The levels of intelligence currently on display running the world appear to me to be minimal.Sun 6:04 am +01:00, 19 Jul 2020
What about the death of Alexander? Was he murdered by locals, poisoned by his own men, or did he kill himself in grief at the death of his gay boy lover Hephaestion? Possibly none of the above. Given he was a prominent Phoenician, he probably faked his death, since that is what these people have always done. You will tell me faking your death in a foreign country would be dangerous, since your only protection would be your fame and your troops. But again, Alexander was a Phoenician, so he would have had their help in anything he wished to do. They probably whisked Hephaestion and him off to some pretty and remote Greek island. Or maybe they went to Capri. Yes, Hephaestion is a clue here, but not as it has previously been read. The close proximity of their deaths tells me Alexander wanted to take Hephaestion with him, so both deaths were faked at nearly the same time.
As I already said, I think this entire trip was staged, with Alexander used only as a front. The Phoenicians had a list of things they wished to accomplish in those years, and this gave them the opportunity to accomplish them, mostly in secret. A large part of the heroics was fiction, so you should read it like you would read of the heroics of Theseus, or John Wayne. But even so, Alexander found this extended Phoenician holiday exhausting. Like an actor, he was expected to make public appearances and possibly speeches, and this quickly lost its charm for him.
Also notice that he was said to have died at age 32. But since that was only about 40 days short of 33 years, and since his birth date is unknown, he may have been 33. In fact, he may have been exactly 33, with that later changed by a few days because it was thought to be too obvious.
Addendum April 2, 2020: A reader sent me to a copy of Laurence Waddell’s 1924 book The Phoenician Origin of Britons, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons, which looks interesting in the title, but. . . isn’t. I could tell I was going to be heavily misdirected simply by the names of the author, who is not only a Waddell but a Chapman. His mother was a Chapman, and she is in the peerage, listed as the daughter of John Jervis Chapman, otherwise scrubbed. Let’s see, who else was a Laurence/Lawrence and a Chapman? That would be Lawrence of Arabia, who was really a Chapman. And a spook. Also see my brief comments on Justine Waddell at the end of my paper on John Major. Anyway, Laurence Waddell was also a Lieutenant Colonel, and we know what that means. Also Order of the Bath. So, completely untrustworthy. And we see what he is up to on page one of the preface, where he tells us the Phoenicians were Aryan. What does he mean by that? Well, he defines Aryans as being tall and fair-haired. So he wants us very much to believe the Phoenicians weren’t Semitic. Why? Because he doesn’t want us to connect them to the Jews/Israelites/Israelis.
You see, the problem was that Geoffrey of Monmouth had admitted in the 12th century that England had been settled by people from Turkey a thousand years before the Romans came over. See the History of the Kings of Britain, which was accepted as history for 500 years, until historians in the 17th century decided to bury it, calling it myth.♀ They no longer wanted people making that connection, for reasons we have looked at in many previous papers. They didn’t want Gentiles in Europe realizing they had been ruled over by Phoenicians/Jews since long before Roman times. This knowledge wouldn’t fit with war history being sold in those centuries, where Jews were being tagged as eternal victims. It also wouldn’t do for the citizens of Europe to realize the Phoenicians of the same families were still ruling them 2500 years later. The Kings of Europe were and had been sold as native in some way, being Prussian or Russian or French or Scandinavian, and these Kings didn’t want anyone recognizing the obvious: they had always been Semitic and still were.
But by the 1880s, the governors could see their denials weren’t working on a certain segment of savvy Gentiles, so they assigned Waddell a specific project targeting them. Like now, he would admit what was already known, and then spin it heavily. So, while his colleagues were still heading up the total denial project for the masses, Waddell spearheaded the controlled opposition, where he would admit Geoffrey of Monmouth was right, but try to convince his audience these Phoenicians sailing over from Asia Minor were actually tall blond Aryans. This is utterly absurd, so Waddell needed very high levels of sophistry to sell it. Which we see from the first pages of the book. His argument looks like propaganda from the first word, since it reads like a hypnosis. Rather than show you some evidence these people were tall and blond, he just says Aryan over and over and over. He does show many connections between Britain and Turkey going way back, so if you assume the early Britons were Aryan, it would seem to prove the Phoenicians must have been too. But do you see the fallacy there? Not only does he show no proof the people sailing over were Aryan, he shows no proof or even the least indication the leaders of Britain were Aryan. My assumption would be they were Semitic. Why? Because the rulers of Britain and the rest of Europe have never looked Aryan, and still don’t. As we have seen, the number of tall blond rulers in any European countries over the centuries have been minimal. Even Sweden, where we saw the kings and queens were short dark people with huge noses.
What this indicates to any rational person is that the native people in the northern countries were Aryans, being tall and blond, but despite their size and beauty, they haven’t ruled for millennia. Once the Phoenicians sailed over, they became the rulers. Although I am tall and blond with a smallish nose,
I still feel compelled to admit that, since it is looks like the truth to me. I don’t see any way to deny it to suit myself. Yes, some Aryans have advanced over the centuries, but mainly by marrying into Semitic lines. Some of the governors wanted to be taller and blonder, so it wasn’t a matter of fairness, it was a matter of stealing genes.
Does this mean Aryans are a bunch of dumdums, and that Jews are basically smarter? No. Logically, it means that the same thing that made the Aryans tall and blond also made them less ambitious: they were from the north. Being more strapping likely made them more likely to survive the harsh winters, and perhaps the lack of sun made them pale in skin and hair. But the harsh and long winters kept them indoors, so they couldn’t be sailing the seas all year trading, colonizing, and conquering. Unlike the Mediterraneans, they got used to huddling for months at a time, which didn’t make them stupider, but did perhaps make them less ambitious. I see this in myself. I don’t think anyone would call me stupid, but I admit to liking my sleep. The old Jews we have been studying appear to never sleep, but I wouldn’t live like that for a trillion dollars. And my levels of greed are likewise very low. Why? I am not sure. No one is, but I think it could be because my blood runs clearer back to my blond ancestors, who were satisfied living in a warm hut and snogging all winter with a pale and willing lass. I was born with less than no interest in economics, trade, money, big houses, cars, or large groups of people. I hardly notice the cold, but find too much heat really uncomfortable. So if the Semites want to run the world, I leave it to them. I just wish they would do a better job. I really don’t think lying about everything all the time constitutes governance. Robbing your neighbors blind every other month doesn’t constitute governance.
In fact, the levels of intelligence currently on display in running the world appear to me to be minimal. Even if I am told the Semites aren’t running the world, but simply fleecing it, I still find little intelligence in that. How does any intelligent person see fleecing the world as a worthwhile pastime? Even if I could be convinced that fleecing the world was a moral pastime, I still wouldn’t be interested in it. I guess that is because I find joy in growing my own wool, but none in taking someone else’s.
*On the page for Thebes, we are told Cassander re-established Thebes in 315. But on Cassander’s page, we find he wasn’t king until 305.
**Although we are taught to think of Alexander as looking somewhat like Apollo, Peter Green has told us the limited truth here:
Physically, Alexander was not prepossessing. Even by Macedonian standards he was very short, though stocky and tough. His beard was scanty, and he stood out against his hirsute Macedonian barons by going clean-shaven. His neck was in some way twisted, so that he appeared to be gazing upward at an angle. His eyes (one blue, one brown) revealed a dewy, feminine quality. He had a high complexion and a harsh voice.
†The same applies to the Phaeacians. Remember the story of Nausicaa? She was a Phaeacian. The Phaeacians lived at the end of the world (Mediterranean) and were the greatest sailors known. So. . . the Phoenicians again. Were you really fooled by that variant spelling? Most of the places Odysseus visited were Phoenician locales, think Pylos, Aeolus (Lipari), Phaeacia, Ithaca, Troy, and Djerba (land of the Lotus-Eaters). Djerba was a Phoenician port for millennia, and later became an admitted Jewish stronghold after 600BC. It is probable that the Odyssey could be read as a Phoen-odyssey, with Homer the Phoenician giving us a covert tour of sacred spots. Even Ogygia, Calypso’s island, is probably a real place, though I doubt it is Gozo. It should be a small remote island. Strabo put it in the Atlantic, so it may have been Porto Santo or one of the other Madeiras. Also interesting is that Calypso was probably a cousin of Odysseus, despite being a goddess. Her mother is given as Pleione, who also happened to be the grandmother of Iasion and Dardanus. Dardanus was an ancestor of the
Trojans. Like WWI and WW2, the Trojan War was a cousin war, with near relatives squabbling over resources. I have told you above that the real denizens of Troy were Hittites, not Phoenicians, but it looks to me like Homer peopled his fictional Troy with cousins instead, to make the story more cosy for his audience. These fictional people were related to real people, and may have been based on real people.
‡A search on that took me here, where it is confirmed. The drought may have been up to 300 years long.
♀In 2017, the mainstream, via archaeologist Miles Russell, began admitting that Geoffrey’s history is not just fictional. According to Russell, the book “contains significant demonstrable archaeological fact”. Wiki admits, “Geoffrey seems to have brought together a disparate mass of source material, including folklore, chronicles, king-lists, dynastic tables, oral tales, and bardic praise poems.” So why admit it now? I can only suppose it is because they think we are so thoroughly fluoridated we can no longer put two and two together. They think the danger of us Aryans figuring out anything is long past.