coined it to draw attention to the Slavemasters previously created “ancient” histories. (This is typical of the British slavemasters – they do it about once every generation).

Next we should cover what was meant by the New Learning.

You can read all about this New Learning in England period (around the time of Henry the VIII when the two factions of slavemasters were having a tiff and Henry kicked out the Catholic Church) in my article: Backdated Overpopulation Myths and The Forging of The Bible.

Put simply, the term aggrandized the period of the 15th and 16th centuries as having been a “rebirth “period, a rather interesting propagandic explanation for the sudden increase of “big changes” that occurred after the emigrees had left Constantinople.

This supposed rebirth was not a rebirth at all, there were entirely NEW writings being produced that alleged a particular history of “the ancients” – such as the Romans, and especially the Greeks.

The writings and ideas of these “civilizations” were then presented as offering “meanings” that should be applied to every aspect of life — education, music, politics, painting, religion, even falling in love.

It was presented as being “new” but yet old – as in “ancient” newly revealed knowledge. It was sometimes referred to as studia humanitatis — touting it as “everything you’ll ever need to know about being human.” – which, of course, tells everyone that they now are this new thing called “human” – see how tricky that was of them?

Drawing on the previously commissioned declamatio works from the Constantinople emigres this became billed as yet again, “revealed ancient knowledge” in the later days of William Cecil, and the early days of King James I, the Brits and others referred to this as the New Learning.

Why did they call it that?

As a propaganda campaign.

As you might expect, England, under Robert Cecil and others, began having its own versions of “client” scholars with patrons paying for this propaganda, just like had happened under Pope Nicholas. We’ll be talking about some really stand-out examples of that a little later on.

Next we should cover what Rhetoric means.


What is Rhetoric?

Rhetoric was part of what was taught in “humanism” (aka the New Learning*) education during this so-called “renaissance”. Today, even a “Harvard Education” contains Rhetoric as part of its core curriculum.

One of the things that is very annoying is that historians and others just love to throwback in time the term humanism as having been invented back then, when, as a word itself? It didn’t even show up until the 1800’s or so.

First of all, as you just learned, the renaissance was about a kind of studies called studia humanitatis. The studies were of GREEK grammar, poetry, rhetoric, history, and moral philosophy. Those who taught this were called umanisti. It was in 1806 that the Germans began to refer to these studies as humanismus. By 1825, the same year as Helena Blavatsky’s cousin and uncle and formed the Russian Third section or “the Brotherhood”, the first Russian intelligence organization (it was also promoting these same “studies”) is when the word humanism was borrowed into English.

It was Felix Adler, the Jewish son of Rabbi Adler of NYC’s Temple Emanuel and very cross-connected into British intelligence “occult” operations at the time, who created the Society for Ethical Culture and brought the term humanism to the U.S in 1877. This then turned into the “Happy Human” movement complete with a philosophy etc, this despite the fact that it was never that to start with.

Dr. Adler preaches what is known in Germany as ‘Humanism’.

– New York DAILY GRAPHIC January 22, 1877.

Now let’s look at a very related point.

What does con mean? It stands for confidence.

A con-man or con-artist targets people who are called “marks”. The reason they are called confidence men (or artists) is because they specialize in creating believable lies and illusions combined with insider-knowledge of their mark to get the mark to have confidence in the con-artist.

As in trust.

A con artist works either alone or in concert with others to find ways of exploiting these characteristics in people:

  • Greed
  • Dishonesty AND Honesty
  • Vanity
  • Compassion
  • Credulity
  • Irresponsibility
  • Desperation
  • Naïveté
  • the character trait of trying to get something of value for nothing or for something far less valuable – particularly makes the person an EASY MARK.

What is the #1 thing they need to do to try and gain the “trust” and “confidence in” the con artist from the person?

Imitate the real thing.

Remember that, because the only thing that will see through them is you and your “invisible” perceptive abilities. From there, you can begin to catch them in their lies and their “confidence game”.

Ok. Now what does Rhetoric mean?

In the end, Rhetoric is just a fancy word for lying con-artist training.

Here, I’ll show you.

Rhetoric is defined as the ‘art’ or skill of speaking or writing using language that is deliberately intended to influence people to accept ideas that are not true or rational. In other words – it’s a con.

A rhetorical device (a technique) would be a particularly favored method of accomplishing this con on an audience/reader. Therefore anyone engaging in Rhetoric or Rhetorical Devices is trying to run a con on you.

Like…Declamatio authors fabricating ancient history, for example.


What is Declamatio?

Declamatio is a rhetorical device. This particular technique adopts (invents) a character of the past and further invents things said and done by the ancient fictitious character. These are FORGERIES, in other words. Sometimes they even used old paper for the forgery. (They admitted it.)

Moses and Socrates are two examples of Declamatio fairy tales. There are no ancient writings written by them in their own hand because they are fictitious characters who never really existed.

It’s funny to read what so-called “scholars” try to dream up to explain why this is all ok to do.

For example, one talks about how a Declamatio is much less of a forgery. Is that kind of like trying to say someone is much less dead as opposed to more dead?

scene from Princess Bride


Seriously. How ridiculous is this (note the fifty dollar confusing words used) –

Such works, [declamatio] therefore, are much less a forgery in the modern sense than an acknowledgement of reception and transmission, namely, a kind of coded recognition that the resonances of any sacred undertaking are intertextual, bringing the diachronic structures of time and space together in a synchronic way, and that this theological teaching, at least, is dialectically received from another. And such an author does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition.

– Editor of entry Pseudo-Dionysius in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Let me help you get past the fifty dollar words being used there and just say Ah! The lying forgers are merely Communicators of a tradition.

A tradition of lieing to us.

Now do you see why it is classified under Rhetoric?

The key point of a Declamatio story is that a writer starting in, say, the 1400’s, tells us about a person or event that allegedly happened in the distant past, without having any manuscripts that were actually written in the alleged distant past.


Aristotle the Greek sock-puppet


To think of declamatio properly – think of a sockpuppet called Aristotle, write down whatever you have it “say” and you’ll have it. There is a very real person controlling what it says, but “it” is obviously not a real person, and never will be no matter how much “it” says.

But you could have it say whatever you wanted – which happened to coincide with a lot of the British and Vatican slavemaster views.

You could have any number of sock-puppets in a Declamatio “history” book – having all kinds of conversations, and wars and parties, and just whatever you wanted them to do.


But it doesn’t make it really real, and it certainly doesn’t make it TRUE.

It should also give you pause to consider the fact that dialect “logical debate” tactics also came under this rhetoric/New Learning category. Particularly the invention of what is called the error of ad-hominem was quite self-serving in a twisted way.

Ad-hominem is about the “error” of attacking the man and not the idea.

Well now. When that “man” is a fabricated and forged figure, I’d say it’s not an error at all to attack that “man”. Why the hell are we debating mythical figures and their made-up words in the first place?, says me.

Seriously, what-the-ever-living-fuck

Are we in a permanent Star Trek fans convention? Passionately documenting and then debating the finer points of the supposed blueprints of the star-ship Enterprise and the proper way to pronounce Klingon swear words?


Extremely entertaining and a lot of fun, yea, but it ain’t history.


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Kenneth Mackenzie and Helena Blavatsky

What are some of the excuses that people use who engage in this kind of falsification of history?

First example – Kenneth R. H. Mackenzie (who called himself Cryptonymous). Kenneth was mixed up in the whole theosophy “inner circle” of combined Okhrana/Melville intelligence agent Helena P. Blavatsky. Prior to 1874, he claimed that he was “in contact, with six adepts of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Egypt” and he founded The Society of Eight, to which he only admitted “master” occultists. Kenneth was also a friend of Samuel Mathers, the future founder of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, that a young British intelligence agent named Aleister Crowley would become involved in and then create a spin-off called the Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO. In 1877, Kenneth compiled and edited a book titled: The Royal Masonic Cycloepædia of History, Rites, Symbolism, and Biography.

In the very first issue of Blavatsky’s Theosophist magazine said to be in Bombay (India) October of 1879, she wrote the following about Mackenzie’s book.

It is a noticeable fact that neither Zoroaster, Buddha, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Confucius, Socrates, nor Ammonius Saccas, committed anything to writing.

The reason for it is obvious. Theosophy is a double-edged weapon and unfit for the ignorant or the selfish. Like every ancient philosophy it has its votaries among the moderns; but, until late in our own days, its disciples were few in numbers, and of the most various sects and opinions.

She then bolsters this with agreement from Mackenzie in reference to these same “authors”, citing p. 731 of his book.

“Entirely speculative, and founding no schools, they have still exercised a silent influence upon philosophy; and no doubt, when the time arrives, many ideas thus silently propounded may yet give new directions to human thought.” – Kenneth Mackenzie

So, now, what, again, was the excuse offered for why these declamatio histories were “never written down”?

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.

Right. Sure.


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Jesuit Matteo Ricci and “Confucius”

Next example happens to be one of the very people mentioned above.


We can all thank Blavatsky for further verifying that NOTHING was ever put in writing by a “Confucius”. So, what was put in writing?

We can thank the Jesuits for that particular declamatio adventure. (see Why China Part 1 for full details.)

To the point here –

There is an excellent 1997 book called Manufacturing Confucianism by Lionel M. Jensen, which I came upon after I had already independently formulated my estimate of the slavemaster situation in China, Japan, India, in regards fabricating religions and history.

First, a word – filiation. It means: the manner in which a thing is related to another from which it is derived or descended in some respect.

Now have a look at this quote from Jensen’s book –

“…required the Jesuits to seek out what was common in the experience of two very different cultures, to locate lines of filiation. These lines were ultimately manufactured-not discovered…whose founder Ricci called “Confutious,” 1


Jesuit Matteo Ricci made it up.

Together with his Catholic convert Xu, they literally created a declamatio of Confucius right then.

Twentieth-century Jesuits have also invented a term to try and explain away just how gross what was done in China really was, they call it accomodationism.

I’ll give you a few brief examples – and it is simply astounding that universities actually teach this as somehow true – take a look at some excerpts from this description found at Indiana University about the so-called Analects of Confucious.

…thinkers encountered the teachings of Confucius through Jesuit missionaries

There it is, first came from the Jesuits – they are admitting it. That’s Ricci right here in the late 1500’s early 1600’s.

Confucius did not put into writing the principles of his philosophy; these were handed down only through his disciples. The Lunyu (Analects).

Nothing was put in writing. Blavatsky was correct. And see that “handed down” part? That’s the Catholic invented Oral Tradition excuse.

Can you guess what the excuse was, as given, for why nothing was put in writing by Confucius and why his fabrication was ok?

To the first – it wasn’t suitable for the “unwashed”.

To the second – that was the Jesuit marching orders. As Ricci put it: “entrata nella Cina“.1 That means to gain “entrance into China” they were willing to do pretty much anything in order to bring the Chinese under the thumb of the Catholic church.

So we have lies as to why there was nothing in writing, being –

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.
  • not suitable for the unwashed

In my best droll tone of voice, I think I’m sensing a theme here.

Those are then the set-up for this reason why declamatios were okey dokey to do.

  • entrata nella” – to gain entrance into


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Ancient Romans could see the planet Saturn “with the naked eye”
and yet didn’t know Saturn was a planet

The five brightest planets – Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – have been known since ancient times and can easily be seen with the naked eye if one knows when and where to look. They are visible for much of the year, except for short periods of time when they are too close to the Sun to observe.

Contradictory information based on declamatio stories about Saturn originating with Roman Catholics and British nobility – as seen in clips from “Cosmos” Season 1, Episode 7.


For much more on the topic of forgeries related to ancient astronomy, please see the separate article dedicated to that subject titled: Forging History: Hipparchus – Declamatio Lies About The Origins of Trigonometry and Precession.


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Jesuit Matteo Jean Amiot and “Sun Tzu”

Sun Tzu’s work was first published in a European language in the French translation by the French Jesuit in China Jean Joseph Marie Amiot as Art militaire des Chinois, ou recueil d’ancients traités sur la guerre on y a joint dix préceptes addressés aux troupes parl’Empereur Young-Techeng (Paris, 1772). That edition was illustrated with 33 plates. The text was first translated into English by British officer Everard Ferguson Calthrop in 1905, and by Andrew Giles in 1910.

But, just like Confucius, there are no records whatsoever proving any of it and we have the standard excuses first invented by the Jesuits and the British to cover the fact that they had literally just made it up and then “discovered” it later.

  • wikipedia – Of the military texts written before the unification of China and Shi Huangdi’s subsequent book burning in the second century BC
  • wikipedia – There are two known surviving fragments of Records manuscripts allegedly by Sima Qian

The real records having been “burned” or only existed in “fragments” excuse, which begs the question of: Well then. Just how, exactly, was such a complete record created almost two thousand years later?

Damn inaccuracies.

Then we have the Linyi Yinqueshan bamboo slips story, where supposedly the works of Sun Tzu were “discovered” in 1972 –

Probably one of the most dead giveaways that something is very wrong here with “bamboo slips” discoveries like this (and even the story of Sun Tzu at all) in a declamatio kind of way, is the utter bullshit like this (see below) trying to weave into the “Dao” and Sun Tzu, ideas that weren’t being taught until thousands of years later.

Ideas that were, however, being taught by the Catholics and the British slavemasters.

Ideas like…


Look at this from Wikipedia:

Daoist rhetoric is a component incorporated in the Art of War. According to Steven C. Combs in “Sun-zi and the Art of War: The Rhetoric of Parsimony”,[40] warfare is “used as a metaphor for rhetoric, and that both are philosophically based arts.”[40] Combs writes “Warfare is analogous to persuasion, as a battle for hearts and minds.”[40] The application of The Art of War strategies throughout history is attributed to its philosophical rhetoric. Daoism is the central principle in the Art of War. Combs compares ancient Daoist Chinese to traditional Aristotelian rhetoric, notably for the differences in persuasion. Daoist rhetoric in the art of war warfare strategies is described as “peaceful and passive, favoring silence over speech”.[40] This form of communication is parsimonious. Parsimonious behavior, which is highly emphasized in The Art of War as avoiding confrontation and being spiritual in nature, shapes basic principles in Daoism.[41]

It sounds so erudite and authoritative, doesn’t it? Too bad it’s complete bullshit.

Aristotelian rhetoric is a dead giveaway. That is tied to the Catholic liars and declamatio inventors of sockpuppets like Aristotle – which the Catholics invented. He never existed.

Remember how we talked about that rhetoric happens to first show up, in any kind of real documentable way, as part of the “humanista” aka the New Learning? Pope Nicholas V was a…no… the patron of it. That means he hired and paid writers to invent it, followed by certain British self-styled “nobles” such as the Cecils, who then imported it into England and began teaching it in previously basically nothing “colleges” like Cambridge and Oxford (about a hundred years later). See next section for more on Pope Nicholas.

– – –

Then there’s the methods they use to “date” supposed exciting! <cough> finds like the supposed writings of Sun Tzu.

Radiocarbon dating.

A discussion in On the Criteria and Methods for “Discerning Inauthenticity” In the Context of Early Chinese Texts Xi Zhu concerning what’s questionable concerning these finds made for some interesting reading. (original url retrieved September 20, 2017; entered into the internet archive Wayback Machine here.)

Let’s have a look.

Another crucial issue with radiocarbon dating concerns the sample that has been used for measurement. There are two major considerations: 1) whether the sample has been contaminated, and 2) the true relationship between the sample and other objects that were acquired at the same time.

Number 1 is obvious, but look at number 2, understanding what if someone simply planted an item or two in the same area as the find and used those to pretend an older date than it is. I wouldn’t put it past these lying history-inventors.

Now let’s look at number 1 a little closer – contamination.

First, carbon.

Pay very close attention to what I bold in this –

When using radiocarbon dating to measure the date of a sample, any addition to the sample of carbon from a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate.

The principal rule is simple: contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to contain more 14C than it originally did, and to appear to be younger than it really is, whereas contamination with old carbon, with no remaining 14C, causes a sample to appear to be older.

This means they could LIE in two different ways here. One, plant a truly old object with modern carbon and you can then alter history to discredit any ancient history theories, and two, plant a young object that has been manufactured as best could be to “be” old, then mix it with some old carbon and you can then pretend something (or someone) happened in ancient times that didn’t.

Sort of like forgery archaeology-style.

Second item – glyoxal.

These bamboo slip “discoveries” were found to have been long immersed in glyoxal (C2H2O2) which makes it impossible to get an accurate date on the slips and even makes it appear they are older than they are.

The manuscripts had been long immersed in glyoxal (C2H2O2), and were severely contaminated by it. Moreover, to completely separate the manuscripts from the glyoxal is extremely difficult. Therefore, the [radiocarbon] measured date is older [than it really is]…When the bamboo sample has been contaminated by glyoxal, according to the aforementioned rule, the measured date of the bamboo sample appears to be older since there is no remaining 14C in glyoxal.”

What is glyoxal?

Glyoxal is usually manufactured from petroleum, which does not contain 14C. So, it’s a man-made item that has been around only since its discovery in 1856. Since then it has been used as an important intermediate for many chemical applications.

We have a new “story” about how these slips managed to become contaminated with a product not discovered until 1856 that accidentally-on-purpose makes them impossible to date accurately.

Given this fact, Ônishi wonders whether the Shanghai Museum manuscripts, just like the Qin manuscripts discussed above, had also been contaminated by any petroleum products for the purpose of preservation during the manuscripts’ circulation on the antique market. If it is the case, then there is a possibility that the measured date of the Shanghai Museum manuscripts may be older than the real date. This speculation cannot be proven true or false due to the insufficiency of information provided.

In fact, among the institutes that have acquired unprovenanced manuscripts, the editors from Peking University are the only editorial group that clearly identify glyoxal as having been used to preserve the Qin manuscripts, as well as the Han manuscripts, before they were physically acquired by the university.

Notice how at this point of what we’re reading, this author appears to want it to be believed that the manuscripts therefore may be older, rather than even considering the idea that they may not be OLD at all, and in fact may be YOUNGER “planted” finds done some time in the last 100 years. Caveat: he does address this forgery idea though later on. Just not on this glyoxal point, which I think he should have.

I see it this way. There is one fact and one fact only that we can date though. By using the glyoxal. Therefore, these bamboo slips would have to have been discovered or created some time after 1856.

Under ways of preventing the accurate dating of or falsely attributing the dating of probable declamatio materials, we have:

  • use of glyoxal to prevent accurate dating

Third item – “objects found with manuscripts”.

Now we have the example of using objects found with manuscripts to try and prove their date but having no real provenance (provable history of the objects supposedly found). Think of it like a police chain-of-evidence trail.

Although manuscripts are frequently acquired together with other objects, the relationship between the manuscript sample and the other objects can’t readily be determined, since their provenance remains unknown to the public. For example, as mentioned previously, although the manuscripts and other objects were in the same lacquer box when they arrived at Zhejiang University, Cao Jinyan says he does not know whether or not they were originally kept together. Given such limited information, one cannot eliminate the possibility that the manuscripts and other objects may have come from various different sources and were later grouped together and stored in the lacquer box.


(in reference to the bolded part)

Absolutely, we definitely must not eliminate that possibility. If that’s another way they are trying to shore up their story re these Sun Tzu “manuscripts”, then it becomes even more important. Especially in light of that the glyoxal is already pointing to a forgery, and a recent one.

Moreover, even if we assume that the unwritten portion of a slip that bears writing can be dated to the Warring States period, the possibility still exists that the writing on the slip might have been scribed by a modern forger.

– On the Criteria and Methods for “Discerning Inauthenticity” In the Context of Early Chinese Texts Xi Zhu; original url retrieved September 20, 2017; entered into the internet archive Wayback Machine here.

So, now we have the lies as to why there was nothing in writing by Sun Tzu, being –

  • book burning in the second century BC
  • only fragments surviving

Now we’ll do a running list, so what we have so far is:

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.
  • not suitable for the unwashed
  • book burning in the second century BC
  • only fragments surviving

Those are then the set-up for this reason why declamatios were okey dokey to do.

  • entrata nella” – to gain entrance into
  • to teach the “New Learning” umanista, example: rhetoric using non-existent ancient figures; Aristotle and Sun Tzu


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Inventing the “Greeks” and the Vatican Library 1.1

Now let’s have a look at a condensed version of some important points from my Backdated Overpopulation Myths article.

The Vatican Library and the extraordinarily evil Pope Nicholas V.

The Greek and Latin Declamatios presenting “ancient knowledge” began under Pope Nicholas V. All of which accidentally-on-purpose tended toward legitimizing the Papal church in as many ways as they could dream up.

How did they explain where all this was coming from?

Then came the truly ludicrous cover of “discovered” or “newly retrieved” classical (Greek and Latin) texts of supposed antiquity. Forgeries, in other words. This is also when Latin really got going as a supposedly “ancient” language – it was not.

“I shall call it LATIN.”



Backdated Overpopulation Myths and the Forging of The Bible
by Virginia McClaughry; published December 17, 2014


Latin was an invented language that no one spoke but the Catholics and those they deemed worthy of knowing it.

Did you ever play a game with your friends, when you were little, where you spoke in “pig latin” or a lesser known one called “gobbledygook”? If you did, then you know what I’m going to say here. For those who didn’t, let me explain.

Pig Latin consisted of taking the first letter of a word, adding “ay” to it then putting all that at the end of the original word. For example the word work would be said orkway (keeping the “er” sound of the “or” in work intact). The word go would become ogay. Gobbledygook was a bit more complicated sounding and required more thought to “translate”. It was based on inserting “thgo” inbetween the first letter of the word and then also between each syllable. So, the word work would be said as wthgork. Again, keeping all the original vowel-sounds appropriately. A two syllable word like giving would be said as gthgiv-thging. A three syllable word was considerably harder. For example beautiful would be said as bthgeau-tthgi-fthgul.

Yea. I actually learned both of those. (Ha) When I was 7 or so.

You can see how something similar is probably what happened with the invention of Latin. When was it invented? I’d say prior to Nicholas V, but not by much.

You could very accurately say that the creation of Latin formed one of the first Catholic codes. It was meant to keep knowledge away from – for the same reason as Blavatsky, the Jesuits etc. said – the “unfit”. It was also to hold a false superior power over the people.

A later declamatio author who we will be covering was Robert Fludd and his paid compatriot Michael Maier. Maier said that in “ancient times” secret colleges existed to perpetuate studies in medicine and science. What was (and still is) the primary language used for the nomenclature (special words) of those two subjects?

Yep. Latin.

When was the Vatican Library actually created – the “authentication” point that contained most of these forged manuscripts and books – all the alleged nine thousand of them?

Under Pope Nicholas V within two years of the Fall of Constantinople.


When it comes to the believability of “authentication” from the people (like the Pope) hiring most of the work – I feel like Jackie Gleason (on the right) in this hilarious scene from The Honeymooners

aliens - right

Remember when we talked about “humanista” aka the New Learning? Nicholas was a…no… the patron of it. That means he hired and paid writers to invent it!

He used the “humanism” movement for the cultural aggrandizement of the Christian capital, Rome!

He actually sent recruiters to Constantinople to hire Greek “scholars” for his own purposes. An example is Lorenzo Calla (one of many) whom he paid to “translate” supposed Greek histories (and other supposedly ancient histories) into the newly created language – Latin.

One of the things that also was begun under Pope Nicholas at this time, was a centuries long black propaganda campaign against the Sunni Islamites who had taken Constantinople. On a (perhaps) more serious note, the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople (1453) is a prime example of history as written by the losers. These emigrees coming into Europe wrote deliberately exaggerated tales of Ottoman brutality.

Note: It was called the Ottoman Empire because of Osman I. His father, backed by the competing (and still hidden) Nesilim faction, was Ertugrul, and he arrived in Anatolia from Turkmenistan with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks against the Roman Catholic Church territory of the Byzantines.(The Nesilim had been well known for their horses – training etc.) The Seljuks was actually where the double-headed eagle symbol of the Nesilim showed up again in Turkey after long being dormant.


Osman I then pushed the frontiers of Turkish settlement right up toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire, his people ultimately taking the capital Constantinople in 1453.

One of the more vicious propaganda – a total case of the pot-calling-the-kettle-black – were the tales of atrocities such as slavery in Constantinople. The Catholics were trying to promote a “we would never do that” position.


Not true.

Let’s further establish the actual character of these Popes, minus the PR bullshit.

Starting with Pope Eugene IV, who was Pope Nicholas V mentor. Eugene was an extremely corrupt man who lived a life full of sadistic debauchery.

Strike one.

It was under Eugene that the European slave-trading of Africans began with “fees” enriching the Catholic Church, utilizing the Portugeuse as the slave-traders.

capturing african slaves

It was in 1441 that the Portuguese captains Antão Gonçalves and Nuno Tristão captured 12 Africans in Cabo Branco (modern Mauritania) and take them to Portugal as slaves.

By 1444, the Portugeuse had formed a company for human-trafficking of all the enslaved Africans. The company was founded by Lançarote de Freitas, a tax-collector from the Portuguese town of Lagos. On 8 August he landed 235 kidnapped and enslaved Africans in Lagos, this was the first large group of African slaves brought to Europe.

Strike Two.

Pope Eugene became ill from sexual diseases, and died. Ole chaste and pure Pope Eugene died of sexual diseases. And how did he come by those, exactly, hmm?

Strike three.

It was as he lay dying that he nominated Cardinal Piccolomini (Nicholas V real name) as his successor. In March 1447 he was elected Pope.

I think this picture of Eugene IV’s nephew goes a long way to showing just how icky these people were.

eugene IV nephew PietrobarboNote the mega-Nesilim nose he’s got going.
(See book The Reckoning, Chapter Two Actual Jewish and Christian History)

Just a year before the Fall of Constantinople, Nicholas was the man who actually legalized the enslavement of African “infidels” with profits going to the Catholic Church.

Piles and more Piles of Gold for slaves.

Nicholas issued Dum Diversas (English: Until different) on 18 June 1452. It authorized King Alfonso V of Portugal to basically “attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found.” He also said that they should be reduced to “perpetual slavery” ( perpetuam servitutem ). What this means is – ANY non-Christians were now reduced to the status of slaves.

The Pope then proceeded to enrich himself and the treasury of the Church through this sanctioning of slavery by the creation of the ‘sugar-slave complex’. Sugar is first planted in the Portuguese island of Madeira and, for the first time, African slaves are now forced to work. They were taken to these plantations on a work-or-die mandate.

Two years later, on January 8, 1455, Nicholas issued Romanus Pontifex. It basically repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples deemed infidel and pagan, but buried in the sub-text was literally a sanctioning of the purchase of black slaves from “the infidel” – meaning the Ottomans who had just taken over Constantinople.

In other words – the slaver is going to buy slaves purely to keep the other slavers from having them to enrich their empire, is what this boils down to.

What did he offer up to his fellow Catholics as the excuse?

“… many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been … converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.”

One cringes to think just what that “conversion” process consisted of, but notice that part about “at least the souls of“. Do you understand what he is saying there?

Convert or DIE.

That’s right up there with work or DIE.

It most certainly was not “Christ” he was looking to “gain” those poor slaves for nor did he give a fig for their “souls”.

It was power and money, plain and simple, that he was after. He was trying to shore up that faction of the Nesilim – the Catholics – and their insane world-domination plans.

This is all why he was (and still is) referred to as slavemaster. Literally and figuratively.

In modern parlance –

He was a human-trafficker.


As you can see, this man has no room whatsoever to be complaining about the “atrocities of slavery” in the paid-for propaganda he insisted be created and put out about the Ottoman Empire.

We’ll call that strike one against any credibility for anything this man did or oversaw. Ever.

Pope Nicholas V was deeply involved in searching for “ancient” knowledge of black arts – which means occult. There will be more on this later, but that did NOT mean “magic”. It means he was looking to try and give himself supposed “super powers” by using astronomy and knowledge of other sciences. It also means that he was also looking for new and unusual ways of torturing “non-believers” and enemies.

This was the man who started the whole St. Francis of Assisi hoax, saying that he had a “vision” from God about him. How convenient, right? Yet again trying to establish his “personal line to god.”

Hypocritically speaking, while he’s claiming a telepathic line to a non-existent “god”, he was having his Dominican Inquisitor Nicholas Jacquier “confirm” witchcraft as heresy in Flail Against the Heresy of Witchcraft thereby justifying European witchhunts. This began the burning of over 200,000 people over the next two hundred years – mostly women – on the charge of Witchcraft.

Let’s take a little side trip here and look at some of the results following Nicholas V’s leads here, that we have established so far, starting with targeting “witches”.

The latin name of this book is Flagellum haereticorum fascinariorum and it doesn’t show up in any visible printed edition until more than a hundred years after it was written.

Here’s the 1581 printing of the book  –

It is referred to as an editiones princeps.

What does that mean?

It means, roughly, the first printed edition of a work that previously had existed only in manuscripts, which could be circulated only after being copied by hand. Which leads to another well-known historical fact, the biggest historical fictions ever, particularly the Greek ones, are also referred to as editiones princeps – meaning they were now printed – in the years on either side of the year 1500, under the reigns of Nicholas V and his successors Popes Calixxtus, Pius II, Sixtus IV and Alexander (the Borgia). Sixtus IV is who oversaw organizing all those nice declamatios and completely fabricated histories (begun under Nicholas) into what was now termed the Vatican Archives.

It is Sixtus IV, that basically can be credited with finishing carrying out Nicholas V’s plan. Sixtus, a fairly blatant homosexual, was right up there with Nicholas V as to his level of corruption. Deeply into the occult, trading favors for sex with young (very young) boys, nepotism, this guy was a real sweetheart.

Note the prominent Nesilim nose, first seen in Edgar Banks’ Bismay temple statue find.


Sixtus was very much following in Nicholas V’s footsteps, and it was him that instituted the Spanish Inquisition. On 1 November 1478, Sixtus published the papal bull Exigit Sincerae Devotionis Affectus, through which the Spanish Inquisition was established in the Kingdom of Castile.

Three years later, showing his strong support of psycho Nicholas V, Sixtus re-confirms the two infamous papal bulls instituting slavery and human-trafficking as a method of increasing COMMERCE – as in money for them. Sixtus put out papal bull Aeterni regis of 21 June 1481. He needed money to build all those ridiculous edifices trying to make Rome look like it was ‘God’s city”.

See that Nesilim nose?

You know…

I feel it must be said, that I don’t give a good goddamn if this man arranged for sixteen “sistine chapels” to be built.

He paid for it on the backs and blood of innocent humanity and that should never be forgotten.


He was a monster.

Enslaving humanity to use as bargaining pieces and commodities, as well as attacking “unbelievers” – especially those who knew these sick men were completely lying about history and just about everything else – was clearly continuing on in just a grand way with Sixtus. Along that line, another book shows up as actually having been created under this man – Sixtus IV – a famous one. Or should I say infamous

I am referring, of course to The Witches Hammer.  The paid for work on it, aka patronage of German inquisitor Heinrich Kramer, began under Sixtus IV but it was not finished until 1486 and not printed until 1487, just after Pope Innocent VIII took over from Sixtus. Innocent was a very (very) enthusiastic supporter of this type of over-the-top suppression.

The full Latin title is MALLEUS MALEFICARUM, Maleficas, & earum hæresim, ut phramea potentissima conterens. Translated into English roughly as: The Hammer of Witches which destroyeth Witches and their heresy as with a two-edged sword

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


It educates you that Witches entered into a pact with Satan to allow them the power to perform harmful magical acts, thus establishing an essential link between witches and the Devil. In a nutshell, the basic conclusion in the book, is that witchcraft must be real because….well, because the Devil is real.

So now, right in the middle of when Kramer was still working on this opus about these nasty “witches” – what do we see?

At the “request” of Catholic Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer – saying it’s his “request” is just a way of making it all his fault rather than the long line of popes supporting this since Nicholas V – within only 3 months of Innocent assuming the papacy, he issued a papal bull known as Summis desiderantes (5 December 1484) which supported Kramer’s investigations against magicians and witches.

“It has recently come to our ears, not without great pain to us, that in some parts of upper Germany, […] Mainz, Koin, Trier, Salzburg, and Bremen, many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting […]”


They were using the excuse of what was called the Little Ice Age, Europe was under the grip of freezing weather, failing of crops, rising crime, and mass starvation, and they used that in order to target certain men and women.

Why, really?

The bottom line, and not really known by many, is that this was all because men and women of good hearts and minds were exposing the paid-for-declamatio work and false history and the attempts to hide the origins of actual math and science and turn it into fairy tales, codes, and allegory. All of which these Popes were then aggressively engaged upon doing.

Note: When Kramer completed his work in 1486, before printing he appended the letter of Innocent VIII, which was not technically – and that’s important to these liars who consistently try and escape accountability – an approval of the book to which it was appended, but it was a charge to inquisitors to investigate diabolical sorcery and a warning to those who might impede them in their duty, that is, a papal letter in the “by then conventional tradition established by John XXII and other popes through Eugenius IV and Nicholas V (1447-55).

Pope Innocent VIII

It was that same year that the Witches Hammer came out, 1487, that Pope Innocent confirmed Tomas de Torquemada as the Grand Inquisitor of Spain, a role in which he has become infamous.

Note: Innocent VIII died on 25 July 1492 leaving behind him two illegitimate children born before he entered the clergy. In 1487 he married his elder son Franceschetto Cybo (d. 1519) to Maddalena de’ Medici (1473–1528), the daughter of Lorenzo de’ Medici, who in return obtained the cardinal’s hat for his thirteen-year-old son Giovanni, later Pope Leo X.

In other words, this man facilitated the rise of the Medici’s too.


Under another Nicholas V successor, Pope Alexander VI, a very key declamatio work came out (see Hipparchus article) Pliny’s Naturalis Historica, which is bad enough as an event all on its own but it should also not go unremarked that this Pope who supported the printing of this book? Had also re-confirmed slavery.

What a Nesilim nose that is. Wow. Anyway…

Pope Alexander was asked by the Spanish monarchy to confirm their ownership of the newly found lands by Columbus (1492 expedition). Pope Alexander then issued several bulls: Eximiae devotionis (3 May 1493), Inter caetera (4 May 1493) and Dudum Siquidem (23 September 1493), granting rights to Spain exactly like those Pope Nicholas V had previously conferred with the bulls Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas.

More slavery. Great! (sarcastically speaking)

These are some of the results of the aggressive lead set by Pope Nicholas V – he was extremely interested in looking for ways to control the minds and the bodies of men, and fabricating a supposedly rich and full history for themselves (these Catholic Nesilim) – all of which was definitely a large part of his interest in creating this “library”.

– – –

Back to Nicholas V now –

After merrily consigning 3/4 of the human race to slavery and starting a rampage against all intelligent, beautiful, and able women everywhere, Nicholas hires his army of declamatio writers to create his “history” for him. Then he founded this library of nine thousand volumes of whatever they had produced for him.

You probably won’t be too surprised, at this point, to know that one of the shore stories was that these “ancient” manuscripts had been “rescued” after the fall of Constantinople (which was in 1453).

Once the initial forgeries had been created, codified, cross-related (details are important to a con, you understand) about 50 years after Nicholas V, in 1494 Venice’s Aldine Press started rolling off editions of all the “great Greek authors” (like the fictional Aristotle and the “newly discovered” Plato) for libraries across Europe.

That happened just after slavery took over from psycho-dog Pope Innocent VIII and was the next stage of this long project – beginning with Nicholas V – to forge history. Remember, the codifying of them in the Vatican Archives, a highly secretive institution, was carried out by Pope Sixtus IV.

It was these initially finalized declamatio forgeries, now being printed off  that would form the real backbone of the undeservedly famous Vatican Library founded by Pope Nicholas V – a little known fact.

So, now you know when they started doing this whole declamatio ancient texts crap, and why no one should give a good god-damn what is in the Vatican library or the Vatican Archives because they forged probably 90 percent of it!

A little over a hundred years later, all this Declamatio action was still going, only now they needed to start spreading it around even more as part of taking over larger areas – geographical – of humanity.

By 1577, Pope Gregory XIII established the Collegio Pontifico Greco in Rome to “receive young Greeks belonging to any nation in which the Greek Rite was used”, and also for Greek refugees in Italy as well as the Ruthenians and Malchites of Egypt and Syria. The construction of the College and Church of S. Atanasio, joined by a bridge over the Via dei Greci, was begun at once.

These young men were made to study the “sacred” sciences (meaning fictional histories and Catholic propaganda) in order to spread it among their fellow-countrymen to facilitate the reunion of the schismatical churches.

They were using them as agents, in other words.

Their first goal was teaching certain Europeans Greek, so that the spread of propaganda could begin.

Some of those went over to England bringing, you guessed it, the New Learning.

And so Britain, with Cecil at the behind-the-scenes helm began playing along, even educating/grooming Queen Elizabeth in this way.3

Alright. So the excuse for all this was: to facilitate the reunion of churches.

So, now we can expand our list of reasons given why declamatios were okey dokey to do.

  • entrata nella” – to gain entrance into
  • to facilitate the reunion of churches.
  • to teach certain Europeans Greek

and add to our list of reasons of why nothing in writing by these “ancient figures” ever existed before this time.

  • “rescued” “ancient” manuscripts from after the fall of Constantinople.
  • “discovered” or “newly retrieved” classical (Greek and Latin) texts of supposed antiquity

But as you might have picked up on already, that rather tends to conflict with these already running lies as to why there was nothing in writing at all before.

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.
  • not suitable for the unwashed


Now we’ll update our running list, so what we have so far is:

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.
  • not suitable for the unwashed
  • book burning in the second century BC
  • only fragments surviving
  • “rescued” “ancient” manuscripts from after the fall of Constantinople.
  • “discovered” or “newly retrieved” classical (Greek and Latin) texts of supposed antiquity

Those are then the set-up for our expanding list of reasons why declamatios were okey dokey to do.

  • entrata nella” – to gain entrance into
  • to teach the “New Learning” umanista, example: rhetoric using non-existent ancient figures; Aristotle and Sun Tzu
  • to facilitate the reunion of churches.
  • to teach certain Europeans Greek


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Inventing the “Greeks” 1.2
The “Flood” story; The Bible


WHY WHY WHY - Star Trek

Why do these people always insist their invented claptrap is ancient?


I am going to provide you a highly condensed version of what I cover in my article Backdated Overpopulation Myths and The Forging of the Bible as a perfect example of the total circle-jerk that goes on with supposed “ancient Greek” figures and history.

Let’s review that the key point of a Declamatio story is that a writer starting in, say, the 1400’s, tells us about a person or event that allegedly happened in the distant past, without having any manuscripts that were actually written in the alleged distant past.

What I’m about to show you is literally like reading Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy2 and acting like a Star Trek fan about all its genealogical tables and personal histories and intertwining characters. An excellent example is the later published Tolkien-world companion book Silmarillon. It is billed as: “the primary source for Middle-earth’s ancient history and the First Age, and for the downfall of the kingdom of Númenor.

Watch what happened when you read that quote, particularly if you are not familiar with Jesuit-trained Tolkien. See how it sucked you in immediately with the what’s Middle-earth and the First Age? and what’s Númenor? questions immediately forming in your mind?

It makes you feel like you are missing something, like you are “out-of-the-loop” on some insider knowledge here. But, what happens if you try to go and find out what, who, when?

The kind of explanation you get is this:

The Silmarillion is comprised of five parts:

  1. The Ainulindalë – The creation of (Tolkien’s universe) and Ainur by Eru Ilúvatar and the start of the corruption of Melkor. (Quenya; IPA: [ˈe.a]) is what would become the Quenya term for the whole universe of J.R.R. Tolkien‘s Legendarium, as a realization of the vision of the Ainur. It literally means “be” or “exist”. Middle-earth is a continent on the planet the Elves call Arda (i.e. Earth), while refers to the entire universe that Arda is in.
  2. The Valaquenta – A brief description of the Valar and Maiar, the supernatural beings
  3. The Quenta Silmarillion – The history of the events before and during the First Age, which forms the bulk of the collection
  4. The Akallabêth – The history of the Second Age
  5. Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age

This five-part work is also known as Translations from the Elvish.

Within this Tolkien-world, there is also Melkor (patterned on the “devil”) and Eru (patterned on “god”) who created the Elves and special people (the Ainur) directly from his thoughts.

Ah! But the Ainur tried to make “dwarves” but could only make their shape and they couldn’t make life, so “consciousness” had to be given to them by Eru.

More things and people you don’t know and don’t really need to, but this should also be starting to sound vaguely familiar. As in – the biggest assortment of bullshit Declamatio of all time, the Bible.

This Simarillon detailed story, just like the Bible and just like “ancient Greek history”, sounds so authoritative that it’s almost intimidating, right?

That’s the point.

When you attempt to point out similarity to someone who is a bible-believer, what is absolutely fascinating is that besides calling you names, they respond with supposed counter-arguments from within the Tolkien-like maze of fiction called – The Bible – and act like that is proof of something (as this recent discussion5 a friend of mine had with some extremist bible-believers satisfactorily demonstrates).

I want you to keep this all in mind as I take you through something that looks and makes you feel just like you’re submerging into Tolkien-world. Maps, language, histories of figures, etc. etc.

The absolutely horrifying difference is – this is what humanity has been told is ACTUAL HISTORY.

Two myths (posing as history) actually go with each other – “the flood” and “overpopulation” named as the cause. The Greek myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha is supposedly the oldest source that the flood story comes from.

A fairly standard description trying to tell us the source of the Deucalion flood myth, goes something like this:

The much later Pausanias, following on this tradition, names Deucalion as a king of Ozolian Locris and father of Orestheus. Plutarch mentions a legend that Deucalion and Pyrrha had settled in Dodona, Epirus; while Strabo asserts that they lived at Cynus, and that her grave is still to be found there, while his may be seen at Athens; he also mentions a pair of Aegean islands named after the couple….The 2nd-century writer Lucian gave an account of the Greek Deucalion in De Dea Syria

We’ve got four “people” listed as sources or references here for Deucalion and Pyrrha. The four people are Pausanias, Plutarch, Strabo and Lucian. Each one immediately is crossed into an entire network of “people” supposedly further sourcing the story.

Just like Lord of the Rings does.

Watch what happens when you start trying to follow them down the proverbial rabbit hole of bullshit here.

Pausanias – flood story source alleged to have been written about by Berossus. The only manuscripts of Pausanias are three 15th-century copies which, of course, don’t appear at all anywhere until 1485. Any originals are “lost”.

1485, Pausanias “Description of Greece”, Laurentian Library.
image from Delphi Complete Works of Pausanias


Fictional Pausanias Network
– Any originals are “lost”. Alleged “verifier” of Pausanias and flood story. Only two “excerpts” are said to be around, supposedly contained in the Chronological Canons of Eusebius** Late 1400’s.


Fictional Secondary Pausanias/Berossus Network
**Eusebiuskey figure – Any originals are “lost”. Alleged “verifier” of Berossus and Pausanias and his flood story. Supposedly reconstructed from later chronographists of the Byzantine school who made excerpts from the work, especially George Syncellus. Some parts supposedly completely preserved in a Latin translation by Jerome.The “Byzantine” school are the declamatio/forgers that came from Constantinople. Late 1400’s. Corollary “evidence” of Eusebius’ writings included utilizing more back-dated and fictional characters such as Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, as well as “jewish” writings.

Fictional Secondary Berossus/Eusebius Network
Syncellus* – Any originals are “lost”. Alleged “verifier” of Eusebius and the flood story. His work supposedly continued after his death by his friend Theophanes (also fictional). Anastasius, the Papal Librarian, composed a Historia tripartita in Latin supposedly taken “from the chronicles of George Syncellus, Theophanes Confessor, and Patriarch Nicephorus.” It’s actual title is: Chronographia tripartita supposedly published in 1649 but as listed in an 1837 sale.

*Fictional Syncellus Secondary Supporting Network of Berossus/Eusebius
Anastasius – the Pope’s librarian/archives person who supposedly lived around 810 AD. Any originals are “lost”. Alleged “verifier of Syncellus, Theophanes and Nicephorus and their quoting of Berossus/Pausanias flood story. Alleged to have composed Chronographia tripartita in Latin “based on” Syncellus, Theophanes and Nicephorus, published in 1649 (as listed in an 1837 sale). A “first” printing date 800 years after the fact of this alleged “compiler” that included Berossus flood story, and it had been done right in the middle of the British/French big spate of “copies” of the early declamatios (plus declamatio-ing the declamatios that was going on at that time as well)
– Any originals are “lost”. First shows up in 1655.
Nicephorus – Any originals are “lost”.

Reference – Catalogue of Printed Books and Manuscripts in Various Languages, Now on Sale by Payne and Foss.

**Jerome – Key figure – 4th-century Christian author alleged “verifier” of Eusebius as source of Berossus/Pausanias flood story. Supposedly “preserved” parts of Eusebius work in a “Latin translation” called Chronological Canons. Late 1400’s. One thousand years later. This book coming out in the late 1400’s is called a “continuation” of Jerome, and allegedly quotes and translates from the Greek “Berossos’ Babyloniaca” any originals of which are “lost”. Within the Chronological Canons we get Eusebius’s supposed Book 2 as the source describing the history of the Babylonian kings from creation till Nabonassaros (747-734 BC). How is that sourced? A whole new sub-network of declamatio figures.

**Fictional Jerome Secondary Supporting Network of Eusebius and Pausanias
Eusebius reports that Apollodorus reports that Berossus recounts that there were 432,000 years from the first king, Aloros, to Xisouthros (aka Noah) and the Babylonian Flood. Jerome is also said to be the source quoting the George Syncellus network.

Lucian – alleged “verifier” of Pausanias. Said to have lived in A.D. 125-180, but the only “selection” of his works came out in Florence in 1499 – fifteen hundred years later. Any originals are “lost”.

Beginning to see how this game works?

Total round-robin with NO actual documents by ANY of them.

Since Berossus and Jerome are the two main sources these are all revolving around, I think we’ll look at those two just a little closer now. With Berossus we are also told that he has an “account” of creation, the flood and the tower of babel in his book The History of Babylon.

But the same source says: “We have no extant manuscripts of Berossus book…However, several others quote from him in exerts from his book. This is the only evidence we have of Berossus’ work. Georgius Syncellus quotes from Eusebius [325 AD] who quotes from Alexander Polyhistor [50 BC] who in turn was quoting Berossus who wrote in 380 BC. This is typical of how ancient writings have come down to us.

Giving us a new excuse for the entire Berossus fictional network about this flood story that finds its way into – The Bible.

  • No documents, no sources quoted in a round-robin of declamato characters = “This is typical of how ancient writings have come down to us.

OK. Now test yourself.

Using what you now know, look at this example where the writer tries to establish the credibility of the story. This is written by one of those false conspiracy writers, who, while supposedly exposing the slavemasters, in reality they are actually spreading their propaganda for them!


In 280 BC, Berossus wrote Babyloniaca (History of Babylonia)

Berossus records a creation, flood and tower of Babel story. More importantly, he states that the location of Noah’s ark was known and that people climbed Mt. Ararat to collect bits of wood to be used as lucky charms to ward off evil. Quoted by Abydenus (200 BC), Apollodorus (160 BC), Alexander Polyhistor (50 BC), Josephus (110 AD), Georgius Syncellus (800 AD), Eusebius, (325 AD) it shows that Noah’s ark a historical fact since many people had seen it with their own eyes.


So how’d you do?


I think that one is one of my personal favorites, because the ignorance and sheep-like mentality is just so spectacularly visible. The author lists off even more declamatio authors, and then obviously because of the sheer number of “individuals”, we are supposed to make the incredibly illogical leap to that “many people have seen it with their own eyes.”



But, you see what has happened here, these things were created purely in order to get exactly that kind of response from it’s intended “victims” so to speak – the shall I hang myself for you, Master? crowd.

I swear though, this whole Flood story business is worse than the “telephone game”.

Try this one on for size now.

Look at this websites version of things (archived here) starting with some similarly incredibly bad logic conclusions.

Berosus is quoted by a number of sources, including the following:Abydenus, a disciple of Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and scientist of the 4th century BC. In that case, being younger that Aristotle, he must have been a contemporary of Berosus. His original writings have not survived, but he is quoted by Eusebius and Syncellus.

Apollodorus, 2nd century BC. He was a student of Aristarchus of Alexandria, but he left that city about 146 BC, perhaps for Pergamon, and then he went to Athens. His original writings have not survived, but he is quoted by Eusebius and Syncellus.

Alexander Polyhistor (c.105 – 35 BC), Greek philosopher, geographer and historian. He was imprisoned by the Romans in the war of Sulla against Mithridates of Pontus and brought as a slave to Rome for employment as a tutor. Then he was released and lived in Italy as a Roman citizen. His original writings have not survived, but he is quoted by Eusebius, Syncellus, Josephus, Atheneus and Clement of Alexandria.

Flavius Josephus, the Jewish priest and historian (37/38 – 100 AD). Quotes from Alexander Polyhistor.

Athenaeus (fl. 200 AD). Greek grammarian and author. Quotes from Alexander Polyhistor.

Clement (c.150 – c.215 AD). Bishop of Alexandria. Quotes from Alexander Polyhistor.

Eusebius Pamphilius (264 – c.338 AD). Bishop of Caesarea. Quotes from Abydenus, Apollodorus and Alexander Polyhistor.

Syncellus (early 9th century AD). Byzantine monk and chronographer, otherwise known as “George the Syncellus”. Quotes from Abydenus, Apollodorus and Alexander Polyhistor.

Note: It’s possible that Syncellus might have been quoting from Eusebius on some occasions, rather than directly from Abydenus and Polyhistor, but generally there are three generations of documents. The first generation is the work of Berosus himself, the second is Abydenus and Polyhistor, and the third is Josephus, Athenaeus, Clement, Eusebius and Syncellus.

For the authentic citations, see the original 1828 version of Cory’s Ancient Fragments (1), and the 1876 update by Richmond Hodges (2).

Ooh! Look at all those sources…it must be true then, right?

Were you impressed?

Nah. You’re getting too smart for that now.

It’s fun though, to look it over again and notice that as usual every single one of the main “sources” had this declaimer:

“His original writings have not survived…”

with the excuse of:

but he is quoted by…


Giving us a couple new excuses to add now.

  • “His original writings have not survived…” excuse of: but he is quoted by…

This author wasn’t done yet though.

Check out this section where the author tries to explain where all the documents went.

Where Have all the Documents Gone?

The three books of Berosus, together with the early citations, have disappeared through the ravages of time. The precise circumstances of their loss is not known, but historians are well aware of the processes by which books can become lost. These include war, fire, flood, failure to make copies, failure to preserve the existing copies, and worst of all, lending them out and never getting them back.

What’s missing from the list?

That they never existed.

That’s why there are no works.

Funny how that truth just doesn’t seem to make the list.

But now we have some more neat excuses for why there are no documents.

  • “…war, fire, flood…”
  • “failure to make copies, failure to preserve the existing copies, lending them out and never getting them back.”
  • “…disappeared through the ravages of time.”
  • “The precise circumstances of their loss is not known”

The same author very happily references the following two books as somehow “solving” the issue of a complete lack of provenance for any of these sources.

  1. Cory, I.P., The Ancient Fragments; containing what remains of the writings of Sanchoniatho, Berossus, Abydenus, Megasthenes, and Manetho; William Pickering, London, 1828. Facsimile reprints from Ballantrae, Ontario, Canada.
  1. Hodges, E.R., Cory’s Ancient Fragments, A New and Enlarged Edition, Reeves & Turner, London, 1876. Facsimile reprints from Ballantrae, Ontario, Canada.

You will notice they are both from the 1800’s, which I have already mentioned is the second biggest period of mass push of all these allegedly “ancient” authors. And…they are both from two British propagandists with ties to Oxford and Cambridge.

What a surprise. sarcasm

I guess we’re just supposed to be suitably impressed, today, by the resounding titles and semi-ancientness of the two books?

Enough to not pursue it further, perhaps?

Well, forget that.

Devolving to British authors just makes me interested in who are these two blowhards? This isn’t the first time that I have seen them referenced, and my guess is that they were (and still are) being used to attempt to establish the image of the wonderfulness and enlightenment of “english scholars”.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t just fall right into divine worshipfulness of the Great God Scholar at the moment.

Finally, with all that you learned, look again at the original explanation of the Flood story that we opened with.

A fairly standard description trying to tell us the source of the Deucalion flood myth, goes something like this:

The much later Pausanias, following on this tradition, names Deucalion as a king of Ozolian Locris and father of Orestheus. Plutarch mentions a legend that Deucalion and Pyrrha had settled in Dodona, Epirus; while Strabo asserts that they lived at Cynus, and that her grave is still to be found there, while his may be seen at Athens; he also mentions a pair of Aegean islands named after the couple….The 2nd-century writer Lucian gave an account of the Greek Deucalion in De Dea Syria

Now you can see what’s really going on there, right? Progress!

Now if all that wasn’t bad enough – that we have an entire fictional network of Declamatios surrounding Berossus etc. – we then get Pseudo-Berossus.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, takes us into the mother of all Declamatio forgeries – the Bible.

In Italy back in the 1400’s, the Catholic Church had been spreading a story for some time that the “royal line” of the nations of Europe were “somehow” descended from Troy. In the mid-1400’s, the presentation of the “ancient” works of Berossus – the ones we just went over – was part of attempting to shore up the flagging Empire of the Pope-King, by trying to give it further legitimacy. How? By the idea of the Pope appearing to have “knowledge of everything”. For example Pius II said about Pope Nicholas V …what he does not know is outside the range of human knowledge“.

As the 1400’s wore on, and a truly ridiculous amount of “ancient” manuscripts had been commissioned and then “appeared” – often along the lines “Oh, look what I found in my cupboard!” or under a rock, and so on. actually part of a political campaign…

It became obvious that these were actually part of a political campaign and were forgeries. Questions began to be raised more and more frequently.

So, in their usual convoluted and controlled opposition style, the slavemasters created a “pseudo-Berossus” target (conveniently dead, of course). He was then attacked and debunked.

Watch our author try to explain all this –

Note: I find particularly amusing the “pseudo-Berossus” tag – isn’t that like a double negative?

The fragments of pseudo-Berosus describe a history of the ancient world, from the Flood to the time of Dardanus, the founder of Troy. These were received with enthusiasm in Italy, because they knew the story of Aeneas who had fled the burning city of Troy and re-established his kingdom in Italy, and they knew the Trojan royal line back to Dardanus, but they could not get back any further. The appearance of these missing fragments of Berosus filled an important gap in their history, and also the history of other nations of Europe who believed that their royal line was somehow descended from Troy.

In 1502, only four years after publishing his antiquities, Annius died, and then in 1504 he was criticised by Petrus Crinitus, who claimed that his work was fraudulent, that it never came from either Berosus or Manetho, and he made it all up. This was followed by similar claims from other people, but Annius was unable to answer any of them because he was already dead. The problem was that the source documents that he was supposed to have used could never be found. For a discussion of the entire affair, together with some fragments of pseudo-Berosus, see Asher (3).

“The problem was that the source documents that he was supposed to have used could never be found.”

Oh, but only those could never be found, eh?

All the other forgers documents could be found.

Is that it?


Another nice excuse to add to our list. (I’ll be putting them all together again in the running list at the end of this section)

  • “The problem was that the source documents that he was supposed to have used could never be found.”

The medieval public relations “slaying” of the dastardly (and very dead) Annius who <gasp> forged! his documentation of Berossus, was somewhat successful at misdirecting the very proper skepticism of ALL the works that were being “appeared” by focusing on ONE author. An author that they hired and knew perfectly well the work was a forgery and that there were no documents, making it quite easy to “debunk” – see how that works?

Then you have some shills (posing as scholars) look “satisfied” about the whole thing, sort of a Stanford Authority experiment medieval-style, designed to have the public be vindicated that the the “false” works had been found and exposed.

All handled!

Note: You will see the Nesilim slavemasters (British or otherwise) resort to this same tactic repeatedly during the next 500 years.

In my opinion, this pseudo-Berossus business was part of a plan to try and get away from the fact that the Catholics key figure – Jerome – was also entirely fabricated.

Jerome is actually a very key figure as whoever created him uses him as the nexus “connection” point for numerous other declamatio figures as well.

To the point now – he is also credited as having compiled the “official” version of the Bible called the Vulgate.

Slight problem with the time-line here though, sarcastically speaking, since the Vulgate wasn’t even finalized until the 1500’s. This is more than a thousand years later than the supposed time of “Jerome” and the story of which was done in the same time period as all the other declamatios and forgeries going on.

Even if we didn’t already know this “Jerome” was a total fabrication from our network research, there are still other clues that this “bible” wasn’t even begun to be created until the 1400’s.

One clue is, shortly after the emigrees from Constantinople began arriving and Pope Nicholas was hiring his Declamatio writers, the bible was changed to include the Hebrew version of the Old Testament as the “inspired” version and not the Septuagint. The PR story about what “inspired” meant, is that GOD told them what the “story” is – which they then wrote down.

Where and from who is this “inspired” version alleged to be “found out” by?

Ah yes.


The “story” about how Jerome came to change the bible in that way (or rather why) is that he was ‘studying with a Jew who converted to Christianity” and he changed the bible to match… Oh brother, right?

Ah, but that clue shows us, yet again, when this was really done. In our usual time period, of course, starting in the late 1400s. The “jewish” story actually also points to why we have supposed Eusebius writings of a jewish nature.

For example – we get writings translating Greek/Hebrew, a description of old Judea with an account of the loss of the ten tribes; a plan of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon; a commentary on Isaiah. That last one, was “discovered” in a “manuscript” in Florence early in the 20th century and published 50 years later.

There they go again with their supposed “discovery” of ancient manuscripts, but it does show the fictionalizing of history to try and give the addition of the also fictionalized “old Testament” to the Vulgate Bible in the late 1400’s.

And, in another clue, this Vulgate bible used a quote from Virgil – yet another greek Declamatio fictional character. The quote was a description of “hell” – “On all sides round horror spread wide; the very silence breathed a terror on my soul.

Apparently, they didn’t know what hell was before that even though the “bible” is supposedly thousands of years old. <cough> The truth was that they invented the whole “hell” business to try and scare people into doing what they wanted.

This clip from the movie Assassin’s Creed really shows the overall feeling for what was going on then, quite well, in my opinion.

They also have a “story” to try and explain why Jerome used Greek authors to describe Christian concepts such as hell. Guess what it was? They cited his “classical education” and his “deep shame of their associated practices” (the alleged Greek authors) such as pederasty (homosexuality with children) which was found in Rome.

Well, I guess we know why there were writings invented showing that, now don’t we. Not like many of the Catholic priests were (and still are, some say) doing exactly that themselves, or anything.

whistling girl

Keep in mind, that until well into the 15 and 1600’s, the Vatican prevented people from even seeing the “Bible”, it’s not too hard to figure out why, eh? Because it was just a big, fat pile of forgeries and declamatios, filled with contradictions, upon contradictions, upon contradictions!

It wasn’t until they had to do something about that mess, again, in our same time period of the 1400’s, that they began creating this whole interweaving FICTION.

This was also begun under Pope Nicholas V, the same guy who created the Vatican Library, and filled it will all the lovely declamatio forgeries (9,000 of them) that were going on before and after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Two years later, the first “Vulgate” organized version (somewhat organized, I should add) showed up being printed. Most people know this as the Gutenberg Bible, published in 1455 by Johann Gutenberg and Johann Fust – a beautiful book, and one of the first ever printed. But, it was in Latin, and hardly anyone could even read it!

By the turn of the 1500’s, there were so many declamatios that had been generated, that the Catholic slavemasters started losing track and had to get even more “serious” about organizing it all. Especially because they were being attacked (successfully) on their questionable “bible” on that these were false.

None of their PR tactics of pseudo-Berossus, stories of “finding” new ancient manuscripts and so on were really working (not too hard to figure out why) so in a big show of “we didn’t do anything wrong, the bible is cool”, the Vulgate 1450’s version was made the Catholic Church’s official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent (1545–63).

However, by then they were in deep trouble, they were being challenged and undermined by a counter-propaganda war back at them! This was being done by the new wave of re-edited and re-invented entirely – writings – that were being generated by the next generation of Nesilim over in England and parts of Germany. Such as John Dee, the Cecils, and the guy who wrote the Stegonographia, etc. (more on that later).

In typical hypocrite fashion (and one big bluffing motion) at the Council of Trent in 1545, they “reaffirmed” the Vulgate as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. This was their way of trying to counter the attacks on the ridiculousness of the bible, as well as to try and refute the doctrines of Protestantism.

But then, at the same Council, they ordered the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of…note this well… the countless editions produced during the Renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages!


that confirms

that the Vulgate was actually FROM the 1400’s.

not from the fictional author Jerome in 300 whatever A.D.


So now, wait, if the Vulgate (edition from the 1400’s) was affirmed as the sole text in 1545, why did they then need to make a standard text?

We shouldn’t ask these kinds of questions, we really shouldn’t. It tends to expose their unbelievably brash and blatant contradictory behavior.

So upsetting.

But seriously…

No wonder they needed to invent the twin dichotomy of “hell and damnation” and “heaven” utilizing people’s fears and hopes. Their only hold was an alleged future based on a completely false past – aka The Bible. It was probably them that first invented the ideas popularized centuries later by the pseudonymic George Orwell.

History is written by the winners. Totalitarianism…attacks the concept of objective truth: it claims to control the past as well as the future.

Orwell, Tribune “As I Please” column essay February 2, 1944.

In any case, part of the brashness of this faction of the slavemasters – the Catholics – is their always overdone positioning of themselves as victors. The only slight problem with that ego-propping idea is victors of what? A one-sided strawman war is not a war, it’s a sockpuppet fest.

I win!

we are incredibly offended - sockpuppet

When a slavemaster gets really threatened, he often resorts to the cowardly tactic of waiting for the previous generation to die off – hoping this will mitigate that gosh darn evidence of their lies. Otherwise known as stalling, such was the case with this new “collation” of standard bible tech.

The actual new NEW authorized text did not even appear until 1590. And then, the other faction of the Nesilim put out the King James Bible just eleven years later, in 1611 in ENGLISH. Their own personal Declamatio version, suiting their goals for misleading and “ruling” the people.

It was Francis Bacon – Dr. Dee’s protege – that was in charge of that.

1611 Open KJV


Religion, as we know it.

Just fricking wonderful.

It is also a good example to show you, probably the most devious propaganda method I have ever seen – that of creating a story within a story, sources within sources. All designed to suck you into the story when trying to research the story.

the worst of the worst…Every article, encyclopedia or otherwise, that I have ever come across, always starts out with giving you the “history” of what is actually a fictional character or event – this is the “sucks you in” part.


Only by both viewing it and resisting the pull to view from inside of it, can you successfully judge the real from the forged/fabricated. That is their game, to get you to view, or evaluate the story from within the story.

Another giveaway is that the worst of the worst (forgery and fabrication-wise) areas – meaning people, events, etc.- will just about always have some line in it, that goes something like this (as to any actual verifiable materials): “most of which are lost” or “the originals are lost to us” or “Contained only in fragments”.

You see that? You better get real wary, real fast.

On that note, I think the Bible as our example forms a nice bridge into our third topic here – Magic (Codes and Ciphers).

But before we leave this section, let’s review our updated list. Now what we have as excuses for why there are no real “ancient” (and from the time they are alleged to be) documents and invention tactics are:

  • unfit for the ignorant or the selfish.
  • not suitable for the unwashed
  • book burning in the second century BC
  • only fragments surviving
  • “rescued” “ancient” manuscripts from after the fall of Constantinople.
  • “discovered” or “newly retrieved” classical (Greek and Latin) texts of supposed antiquity
  • Lord of the Rings tactic – entire networks of fictional characters cross-related and supporting each other
  • any originals are “lost”
  • only “excerpts” left but only as quoted by other fictional characters.
  • “This is typical of how ancient writings have come down to us.” = No documents, no sources quoted in a round-robin of declamatio characters
  • “His original writings have not survived…” excuse of: but he is quoted by
  • Lost because of “…war, fire, flood…”
  • “failure to make copies, failure to preserve the existing copies, lending them out and never getting them back.”
  • “…disappeared through the ravages of time.”
  • “The precise circumstances of their loss is not known”
  • “The problem was that the source documents that he [fictional character] was supposed to have used could never be found.”
  • all creations only appear in later 1400’s on – exactly at the time of Nicholas V and his “library” building.
  • Attempts to get around people figuring out these were FAKE – Inventing a strawman or FAKE ancient character to then discredit, supposedly then giving credibility to the ORIGINAL (and fake) ancient character.

Those are then the set-up for our expanding list of reasons why declamatios were okey dokey to do.

  • entrata nella” – to gain entrance into
  • to teach the “New Learning” umanista, example: rhetoric using non-existent ancient figures; Aristotle and Sun Tzu
  • to facilitate the reunion of churches.
  • to teach certain Europeans Greek

Quite the list now, kind of hard to deny what’s obviously been going on here with “history” – especially as related to the bible and “ancient” people.

– – –


Rhetoric —-> Declamatio —>

Magic and Mythical Stories as Code – Examples
Jesuit coding of astronomy in China

Now let’s venture into our other area of rhetoric – magic (magical or mythical stories, magical ‘methods’ etc) – and how it functioned as both a declamatio of so-called “ancient knowledge” and as a coded and ciphered intelligence communication transmission of information.

Starting with the Jesuits here, that line by Blavatsky: “unfit for the ignorant and selfish” is almost verbatim to the concept given by the Jesuits for hiding particularly astronomy and other information cloaked in Chinese symbolism. That it was not for the “unconverted” or the “uninitated”.

The unconverted part specifically referring to not Catholic or Christian.

Now why, one might ask, was it ever even necessary to hide knowledge to that degree. Answer? It’s not, it never is when it comes to knowledge that should be shared by everyone. But if you are power-mad, combined with that you definitely have something to hide as to where that knowledge came from? (And they do) You would go to great lengths to conceal that IF you were trying to block people’s knowledge of that ‘you’ are not who you say you are.

That’s what happened in China. It’s a wonderful example because it clearly shows that the Catholic church – one branch of the Nesilim – were already committed to this kind of coded reference system. Especially concerning astronomy, math, and what really happened before they ‘showed up’ (in a manner of speaking.)

So what happened in China?

Well, besides declamatio-ing Confucius into being, they did something else. Something worse, in my opinion, if you can imagine such a thing. See for yourself.

This is from my as yet unpublished Why China part 2

Even in China, during this time of Emperor Nurhaci kicking out all the foreigners (1617) which was just one year after the Vatican had officially banned Copernicus, the Jesuits were still using it.

However, they still managed to slither in the same old trickery and sleight-of-hand in how they transmitted their knowledge, as well as constantly ascribing their proficiency as being a mysterious and mystical reason (the way they told it) – a come on to get people interested in the ‘power of god’ – get it?

No one else seemed to know how to do what they did except their ‘special’ chinese people and no one could make heads or tails out of their instructions except for the converted.

How convenient…

Vincent price - that is NOT funny

That’s the key thing though here, the how of the transmission.

You see, Ricci and von Schall had arranged to cloak the knowledge that they were supposedly freely offering in these Chinese books, in complex symbolism and legends so that only the ‘initiated’ could actually understand and use them.

That is VERY key, because it proves that the Catholics (and yes, the British) have long withheld practical knowledge from people by cloaking it in mysticism, allegory, and “legends”.

In China, the Jesuits used dragons to do that, did you know that?


This deliberate symbolization was not ancient knowledge as many later hired propagandists have tried to have believed.


no shaking head

That’s a point-blank lie.

It was created right here in time by the Jesuits.

The Jesuits, together with their Chinese “convert” Xu and his descendants, cloaked their astronomical in symbols like the above as follows.

The sky ecliptic was divided into four sections. Each of these sections contained seven mansions, and together they formed the 28 Mansions. The 28 Mansions may be considered to be equivalent to the zodiacal constellations in Western astronomy, although they reflected the movement of the Moon through a sidereal month rather than the Sun in a tropical year. This enabled the ancient Chinese to mark the travelling positions of the Sun and the Moon, as well as to determine the time and seasons for their special holidays and important occasions – just as requested to the Jesuits by the various Emperors involved.

Each section of the sky is assigned to a mythological creature, collectively known as the Four Symbols.

See? So to the “uninitiated” it didn’t really mean anything to them beyond their basic understanding of what the various creatures were that were depicted.

It goes much further than this though, the Jesuits also brought in their obsession with coding things by numbers, seven constellations here, seven there, and so on, all of which themselves had colorful cloaking in terms of other mythological creatures.

Skeksis, characters from Dark Crystal, are portrayed in much the same way. Cloaking knowledge in symbols and all manner of what-not, supposedly because the knowledge is deemed unfit for the “uninitiated” and must be protected.


gif by Virginia


But make no mistake – this so called “ancient” knowledge ONLY happened during the slavemaster infection time period when the Brits and Catholics began going to China and trying to bring it under their thumb.


So, here we have the excuse offered for cloaking knowledge as that it’s only for:

  • the converted
  • the ‘initiated’



Rhetoric —-> Declamatio —>

Magic and Mythical Stories as Code – Examples
The “New” Learning

Coming forward a bit to when the New Learning was imported into Britain (as well as the whole “client” scholar idea) let’s talk about King James’s time. Yep, the same King James that would RE-forge the bible with the help of his own hired “client” scholars – better known as the King James bible.

Magic was the main code used by Robert Cecil (invented by John Dee) to communicate to deep cover agents. It was not a code of “ancient truth” or other such claptrap – it was a real, live, operational code and cipher system used to –

  1. train agents in its workings
  2. identify and recruit others who figured it out and
  3. to drop messages and instructions to agents involved in current operations.

A book called The Steganographica tells us a lot about the type of codes that Cecil and Dee were interested in, and what kind of intelligence cover they were prone to liking it to have.

I go into this extensively in my library article:

Let’s just touch on a few things from that , so you can see what I’m talking about re: Cecil and Dee.

Remember the Jesuits and their use of “seven” repeatedly in cloaked astronomical knowledge in China?

The Steganographica contains what is called a system of Angelic magic (code name for it’s cryptography system) and instructions for conjuring spirits and gaining knowledge of happenings in far away parts of the world. If you really think about that, it’s as plain as the nose on your face that it’s talking about reporting on events far away, in writing. Spy code, in other words.

The book was designed so that the codes and ciphers described in the first section of the book must be used to read the second section on angelic magick.

But here’s the real point I want to zoom in on, and that’s what this author said about it.

Trithemius’ masterpiece works like our modern interactive games. The reader has absorbed the mind-set or worldview of the book by the time the important information is reached.

…a solution to the stylistic problem that all authors of cryptographic exposition have to solve: how to sustain the reader’s interest through example after example of usually tedious plain texts, possibly tedious explanations of cryptographic techniques, and always tedious cipher texts? Trithemius’s use of angel language might thus be a rhetorical strategy to engage the reader’s interest.


The writings are designed to suck you into the story itself.


I’ll say it again – this is like reading Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy and acting like a Star Trek fan about all its genealogical tables and personal histories and intertwining characters.

This type of writing is also called a covertextcoded messaging about a supposed subject, that subject actually being the code itself.

An example – the preface to the Polygraphia establishes, the everyday practicability of cryptography as a “secular consequent of the ability of a soul specially empowered by God to reach, by magical means, from earth to Heaven“.

See? It looks like it’s talking about spirit travel/communication, but that is the code.

Book III of the Steganographia tells us that Trithmius created the declamatio source of Menastor – this means that although whoever pretended to be “Trithmius” is the actual source, but then within that there is the pretense that a fictional philosopher named Menastor invented the code.

So now not only do we have an entire covertext invention of the “occult” (summoning angels and demons and what-not) hiding actual coded messages, on top of all that we have invented Declamatio sources!

Do you see how ridiculously far these people take this?

Looney Toons.

Trithemius warns the reader that he will express himself obscurely in this book, including a little diatribe about those danged “turnip eaters”. Thick-skinned Turnip Eaters with dull intellects…

This I did that to men of learning and men deeply engaged in the study of magic, it might, by the Grace of God, be in some degree intelligible, while on the other hand, to the thick-skinned turnip eaters (imperitis Rapophagis) it might for all time remain a hidden secret, and be to their dull intellects a sealed book forever.

Thick-skinned turnip eaters with dull intellects – hmm.

Considering that works like this (Steganographia) were commissioned by “nobles” at this time – this particular slur is aimed at those “hordes” of common people, a particularly favorite view of humanity by the falsely superior slavemasters.

You see, back at this time, representations of social value (hierarchal) in both literature and art were pretty consistently attached to food. For example, the coarse grains and vegetables grown in the garden were given the negative symbolic value as compared to the meats and fishes that had to be actively captured and prepared for consumption by the nobility.

This is why we get peasants positioned with comical names like “turnip-eater” (Rubenschlund in German).

So, declamatio Trithmius is saying that anyone who can’t figure out that this book isn’t really about “conjuring” spirits?

Must be a peasant with dull intellect.

aka – turnip eater


The code itself is entirely based on the seven planets and twenty-one spirits.


Aka one of the things this is?

Is coded astronomy.

That’s gonna be important when we get to talking about Declamatio Hipparchus and his supposed “discovery” of trigonometry and precession.

We also now have another similar version of the later “unfit” statement of Blavatsky.

Reason/excuse for coding –

  • to the thick-skinned turnip eaters (imperitis Rapophagis) it might for all time remain a hidden secret, and be to their dull intellects a sealed book forever


Rhetoric —-> Declamatio —>

Magic and Mythical Stories as Code – Examples
Steganographia Dee and Cecil style.

On the afternoon of August 11, 1582 there was an entry in Dee’s journal that he and Francis Bacon met at Mortlake. Bacon was 21 years old at the time and was accompanied by cryptographer Mr. Phillipes.

Dee was headed out on mission, and Walsingham needed Bacon and Phillipes to talk about Dee’s getting some information about the “ancient” Hebrew art of the Gematria – a cipher system. Dee also did a Lampados Tradis – the passing of “the lamp” or torch. That means, he educated Bacon about the code key.

Dee left shortly thereafter, hooking up with sidekick Mr. Kelly to “scry angels”. This was his cover while at court in Prague. Dee recorded his “magical experiments” that were actually coded messages.

Richard Kelley (fake name, real name Talbot) had approached John Dee in 1582. From 1582 to 1589 Dee and Kelley pretended to contact angels with the Richard being the scryer, or crystal-gazer to “heal the rift of Christendom”.

Again, this was a cover to infiltrate the Hapsburg Empire and various other courts. It was also a cover for discoveries and claiming of new and uncharted lands for England.

Rudolph II’s Hapsburg court was one of their main targets, and in Prague, Dee also worked with Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel to foster further esoteric propaganda (while really working on the Gematria spy code) such as the Kabbala.

Did you get that?

The Kabbala was also faked as part of all this.

Dee’s intelligence cover was sort of the Elizabethan equivalent of the later MI6 manuals’ instructions to their agents to “act like an ass” as a cover.

You know – a “Oh, he’s just a kooky wizard.” kind of thing.

I’m scrying angels. – Dr. Dee


His later book resulting from this supposed “scrying of angels” details revelations from the spirits in the form of Enochian magic. These revelations included covertexts/codes such as the Holy Table, a wax seal called the “Sigillum Dei Aemeth“, a Lamen formed from the names of the “Heptarchic” Kings and Princes, a magic Ring, and seven tables of letters, forming the basis of the Tabula Bonorum and Tabula Collecta. The revelations also included information on 49 Good Angels, Liber Logaeth, and the Angelic Alphabet. They also received the Tablet of Nalvage, the Liber Scientiae, the elemental Tablets and Tablet of Union, and the 48 Enochian Calls.

Could he make things any more complicated? Wow. But, that’s the point, so…

Really get something here.

This is all code.

There is

no such thing

as the occult or “black magic”.


But some people sure have a vested interested in wanting you to believe that there is. People with something to hide.

Perhaps people might not want to be so prone to believing all the subsequent works that spun off this covertext encryption method – such as the Goetia, and ALL the so-called “occult” writings.

Are you familiar with Aleister Crowley? He was also a British intelligence agent. In the early 20th century, he too used this whole “occult” thing as an intelligence cover, pretending to be a crazy, kooky, black arts magician who supposedly spoke/controlled to angels, demons etc., when in reality he was something quite different.

Now you know where that idea came from.

Did you know…

That an interesting attempt to present (and very accurately too) that Dee’s spirits book was really just a code, was done by Dr. Robert Hooke in 1690?

Yes, indeedy.

In Dr. Hooke’s address to the Royal Society – he was a member – given on 11 June 1690 concerning Dr. Dee’s book –A True & Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Yeers between Dr. John Dee and Some Spirits published in 1659 – he brought up the obvious relationship of Dee’s book to the Steganographia as well, pointing out that many have not even seen that, or even considered the relationship therein.

Etching that depicts John Dee and Edward Kelley conjuring a spirit by magical means.

In his book An Ingenious Cryptographical System he tells us that John Marr (a mathematician and geometrician) said that Dee’s scrying angels book contained “a most ingenious cipher or series of ciphers for conveying secret information.

This system enabled a person to:

  • set out a secret message in what purported to be a confrontation between himself and spiritual creatures
  • move objects resembling pieces of a game of chess so that each move gave an item of information – called Enochian Chess

The System was further simplified in that the Enochian alphabet consisted of “onlie twenty-one letters, a mightily useful economie to the cryptographer.

Dee and his “scryer” sidekick Kelly, can be much more easily understood if one simply sees that their behavior was actually part of an intelligence mission that BOTH men were willingly engaging in, and using the cover of the kooky mystic/occult dynamic duo.

Dee and Kelly –
The Elizabethan equivalent of Jay and Silent Bob (in Dogma)


Look! It’s Enochian Magic!

movies film jay and silent bob kevin smith dogma


Rhetoric —-> Declamatio —>

Magic and Mythical Stories as Code – Examples
Passing of the “Lamp”, The “Art of Memory”, Rosicrucianism and the Bible

King James’s “client” scholars also fabricated another important declamatio magical coded reference.

A very key one – Rosicrucianism.

This began within only a year of Dee and Kelley starting their whole “scrying angels” schtick at the court of the Hapsburgs, with our soon-to-be King James bible writer – Francis Bacon.

With Bacon, Cecil and Dee lurking in the background of it, these “scholars” (of code, you understand) combined some of Dee’s and others “interpretations” with a long-standing Scottish belief in their ancient Egyptian ancestry. William Schaw, appointed Master of the Work and Warden General in 1583, combined the earlier invention of Hermes (Hermeticism) with the first hints of an alleged Egyptian group of masons as well as with architectural symbolism and especially the “art” of memory.

Schaw had been commissioned to “reform” (that really meant REINVENT) Scottish masonry. His work presented (exactly as ordered) that Hermes “had played a major part in preserving the knowledge of the mason craft and transmitting it to mankind after the flood”. His statutes emphasized possession of “the art of memorie and the science thairof”.

Hermes being yet another previous declamatio invention.

Note: there’s that flood story which was presented with the overpopulation propaganda by Dee and his ilk – a key point.

Schaw’s idea of this supposed “art of memorie and the science thairof” drew on another commissioned author – Alexander Dickson. Dickson became a court favorite after he “renounced” Catholicism and spying. His De memoriae virtute (1583) discussed the “art of memory” in this Hermetic Egyptian context.

Dickson’s compatriot, William Fowler, was another “expert” in this art of memory. His manuscripts include a treatise on it and discuss “teaching your maiestie the arte of me[m]orie” – referring to King James.

But, what is this art of memory?

In the newly invented language called “Classical Latin”, it is referred to as: ars memoriae and Ars Memorativa. It is yet another declamatio idea that is backdated and fictionalized, associated with the created character Aristotle.

It is defined as a “method or set of prescriptions that adds order and discipline to the pragmatic, natural activities of humans”. Now there’s a loaded statement.

Not too surprisingly, a large part of this subject was actually a description of modern methods of manipulation as seen in advertising, psychological warfare, and politics, because it actually mostly dealt with training in rhetoric and the slavemaster ideas about logic (which are seriously flawed).

There were also drills and exercises “to organize” ones memories, improve recall, but more importantly (and this is part of the code aspect) to assist in the combination and ‘invention’ of ideas.

Propaganda training, in other words.

Some of the techniques taught, which you can immediately see were actually manipulation of others methods, were things like associating emotionally striking images with a visual of a location; the chaining or “association” of groups of images – like a montage, for example. You can see that particular one start appearing in a lot of the visual art of the period.

Another technique was the association of images with signs, markings, and figures in Latin, or just the simple association of text with images – like the modern blogs of today, for example. “Practice” of this technique often involved the contemplation or study of architecture, books, sculpture and paintings.

The “art of memory” principles were also used in particularly the religious and the magical. In slavemasterese “special speak” it means codes and cipers.


Why was Schaw commissioned to create all these works along this Hermetic/Scottish egyptian line?

Cecil and his crew were basically preparing and manipulating the Scottish and English people to accept King James. Much like the Popes had been trying to lie that all Europes’ rulers descended from the Royal line of Troy.

First they commissioned all this BS “ancient history”, placing James amidst the “sacred line” descending from Egypt all the way down, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum, then they disseminated the propaganda in various ways to the “turnip eaters” – as they still considered the people to be.

Now we come to the point here.

There were also works commissioned that had a decidedly more “mystic” aspect. Loosely termed Hermetic Mysticism – better known as Rosicrucian.

The timing of this was perfect, the Rosicrucian manifestos “appeared” in Germany right in the first part of King James reign, when Robert Cecil’s “united empire” plans and global expansion programs were in full swing.

First came the Rosicrucian Manifestoes: the Fama Fraternitatus (1614) and later the Confessio Fraternitatus.

The documents, of course, were commissioned by the Cecils through their network, appearing them in Germany being all part of the “slapping” of the Catholic Church (the Holy Roman Empire was in Germany).

It’s a tiff thing.

The two factions were basically still having spitting-and-hissing episodes at each other. Propaganda was one of the ways they “slapped” each other.

These manifestoes were a call to unite in a scientific and spiritual reform of Europe. Through knowledge, humanity would be able “to experience and understand the Divine in nature, the difference between the material and the spiritual, and their relationship with God.

Unfortunately, in the hands of the slavemasters we saw just what that “enlightenment” actually looked like for the bulk of humanity – slavery, degradation – and more slavery.

At the bequest of Robert Cecil and Francis Bacon (who became the Imperator of the Rosicrucians) commissioned Robert Fludd created several works. Several of them were specifically dedicated to James, including the first volume of his Utriusque cosmi of 1617, in which James is accorded the Hermetic epithet “Ter Maximus”, and saluted as “the most potent and wise prince in the world”.

These “scholars” (of code, you understand) combined some of Dee’s and others “interpretations” with a long-standing Scottish belief in their ancient Egyptian ancestry. William Schaw, appointed Master of the Work and Warden General in 1583, combined the earlier invention of Hermes (Hermeticism) with the first hints of an alleged Egyptian group of masons having had the ‘secret knowledge’.

It appears that Fludd was a deep-cover agent, on the surface he was a “devout Catholic” but yet he went on to become King James physician, something that Cecil would not have allowed unless he was using him somehow.

Here’s a beautiful example from the University of Delaware, of Fludd’s rendition of the symbol of the Rosicrucians – the “invisible college” – the rosy cross.

Fludd_-_rose_crossRobert Fludd, Clavis philosophiae et alcymiae Fluddanae. Francofurti: Guilhelmum Fitzerum, 1633


Just to familiarize you a bit more with the propaganda techniques that had been introduced (not to mention the codes and ciphers aspect), in this portrait of Robert Fludd you can see the elements (the training) of the “art of memory” being employed. Latin text, emotional images, scenery, cryptic notations etc.


Michael Maier, Fludd’s compatriot, propagated the fiction of “secrecy” and colleges. In his work “Silentium Post Clamores,” he, of course, used the usual “ancient times” lie. He told his readers that colleges existed to perpetuate studies in medicine and science and that such knowledge for its own protection was secretly passed from generation to generation through a system of initiation.

And now we have more excuses/coding to add.

  • The “invisible college” = the rosy cross.
  • secretly passed from generation to generation through a system of initiation called = lampado trado
  • a secret Egyptian group of freemasons have been passing it down

Excuse –

  • such knowledge for its own protection


Protection from what exactly, pray tell.


It should be of no small interest to you that Francis Bacon (Dee and Cecil’s protege) was put in charge of the creation of the King James Bible.

This began when he came to power in the court of King James I, elected into a high position in 1607. I will probably choose to deal with the bible in a whole article in and of itself, but in addition to what we already covered earlier, have a look at some quotes here by Francis Bacon. They should give you a quite clear idea of just where his head was at, this whole time.

Francis Bacon
(I refuse to call him “Sir”)

And experience showeth there are few men so true to themselves and so settled but that, sometimes upon heat, sometimes upon bravery, sometimes upon kindness, sometimes upon trouble of mind and weakness, they open themselves; specially if they be put to it with a counter-dissimulation, according to the proverb of Spain –

Di mentira, y sacar as verdad: Tell a lie and find a truth.

– Francis Bacon, student of Dr. Dee; The Advancement of Learning
originally published 1605, resurrected in 1893

Wrap your mind around this one.

…the more discordant, therefore, and incredible, the divine mystery is, the more honour is shown to God in believing it, and the nobler is the victory of faith.

De augmentis; Francis Bacon


The bigger the lie you believe, the more noble you are. That is just about the most tongue-in-cheek description of the British “nobles” I think that I have ever seen.

This man literally lived and breathed codes and propaganda.

Remember how Robert Flood and Michael Maier characterized the Rosicrucians (which Bacon was made “Imperator” of) as the invisible college – where knowledge of medicine and science was secretly passed from generation to generation through a system of initiation?

This secret initiation and passing of the torch was called Lampado trado.


Many persons have attempted to characterize this passing the lamp business as being about passing the “secret” knowledge of the spirit, aliens, or even black magic.

That is false.


As you now know, it was merely a way to try to subscribe more power and superiority onto the pathetically not – aka those we call the slavemasters and their ilk.

To round things out here, I think that you might like to see some other “working” examples of Declamatio/Rhetoric in action by these people and whom they “passed the torch” to.


Declamatio Examples and Excuses
Rhetoric: Black Propaganda as “table talk”

Table talk is a surprisingly frequently used rhetorical device to deliver black propaganda. It’s called ‘black’ because it’s hiding the true source, and even if only that, entails the use of lies. Usually it goes a lot further than just that in the lie department.

It’s meant to disarm the reader by its supposed informality of “chit-chatting” around the dinner table. You know, a kind of bring it down to the “normal” (or little) peoples level.

It was first used even in combination with a Declamatio character, sort of a double-whammy to try and get the reader to believe it is real or “true”.

For example, Plutarch. Plutarch never existed and never wrote anything (as usual). But a Declamatio was created and referred to as “his treatise De animae procreatione in Timaeo“. Recorded in the “Table Talk“, this “treatise” gives a clear example of this tactic of trying to make the fictional character Plutarch look real. A tale is told of an alleged dinner party of the marriage of his son Autobulus.

How heart-warming.

<rolling my eyes here>

You would know this today as the employment of the “human interest” propaganda tactic to try and hook the reader. Used in newspapers, blogs, social media, etc. etc., now you know where it came from.

The problem isn’t what was said, or that people do have dinner parties and talk. The problem is that IT IS A LIE trying to get you to accept other agenda-driven propaganda that goes with and behind the tactic.

Another perhaps more famous example is Martin Luther the supposed Catholic “reformer”. We already covered earlier how the Jesuits were busily coding up astronomy in animal symbolism and declamato-ing Confucius, but one of the parts of this secret knowledge – of astronomy – were the works of Copernicus who was based in Europe whom they were putting Galileo on trial for using!.

In China – Jesuits using Copernicus


In Europe

Galileo on trial for heresy – for using Copernicus


The irony of the Jesuits busily rectifying the astronomical mistakes of the Chinese using the Copernican system, while in Rome, the Holy See persistently condemned that very system all the way until 1822, is one of those inconvenient facts that truly shows the Catholics as the total hypocrites that they have always been.

In fact, the whole mess revolving around Copernicus happens to be one of the very, very few pieces of evidence existing that shows so-called “Catholic Reformer” – Martin Luther – as not only being just like the Catholics towards such inconvenient scientific facts that threaten their political and religious enthralled hold on the people – it also makes it obvious that good old Mr. “Let’s be free slaves” Martin was clearly a controlled opposition operation, perhaps even a heretofore unknown Jesuit himself.

The specific response towards Copernicus astronomical presentation by Martin Luther is extremely telling. The quote below is in response to the publication of Copernicus’s brief Commentariolus, which appeared a decade before the book De Revolutionibus.

This staged attack is where we have another example of the rhetorical device of “table talk” and it was in Luther’s Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations.

There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

– Martin Luther

Note the odd little addition at the end.

This –

…as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

The biblical passage to which Martin Luther is referring to is this one –

Yahweh drove them [the forces of the five Amorite kings] headlong before Israel, defeating them completely at Gibeon; furthermore, He pursued them toward the descent of Beth-horon and harassed them as far as Azekah, and as far as Makkedah. And as they fled from Israel down the descent of Beth-horon, Yahweh hurled huge hailstones from heaven on them all the way to Azekah, which killed them. More of them died under the hailstones than at the edge of Israel’s sword.Then Joshua spoke to Yahweh, the same day that Yahweh delivered the Amorites to the Israelites. Joshua declaimed:

“Sun stand still over Gibeon,
and, moon, you also, over the Vale of Aijalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon halted,
till the people had vengeance on their enemies.”

Is this not written in the Book of the Just? The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day. There was never a day like that before or since, when Yahweh obeyed the voice of a man, for Yahweh was fighting for Israel. Then Joshua, and all of Israel with him, returned to the camp at Gigal.”

– Translation from the Jerusalem Bible, scholars edition; (Joshua 10:10-15)


Again, since the astronomy that was actually practiced by the Catholics, apparently secretly as far as the rest of Europe was supposed to know, was indeed based on this supposed “heretical” knowledge by Copernicus, that makes Martin Luther in on it.

Let’s look into this a little deeper.

Nicolaus Copernicus


Who is Martin Luther and why is he supporting the Vatican’s view of things?

In 1517, Martin Luther was a German Catholic priest who wrote about the falsity of selling indulgences.

In 1520 Pope Leo X demanded that Martin Luther retract all of his writings – which he refused – and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V demanded it again in 1521 – which he also refused. Martin Luther was then excommunicated by the Pope, and condemned as an outlaw by the Emperor!

What does condemned with anathema mean in modern (and medieval) practice?

If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church – like Martin Luther did – he can be formally declared to be excommunicated or Anathema.

The justification given for this, is that it is supposedly a benevolent act done in order to “bring the one in error to his senses” – before it’s too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy.

This is so like the Church of Scientology’s Suppressive Person doctrines that it could have been lifted directly off the pages of the Vulgate (the first bible).

Per the Catholic encyclopedia, the whole point of the promulgation of the anathema is to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.

“Declaring” him served to put it into people’s minds that he couldn’t possibly be what he is, get it?

Martin’s half-baked op (as in intelligence op run by the Vatican) was about roping in the money they were losing from the wealthy starting to rebel against having to PAY their way out of hell – aka indulgences.

The next step was to create a new front group to attract these people to, which served two purposes. One, to keep an eye on them (intelligence gathering) and Two, to get money out of them through a more circuitous route.

And so, the following year, 1521, Martin started the new slavemaster front group called the Protestant Reformation. Protestants were then offered as an “alternative” to Catholics. The other already existing front groups, the Rosicrucian and Freemason lodges supported the Protestant movement.

See the coordinated plan there?

Next came the perfect created “solution” to this “problem”.

The Catholic Church formed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in opposition to the Protestants and Masons in 1534, officially approved by Pope Paul III in 1539.

It was in this climate that Copernicus presented his new theories. Copernicus was a loyal Catholic who had done all the proper procedures and permissions to publish his book, even dedicating it to the reigning Pope at the time – Paul III – the very same pope that set the Jesuits into action around the world.

It should be of no small interest to you that far from “going after the Protestants” etc., which I believe was more a European intelligence cover than anything else, their real purpose becomes clear in what their very first missions were – which all had to do with taking over the world – the world outside Europe.

Exactly the same as the British were doing – their brothers-in-arms in this goal of ruling the world.

– – –

During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books.

This was about control and power – not about whether “God” actually spoke to the Pope and approved or disapproved said books. In other words, this is not a religious issue, it never was. That’s only what the inside men, such as Martin Luther, were tasked to do to the public. They pretended it was a religious issue.

Behind the scenes, however, the Jesuits (such as Xavier, Ricci, Von Schall) were using computations based on the Copernican system.

That is exactly what they used to create accurate tables of planetary positions. For example, the Prutenic Tables computed by Erasmus Reinhold, and Copernical computations were also specifically used in part of the Gregorian Calendar Reform of the 1570s.

Copernicus initially outlined his system in a short, untitled, anonymous manuscript that he distributed to several friends, referred to as the Commentariolus.


Copernicus died in 1543 and his supposed book he wrote (which we have no proof it was actually him that did so) wasnt published until thirteen years later in 1566.

It was titled: De Revolutionibus.


In the 16th century the Catholic Church considered scientific proofs as direct and unambiguous frontal assaults upon its spiritual and political authority in Europe.

They didn’t make any official condemnations so long as Copernicus’ ideas remained a mathematical argument (in Latin) among scholars and did nothing to threaten either the beliefs of the common man or the Church’s ultimate authority in such matters.

By the beginning of the 17th century, however, the Vatican was suffering far too many losses around the world from people who refused to buy into their whole ‘we are the only keepers of right knowledge” schtick. People such as the Monks in Japan, the courts in China, the Thomas Christians in India, and so on.

And so, in the year 1616, the Catholic church officially declared that the heliocentric (sun-centered) theory was “philosophically false and at least an erroneous belief.” – and De Revolutionibus was officially banned.

Notice the wording of their declare. Philosophically false. Erroneous belief.

That’s very, very tricky of them to word it that way, and was no accident.

Galileo had come along and picked up the Copernicus theories and expanded on them. Worse, he did it publicly and in PLAIN LANGUAGE (not just Latin) that very same year. The people then knew about it, you see, not just some scholars locked up in some off-the-beaten path monasteries.

But it wasn’t until seventeen years later (why the delay, one wonders) in 1633, that Galileo was summoned by the Roman Inquisition. A document is produced alleging that Father Bellarmine in 1616 specifically forbade him to discuss the Copernican system in any way (modern scholarship has shown that this document is a forgery, or at best trumped up).

Galileo faced two specific charges:

  • Disobedience of Bellarmine’s 1616 order.
  • Misleading censors who published his book.

His trial was a farce, and the verdict a foregone conclusion. Galileo was jailed for “heresy”.


It took more than 350 years for the Catholic Church – the Vatican – to admit they were wrong. It wasn’t until 1992 that Pope John Paul II finally admitted Galileo and Copernicus were right and that the Earth did move around the Sun, and then officially apologized for the persecution of Galileo. (New York Times, Sunday October 31, 1992; After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right – It Moves)

Even though the Jesuits were using the very same Copernican system that Galileo would be put on trial for, it is in what way Galileo used it that is of interest here.

He revealed the knowledge to the people.

That was his crime.

Even in China, during this time of Nurhaci kicking out all the foreigners (1617) which was just one year after the Vatican had officially banned Copernicus, the Jesuits were still using it.

As we discussed earlier, they still managed to slither in the same old trickery and sleight-of-hand in how they transmitted their knowledge, as well as constantly ascribing their proficiency as being a mysterious and mystical reason (the way they told it) – a come on to get people interested in the ‘power of god’ – get it? They used DRAGONS to cloak the knowledge.

No one else seemed to know how to do what they did except their ‘special’ chinese people and no one could make heads or tails out of their instructions except for the converted.

How convenient…

Vincent price - that is NOT funny

So when Luther came along with his “dinner table” conversations that actually supported the Vatican view about all this? You can see how this “table talk” tactic is used as a vehicle for attack.

Let me show you one final example of where that was done again, and for this one we are coming forward all the way into the 20th century – where the slavemasters and their Igors were busily propaganda-prepping for World War II.

They were trying to stir up “anti-Jew” sentiment for the supposed “Nazi” side of things and created a perfect example of not only a Declamatio and this table-talk as an attack aspect but of automatic writing to boot!

Who fronted this dog’s breakfast?

William Pelley.

And he did it twice.

Pelley and anti-Jewish forged quotations

Some years back, I did a whole post about Pelley and all his connections as a sort of rough draft of my research up to that point in time. Since then, I have completed that work and it is now a full library article titled: William Dudley Pelley.

Prior to going to Russia on assignment, Pelley helped out in the U.S. wartime Division of Films, which ensured that the war was promoted in the cinema. The film industry suffered from a sleazy reputation, and producers sought respectability by lending wholehearted support to the war effort. Hollywood’s mood was summed up in a 1917 editorial in The Motion Picture News which proclaimed that “every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share” and promised that “through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters, and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country’s great resources.” Movies with titles like The Kaiser: The Beast of Berlin, Wolves of Kultur, and Pershing’s Crusaders flooded American theaters. He was also officially one of the Committee on Public Information reps in Russia, primarily Moscow and Vladivostok.

As you can see, Pelley had actually been working on Propaganda in accordance with British Slavemaster plans well before WWII, and all the way since WWI.

Kind of cutting in to the middle of his story here, I quote from my article:

Early in 1931, Pelley left New York, “wandered” over to Washington D.C., where presumably he may have had himself a nice conversation with John Francis Cecil, because the next thing you know, and of all the places in the world?

Pelley goes to Biltmore (Asheville, North Carolina), giving himself the ‘cover’ or shore story (see our article explaining that term) of that he was an ‘author’ and ‘metaphysician, Pelley established the new headquarters of Galahad Press, then a little later on he established Galahad College as a way to get some cash, but more importantly he could get Propaganda out to people.

Just before this, Pelley had been given public prominence after allegedly having received an alleged Spiritual Radio broadcast that was highlighted in American Magazine, March 1929, in an article titled: My Seven Minutes In Eternity. (you can see the scans etc. in my article on Pelley) This spawned the creation of an association by Sumner Vinton, which launched the Liberation magazine.

It was this publication that would be used to launch a nefarious declamatio creation that put words into the mouth of President Andrew Jackson.

What I’m talking about is information I discuss in my second article (as yet unpublished) concerning the quote “You are a Den of Vipers and Thieves” that many, many people quote and wrongly attribute to President Andrew Jackson.

Jackson did not say that. Ever.
He said much better things (which was the problem)

Here is a link to the scanned images of the booklet containing the false quote. This is the same source that fellow propagandist Father Coughlin used to promote a collection of anti-Jewish sentiments in 1936.

Look at the date in the Foreword of Henkel’s booklet – November 1st, 1928.

This is literally just a few months before the new “spiritual” Pelley would be launched onto the public’s view. March 1929, The American Magazine.

In my as yet unpublished part 2 concerning these forgeries, I talk about a specific pattern criteria that seems to be being followed and I analyze the Henkels Jackson quote upon that premise. The one I called Point 5 of the forgery pattern is described as a straw-man tactic. This is where you lure, hire, hijack, blackmail, or whatever, some guy or girl to play the part of the “revealer”in regards to the Henkels booklet’s allegation of “lost minutes” supposedly detailing a Jackson speech.

Did you know that William Pelley did the same exact thing in his magazine Liberation? He played the part of the “revealer” who publishes a disturbingly similar ‘find’, what I call the Pinckney great lie.4

This was done in the very same vein as the Henkels booklet, where it is Stan V. Henkels Jr. playing the part of the “revealer”. What you probably don’t know is that he was very carefully chosen and in fact – HE WORKED WITH PELLEY.

Ah, you say, that would tend to indicate conspiracy to manipulate the public with lies to whip them into a furor towards “the jews”.

You would be right.

In the two men, Pelley and Henkels, you literally had the British nobility (intelligence) and the Vatican (intelligence) behind them perfectly married together in secretly engineering propaganda to agitate for World War II. I go into quite a bit of the proof of this, in a condensed form, in my post titled: L Ron Hubbard Locksteps #3: Vatican and British Intelligence – Conspiracy Factitions about Global Domination

The reason this pattern of forgery in the Henkels booklet exactly matches the Pelley/Pinckney forgery is because it’s basically the same people involved!

Father Coughlin, the Radio Priest, would be one of the first to USE THIS assignment of the phrase “you are a Den of Vipers and Thieves” to President Jackson publicly. Coughlin was being funded with Nazi money through Chase Bank, with the approval of British and American executives. This means that everything he did, everything Pelley did, everything that this Stan Henkels Jr. did that even vaguely related to portraying “jews” or “bankers” as the one and only ENEMY, were all parts of a deliberate, focused, and closely monitored plan towards World War II.



Now to the point – Pelley was used to forward the exact “table talk” format, just updated to “chit chat around the table”, in 1934. On 3 February-

…there appeared in Liberation, a weekly journal published in Asheville, North Carolina, the text of a speech Franklin was alleged to have delivered at “the Constitutional Convention of 1789”–a date that should arouse one’s suspicion, since it was in 1787, not 1789, that the Constitutional Convention was held. This speech was discovered, we are told, in a hitherto unknown diary kept by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, South Carolina’s delegate to that convention, a diary titled “Chit-Chat around the Table during Intermissions.” (My Life with Benjamin Franklin, Claude-Anne Lopez, published March 2000 as quoted in a government publication)

This supposed Chit-Chat diary, falsely quotes Benjamin Franklin as saying: “Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil its institutions. They should be excluded by the Constitution!

To choose that particular Pinckney (there were two) is a particular attack all on its own. He not only was who helped Thomas Jefferson get the Bill of Rights through for us, he almost single-handedly swung the election that made Thomas Jefferson president! Something that grudge-minded slavemasters have never forgotten. That’s why they chose him to be the supposed source for this nasty declamatio propaganda against “the jews”.

There are people that to this day, including political organizations as well as multiple jewish world conspiracy factition* promoters, still use both of these declamatio examples as somehow being real quotes.

*Factition – some (or very few) facts, mostly fiction.

In conclusion –


Declamatio fairy tales about ancient religious men and ancient philosophers are not history. They contain the ideas that the British and Vatican slavemasters wanted people to have. They are slavemaster propaganda designed to mold people into accepting their role as lowly controlled sheep.

I know it’s gonna rock your boat to have to realize that you’ve been being lied to on a much grander scale than you ever thought of before – but that’s ok. Wouldn’t you rather know what history really was?

I’ll bet it’s a MUCH better story than these lies and declamatios – it always is.

You know, Thomas Jefferson just cracks me up. Did you know that even he knew that what the British nobility and ‘priests’ (Vatican) were shoving down everyone’s throats as the so called “classics” were…rather spurious? To put it mildly.

He was writing about that various anglophiles and other agenda’d people were trying to say what America was doing was not a new idea, it was the old Greek Philosophy. Thomas Jefferson’s answer to that was just classic –

* * * The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government: and, in a great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.

Jefferson Cyclopedia p.51 (nbr 486)

What a great way of letting someone know that you know they are FOS on this Aristotle business – to say: “if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us.”

I think he was half-daring them to “find” a lost writing or something of Aristotle to try and prove their point – in other words, make a new declamatio to support their claim.

I’ll probably write more on this topic as well, but if I had to throw together a list of what to look for when dealing with a Declamatio – I’d have to go with:

1. SEE it for yourself, whatever it is that is being back-dated or supposedly referenced, or quoted from.

Does it really exist? Is it really that old? Or are people just saying it is. I don’t care if it’s people with 15 PH’ds after their name. That’s actually one of the Cecil Bloc tactics remember? Get a professor to put out a book or critique one, etc. It means nothing.

2. WATCH THE LANGUAGE – sometimes that’s a dead giveaway. You get people trying to call something “humanism” for example, that’s eight hundred years ago when that word didn’t even exist. Also, sometimes the Declamatio writers screw up and use language that’s half a millennia after the supposed “ancient master” lived, when they are supposedly quoting them. Uh oh! Busted.

3. TRANSLATE it yourself. Take Sitchin’s materials, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve caught him mis-translating Sumerian tablets by even a cursory view of the primer on Sumerian at U of Penn.

4. WHO DO THE IDEAS PRESENTED SERVE – that’s a big one. The British slavemasters get caught a lot at that one. Take the Aristotle quote included earlier – sounds a lot like British nobility set-up doesn’t it. That’s not a coincidence.

That should get you started.


Francis Bacon, student of Dr. Dee, tells us that the first lie, the first tale, will be prejudicially treated – meaning the person will believe it.

Here is observed, that in all causes the first tale possesseth much; in sort, that the prejudice thereby wrought will be hardly removed, except some abuse or falsity in the information be detected.

This blog is here to do exactly that.

Show you the abuse and falsity these sick men have perpetuated for centuries.

References and notes –

1 – Manufacturing Confucianism by Lionel M. Jensen; Duke University Press, 1997

2 – My 2009 research article You Are A Den of Vipers and Thieves was originally published anonymously (with my permission) by the 123jump (Scribd name) on January 7, 2010. You can see it, albeit in jumbled up form, at the internet archive. Note: If you’d like to see something rather odd and interesting, check the “save” of it a year later. My article title is the same, but the text was replaced with text from some totally dis-related article that never had anything to do with me or the 123jump authors. In around 2012 or so, as various 123jump authors began to reveal their identities, I corrected my article to show my name. I have uploaded a PDF of that here. *Later supporting research of interest is as follows: Photos of Father Coughlin’s Money!: Questions and Answers 1937 by Virginia McClaughry, posted on April 20, 201. This post contains photos of the 1937 revised edition which Virginia had purchased. There was also a PDF created of the scanned relevant pages which showed the falsely attributed to President Jackson quote. The original source with the false quote (that U.S. military intelligence officer William Pelley of the pro-nazi propaganda front group the Silver Shirts was also mixed up with) was a booklet by J.A. Henckels. You can see that scans I obtained of that in a PDF here.