PHILIP III THE BOLD & THE CRUSADES

Phillip III the Bold

and the Crusades 

by Miles Mathis @
http://mileswmathis.com/index.html

First published August 23, 2017 

As usual, this is just my opinion, arrived at by personal research. 

We have seen in previous papers that most of history is a fraud, made up or rewritten by the ruling families for their own purposes. In most cases I have been able to show that rather than being a total fiction, it is a palimpsest: an overwrite of the real history, with small or large parts of the actual story existing beneath the current version. For this reason, with some amount of work we can recreate the real history by paring away the later lies and accretions. To a good eye, the truth can be seen through the layers of deception. Think of the Princess and the Pea. Just as she could feel the pea through any number of mattresses, I can spot the truth through any number of lies. 

Admittedly, the further back in time we go the more difficult this is. There are fewer clues and therefore less truth to latch onto. However, because the overall form of the deception has remained pretty much the same over the centuries, we can use our knowledge of newer deceptions to decode older ones. The puzzle pieces are fewer, that is, but they fit together in the same general way. The same people are telling the same basic lies, so an investigator can build the same case with fewer and fewer clues. 

I got into this one while studying the Crusades. I was working my way back to them from the point of my earliest in-depth historical research, which was the War of the Roses. There I had shown that the Stanleys, Kings of Man, had installed Henry VII of England. That wasn't hard to do, since it is pretty much admitted by many mainstream historians. But I also showed evidence in that paper and several later ones of a Jewish invasion of England through the Isle of Man and Anglesey at that time, headed by the Earls of Derby. However, I also conceded that was probably not the first Jewish invasion of England, just an important wave among many. 

What got me writing today was this painting: 

I post it large, so you can take a good look at the face. That is John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, father of King Henry IV of England and father-in-law of King John I of Portugal. John of Gaunt is allegedly the son of Edward III, but we will put a ? by that for now. That portrait looks genuine to me, though I haven't studied it in person. It was painted about a century after John's death, so it was not done from life. But it was done by an artist by the name Lucas Cornelisz de Kock, which also lends it legitimacy in my mind. Why? Because I am about to argue John of Gaunt was Jewish, and de Kock probably was as well. Think of the Kochs now. Also note the name Cornelisz, which we studied in my paper on Elvis Presley. There it was spelled Cornelius, but it is the same name. It points us in the same direction. 

[Here's a question most will forget to ask: why was de Kock painting John of Gaunt more than a century after his death? Who hired him to do so and why? Well, as we have seen in previous papers, the Jews commemorate their own, although they don't tell you that is what they are doing. See the artist von Wagner in my paper on the English throne, commemorating Isabella Jagiellon 300 years after the fact. Or in my paper on Napoleon, see the commemoration of Barbara Radziwill by many Jewish artists 400 years after the fact.] 

Look at John of Gaunt's nose. The length of that nose is very impressive, to say the least. His eye-to-mouth distance is astonishing, and reminds us of several people we have studied, including Sacha Baron Cohen. John of Gaunt also has the striking eyes of these others we have looked at, with the heavy lids and high dark curving eyebrows. His mustache and beard is dark. He looks neither Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, Gaelic, nor Scandinavian, does he? No, he looks decidedly Middle-Eastern, and de Kock has made no attempt to hide that or tone it down. 

I then had the idea to compare John of Gaunt to his brothers. Here is a painting of his eldest brother, Edward the Black Prince. 

He is the one kneeling. Hmmm. Strange, isn't it, that Edward “the Black Prince” is much fairer than John of Gaunt? You would have thought just the opposite, right? Edward clearly has blond hair and a blond beard. His eyebrows are so light you can barely see them. That is in a more naïve style, so it may have been painted in Edward's time. It is dated 1390, just 14 years after his death, so the artist may have met Edward or talked to people who knew him. Other portraits of Edward also show him blond. So why was he called “the Black”? He wasn't. In his own time, he was called Edward of Woodstock. He wasn't called the Black Prince until the 16th century, in the time of Shakespeare. Shakespeare popularized the name. The mainstream sites admit there is no good reason for him to be called the Black Prince, so we are led to the conclusion that it is some sort of blackwashing instigated by some faction in the 16th century. That plays right into my theory here, doesn't it? 

Also playing into my theory is the fact that Edward is being blackwashed to this day by the same families. In 2014, Stephen Fry—who I have previously shown is a spook related closely to the ruling families—slandered Edward on the BBC show QI, saying he had massacred 3,000 innocents in the siege of Limoges. Unfortunately, the BBC later had to admit that wasn't true. Although that has been the story for centuries, according to documents of the time the number of casualties was at most 300 and may have been as little as tens. Edward admits in letters that he took 200 soldiers prisoner, so if he is telling the truth, we have to subtract that from 300 (something the BBC fails to admit). Making the casualties something under 100. Unfortunately, we may assume far fewer people read the retraction at BBC than watched the TV show. This is how propaganda works. 

What about the third brother, the Duke of Clarence? There are no good portraits of him, but in the few images I found, he looked more like Edward than John. He was very tall, and it appears he may also have had light hair. In none of them was his nose exceptionally long. 

Since all three brothers allegedly had the same father and mother, there is almost no chance two of them would look Anglo-Saxon (or Scandinavian or whatever), with fair hair, and the third would look Jewish, with dark skin and hair. 

Well, if we add to that the admitted fact that John of Gaunt was born in the Low Countries (now Belgium), the idea begins to jell. For we have to ask why the Queen of England was giving birth in Ghent. Yes, John had two older brothers, but the line of Royal succession was never considered a given in those centuries, due to war and disease. Two males heirs could perish in a week. So the third son of the King should have been born in England, where he could be fully protected. You will tell me the Queen wanted the help of her family, but that is not how it was done. They would have come to her, not her to them. If we add to that the admitted fact Edward III wasn't on hand for his birth and didn't seem to care, and the admitted fact that many at the time alleged John wasn't Edward's son at all, we start to get somewhere. And if we then look at John's mother, we are off to the races. 

She was Philippa of Hainault of the Low Countries:

Well, what do you know, she looks Jewish, too. That painting is stylized, so it may not convince you, so let's look at her mother, Joan of Valois: 

That is far less stylized, with little or no attempt to make her look more attractive. Notice anything there? Same astonishing nose and eyes as John of Gaunt. As a portrait painter, I immediately registered the length of that nose and the way the eyes were drawn. The eyes are so Eastern they might almost be called Indian. There is no way that woman is what we would now call Dutch, German, Belgian, or Scandinavian. 

So, what is her story? Well, her maternal grandmother was Maria Arpad of Hungary. I have put a red flag by the Arpads in previous papers, while researching the Jagiellons. We are about to find more. Her grandmother was Maria Laskarina, and her mother was Anna Komnene. That name may look familiar to some who have studied history, because it is the name of the Byzantine Emperors of that time. Anna's father was Alexios III Angelos, Emperor from 1195-1203. The roots of the Komnenos dynasty are unknown, but in the past they were supposed to be Romans, Aromanians, or Vlachs. That is no longer accepted by the mainstream, and they are now said to be Greek. There is no strong evidence for any of those four guesses, and my guess is they are all wrong. I propose the Komnenos were Jewish. We will see more evidence of that below, when they come up again in the Crusades. But for now, it is interesting to find the first Komnene named Manuel. His eldest son was Isaac. Of course, those aren't Roman, Aromanian, Greek, or Vlachish names. They are Jewish.

 

That's Manuel with his wife Maria. The mainstream admits that Manuel was probably the brother of another famous Komnene, governor of the Vaspurakan region of Armenia at that time. That would also tend to support my guess, since the further east we go, the less likely it is they were Greek and the more likely they were Jewish. Plus, of course Armenia is famous for its Jewish populations, and always has been. Furthermore, the Komnenos were linked to Jerusalem even before the First Crusade. We will see that they soon married the Kings of Jerusalem, but even before the Crusaders passed through Byzantium and conquered Jerusalem, the Komnenos were active there. Tellingly, the Komnenos were very tolerant of Jews in Byzantium, easing restrictions on them during their long reigns. 

The mainstream sites also give another clue, which we can follow later: it wasn't only the line of the French kings that can be traced back to the Komnenos. Philip of Swabia, King of Germany around 1200, married Irene Angelina, daughter of Byzantine Emperor Isaac II Angelos, a Komnene.

 

That's Isaac II Angelos. You've got to be kidding me with that nose! Not really hiding anything there, are they? 

So, although we are told Philip was a Hohenstaufen, his children were also Komnenos. Since Philip was the first German king to be assassinated, that clue is actually a big one. It is possible he was assassinated because someone figured out he had taken a Jewish wife and wasn't fond of the idea. But we are only told “the motive for the murder has not been established”. Also a clue is that Philip was initially interred at Bamberg Cathedral, but later moved by Frederick II to Speyer Cathedral. Speyer Cathedral had been built by Conrad II, while Bamberg Cathedral was built by Heinrich II. So my first guess would be someone at Bamberg put the same 2 and 2 together I just did, and no longer wanted Philip (or his wife) in the Cathedral. Given that the motives aren't given or known, that theory should at least be put on the table. I put it there, and we will see how it looks as we proceed. More confirmation is that these Conrad's were of the same lines we have been studying, so Speyer Cathedral may have some hidden Jewish history. 

Philip of Swabia also leads us to the Premyslid dynasty of Bohemia that we have seen in previous papers. See for example Wencelaus II, who married Judith of Habsburg in 1285. We will see several other Judith's below. Their grandson was Charles IV, the first King of Bohemia to become Holy Roman Emperor. His daughter Anne became Queen of England with Richard II. Another granddaughter of Judith married King John II of France. A great-granddaughter was Queen of Navarre. 

But let us return to Joan of Valois. Through another line she was the granddaughter of King Phillip III the Bold of France, who was involved in the 8th Crusade in 1270. And this is where it goes from weird to uber-weird. Follow this story if you can: 

Phillip, then 25 years of age, accompanied his father King Louis IX (Saint Louis, above, note the nose) in the Crusade against Tunis (North Africa). This Crusade looks especially foolish if you know anything about the 7th Crusade of 16 years earlier, in which the same Louis sailed against Egypt, only to have his entire army annihilated and himself captured. He almost died of dysentery, according to the story, and would have if the locals had not cured him. He had to be ransomed for a gigantic sum. Since the Crusade cost a large amount to finance from the start, it was a massive failure. So it is not very believable to start with. I would say the 7th Crusade is about as believable as Napoleon's similar Crusade against Egypt, which I have blown apart elsewhere.  

But the 8th Crusade is even more absurd. The Crusaders landed in North Africa on July 18 and camped on the ruins of Carthage. Convenient. They then sat there and waited for Charles of Anjou to join them. Since he was the brother of Louis and King of Sicily, he shouldn't have been long, right? Louis had sailed from southern France “a month late”, and Charles was sailing from Sicily, much closer, so why was Charles so late? He didn't arrive until the end of August, nearly six weeks after Louis. Do you really think that was the plan? To have one part of the force arrive six weeks earlier than the other, and sit on the bug-infested coast on the middle of the summer? Sounds like a winner to me! 

Anyway, by the time Charles allegedly got there, Louis had already died of dysentery, along with his son—next in line after Phillip—John Tristan. Also convenient for the Phillip story. Convenient, too, is the death of the husband of Phillip's sister Isabella. This brother-in-law Theobald II of Navarre no doubt could have told tales, so his demise was also necessary. We can only imagine how it was accomplished. The posted histories don't even bother to give a cause of death, although he was only 31. Also convenient is that he died childless. Two months later Isabella died at age 30, cause unknown. A month after that, Phillip's wife (also Isabella) died, allegedly from falling off a horse while pregnant. Right. Because pregnant women love to ride horses. This wife Isabella had allegedly accompanied Phillip on the Crusade—another very curious fact, if fact it is. Their two-year-old son – who would become Phillip IV—remained at home. Soon after, Phillip's uncle also died. Also childless. Phillip didn't return to Paris until nine months later. We have to ask why it would take him nine months to return to France after the death of his father and his elevation to the throne. They admit he didn't remain in Tunis to continue the Crusade, since his contingent quit Africa almost immediately. Only Charles remained to negotiate. 

None of this makes any sense, so what really happened? Well, it's very suspicious that nearly everyone that could have identified this Phillip the Bold died in a short span of months, and he himself disappeared for nine months. Are we sure the same Prince returned to France that left it? 

In trying to unwind this story, I was reminded that in subsequent events, we found that the truth was normally 180 degrees from the story we were told. If we were told black, the truth was white. If we were told day, the truth was night. So I thought to myself, “What would it mean if the Crusades were 180 degrees from the truth? What would that entail?” Well, it would mean that Western Europe wasn't invading or conquering Jerusalem: no, Jerusalem was invading and conquering Western Europe. But how might it accomplish that, short of an overt invasion? We have no evidence of an overt invasion— as in big Jewish armies moving from east to west; so do we have evidence of a covert invasion? Yes, we do. I have shown you piles of evidence in later centuries, so we should look for similar evidence in earlier centuries, the centuries of the Crusades. 

Just as a for instance, say the 7th Crusade to Egypt happened somewhat like we are told. Say Louis went to Egypt, got captured, and had to be ransomed. Say some Jewish financiers were involved in the exchange of monies, and say one of them had the idea to insert spies into the returning Royal entourage. Say they were even partially successful in that, getting a man or two to Paris. Well, one of them may have had this brilliant idea: 

Say, Abe, next time one of these stupid Western Kings gets his ass underwater in the East, instead of ransoming him, why don't we kill him and ransom his son? These dopes always travel with their sons, right? Even better, why don't we replace his son with an impostor? 

But Lev, that won't work. Someone will recognize him and blow his cover. 

No, we will create his entourage as well with the most western looking lads we can find, and then just poison anyone who could recognize him outside that entourage. 

That might work on the way back, but it can't work in paris. We can't poison half of paris. 

We won't have to. We only have to poison a few key players: his father and anyone on the crusade will already be dead, so we will only have to kill, say, his wife, his uncle, maybe a sister or brother-in-Law. Others we can pay off. 

It couldn't be that easy! Could it? 

I don't know, we can only try. It's risky, sure, but think of the payoff. If we fail, we lose a couple of brothers. If we win, we take an entire country. 

Think of it like a game of chess. Jews have always been great at chess. [I find chess too boring to bother with, if anyone should ask. I find it about as fascinating as bingo, without the payoff.] If the stories of the Crusades are true, these Western Kings were terrible at it. Imagine marching your King right out in front of all your pawns. You are just asking for trouble. But if what we are told is true, it was even worse than that. In this 8th Crusade, Louis allegedly took both his sons with him, and these sons took their wives, and they all camped right on the shore of the Mediterranean, waiting for six weeks for the other half of his force to arrive. This after getting his ass handed to him by Africans just fifteen years earlier. So basically he had the IQ of a retarded chimp. Are you really going to tell me the Jews couldn't pull one over on his entourage? 

I'm not saying it happened that way. We are just getting started. I put the idea on the table, as something to keep in mind as we proceed. It is amusing, at least. We may think of something better after doing our research. 

But how did I ever get there? How could I possibly propose such an outlandish idea? I just told you how I got there. I saw evidence John of Gaunt and his mother were Jewish, so I traced that back. If these Jews were present in the Royal lines in northwestern Europe, they had to get there somehow. They didn't just drop from a balloon. I soon came to Phillip, whose story made no sense. As I saw it, his ridiculous history simply begged for the solution I just offered. It was nothing but a series of screaming red flags, all pointing in the same direction. So let us use what we have found to look at other Crusades. 

We will go back in order, so the next one to look at is the 6th Crusade. Not very interesting overall as matter of battles, but it gets us into the genealogies, which—as usual—are an eye-opener. This Crusade involved Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor. In 1225, he married Yolande of Jerusalem. Already, that looks like a big clue, since if she was Jewish, it confirms my whole theory here. But of course the historians tell us she wasn't. Yes, her father John of Brienne was King of Jerusalem, but the Kings of Jerusalem weren't Jewish, we are told. They were of the families of previous Crusaders. John of Brienne's father was from Champagne, and was French. Champagne will turn out to be a big clue, so catalog it now. His mother was also European: Maria of Montferrat, whose father was an Italian nobleman. This Conrad of Montferrat had been King of Jerusalem in 1190. 

But not so fast. Conrad's mother was Judith of Babenberg, supposedly the daughter of Agnes of Germany. But Judith is not a German name. It is Jewish. These genealogies stink of a heavy pawing. Conrad's paternal grandmother is also a clue, since she is given only as Gisela, daughter of the Count of Burgundy. No mother is given, except the name Stephanie. That doesn't look right even as a first name. Another thing that doesn't look right is this Count's mother, given as Alice of Normandy. Her mother was. . . wait for it. . . Judith of Brittany. Amazing that there are so many Judith's in these French and German lines, isn't it? We have seen this Judith of Brittany before, since she was the grandmother of William the Conqueror. 

Also note the Count of Burgundy in the paragraph above. We will see them again below. They were famous for letting the English into France, as in the Hundred Years' War. They were the great enemies of Joan of Arc, remember? 

But back to William the Conqueror, grandson of Judith of Brittany: 

You have to laugh, that they still post that as William the Conqueror. They aren't afraid to let him look Jewish, since they have no respect for your intelligence. I'm just surprised they don't post paintings of him in a yarmulke. 

But let's follow another line, shall we? Maria of Montferrat's mother was Isabella I of Jerusalem. Her mother was Maria Comnena, and her mother was Maria Taronitissa, “a descendant of the ancient Armenian kings”. Hold on. Armenia had been taken by the Byzantine Empire, but Armenia itself was not Christian. These ancient Armenian kings were therefore Turks or Arabs (or Jews), and our first guess—given the wording—is that they were of the Umayyad caliphate. This is curious, since according to the history we are sold, the Crusades were about fighting the Arabs, not marrying them. However, given the larger arc of the story we are unwinding, my guess is this Maria Taronitissa was not Armenian at all. She may have been from Armenia, but it is more likely she was Jewish, giving us another line of infiltration. Armenia had a significant Jewish population, even under the caliphate, since the mainstream admits the caliphs were very tolerant of Jews at the time. 

Also note the name Comnena. We already saw it above, spelled with a “K”. Komnene. Do the mainstream histories bother to link these two names? Not as far as I can tell. Remember, they told us the Komnenes of Byzantium were Greek (or Roman, or Aromanian, or Vlachish). Now they tell us Comnena is Armenian. You can see why I think we are being taken on the usual wild goose chase, to keep us off looking at anything but the Jews. 

To see what I mean, just go to the Wiki page for Jews in Armenia. It tells us the Jewish presence in Armenia dates back more than two millennia. There was a large Jewish population there in the first century BC. Vartkesavan was an important commercial center almost from the beginning, and a hub of the Jewish population. In the 4th century AD, there was a massive influx of Jews from Greece, and “many Armenian towns became predominantly Jewish”. Later, Jews of Samaria and Assyria were deported to Armenia. Note that: we are being told by the mainstream that Armenia was a gathering place and holding area for Jews in the centuries leading up to the Crusades. 

But wait, didn't we see the name Vartkesavan above? No, a Komnene was governor of the Vaspurakan region of Armenia. But was Vartkesavan in the Vaspurakan region? Since Vaspurakan is said to be the cradle of Armenian civilization, I would assume so. More research on that yields more nuggets, since  according to the mainstream history the governors of Vaspurakan in those centuries were of the house of Artsruni. So this Komnene was an Artsruni, something we weren't told on other pages. And if we take that link, we find that the Artsruni claim descent from the sons of Assyrian King Sennacherib of the Bible (Isaiah, XXXVII, 38). That requires a detour, but another short detour beckons first, since on the same page they admit the Bagrationi, Kings of Georgia, claim descent from King David. I didn't know that. Of course the current historians pooh-pooh both claims, but since these historians have names like James Russell, we can take their pooh with a grain of pooh. 

The Bagrationi claim certainly bolsters my thesis here, but the Artsruni claim really doesn't, does it? That is, if what we are told of Sennacherib is true, which it probably isn't. It never is. Assyria is depicted as an enemy of both Babylon and Judah, which is strange since Babylon and Judah were also arch-enemies. Sennacherib is the one who destroyed Babylon in 689BC, which no doubt made the Jews extremely happy. I think the clue here is that the Artsruni claim descent from the sons of Sennacherib, not Sennacherib himself. How could that possibly matter? Well, it matters a lot, because these sons actually killed their father “in obscure circumstances”. Are the circumstances really that obscure, or have them been obscured for the same old reasons? You decide. 

Sennacherib had two wives and four sons. The first son was killed by Babylonians. The fourth son was the only one to the second wife, but this fourth son was to succeed him. Strange. So the two middle sons were understandably angry. But why had they been passed over? We aren't told, but what if Sennacherib's first wife was Jewish? That would answer all our questions at once, wouldn't it? It would make the Artsrunis Jewish, as I suspected from the first, and it would explain the “obscure circumstances” in Nineveh. In support of that, notice that we have the usual “obscure circumstances” at the mainstream sites, which have a lot to say about the second wife, Naqi'a Zakitu—even linking us to her own page at Wiki—but which have nothing to say about the first wife. Her name is given as Tašmētu-šarrat, but no information is available on her at Wiki. We have to got to Oxford, where we learn a bit more. There we are told of inscriptions where she is called his “beloved wife”, “whose features were perfect above all women”. The text there admits this was uncommon or even “unique” for such inscriptions, we suppose because such marriages were not usually love matches. This we can also take as confirmation of our guesses. More clues come from the beginning of Sennacherib's reign, where we find he also was not a first son. When his father Sargon II died, the transition to Sennacherib was “not smooth”. It sparked uprisings across the Middle East, and it took three years or more for Sennacherib to cement his claim to the throne. But why would a transition from father to son cause such uprisings? Again, someone should put on the table the possibility his mother was also Jewish. I do so. Her name was Ra'ima. A short name compared to the other two queens we just looked at, indicating something being hidden. Why do they have two names and she only has one? If we look it up, we find that Raima is an Arabic name for girls that means “pleasing”. So it is pretty much meaningless and may indicate it was made up. They just threw an apostrophe in there to make it look Assyrian. 

Even more clues come when we look at Sennacherib's campaign against Judah. We are told Hezekiah had renounced Assyrian allegiance. Well, that means that up until 701, Judah had held allegiance to Assyria. Which means they were allies. [If they were allies, then these Assyrian kings may well have taken Jewish women as first wives in their early years—for their beauty—and then taken Assyrian wives as second wives to produce heirs. We see signs of this with both Sargon and Sennacherib.] This campaign is also curious in its particulars, since Sennacherib was very lenient against Judah, and particularly Jerusalem. He took Sidon and Ashkelon, and the rest of Judah caved. He then “besieged” Jerusalem, but “never breached the city”. Hezekiah even retained his throne there afterwards, though he had to re-pledge his allegiance. That seems like a very tame response to a rebellion, by the standards of the day, and so it also confirms my guesses. For comparison, look at what Sennecherib did to Babylon when it rebelled: he butchered everyone there, razed it to the ground, and even destroyed the mound on which it was built by diverting water from surrounding canals, utterly drowning it. Not a cockroach was left alive. 

Also interesting to remember is that Lord Byron wrote a song (poem) on Sennacherib: “The Destruction of Sennacherib”, found in his Hebrew Melodies. It is about this attack on Jerusalem and Hezekiah. Again, we have to ask why the Gentile Byron was so interested in such subjects, and I gave you the answer in my paper on Napoleon: Byron wasn't a Gentile, he was another crypto-Jew, memorializing his own history. However, Byron does more than memorialize it, he falsifies it, reporting that the soldiers of the Assyrian army miraculously died in their sleep. The Assyrian annals don't report it that way, strangely enough. Wikipedia has more interesting information for us, when it admits Byron's poem was very important to Mark Twain. It is mentioned in Tom Sawyer and many other of his writings. Why? Again, I told you why in my exposé of Twain: he was from the same families. Mussorgsky later wrote a choral work based on Byron's poem, telling us where he was from. In fact, Wiki admits the Musorskiys (garbage men) were descended from Rurik, founder of the Rurik dynasty, via the Princes of Smolensk. We have seen Smolensk in previous papers, and the Rurik dynasty makes a second appearance in this one. See St. Olga below, also of the Rurik dynasty. That links Mussorgsky to the main genealogical lines of this paper, and ties him directly to Hugh, Count of Champagne, one of the first Templars. 

We may look more at that another time, but for now we need to return to the main line here. So let's go back to the Kings of Jerusalem after the Crusades. Also worth looking at is Morphia of Melitene, wife of Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem in 1118. Her mother is not given, but her father is given as Gabriel, an Armenian nobleman who was the ruler of Melitene (a bit further east in Armenia). We are told he was Greek Orthodox, but given that he was the ruler of Melitene, there is no chance that is true. Other pages at Wikipedia confirm that, since they admit the mainstream history: after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, where the Turks decisively defeated the Byzantines, the entire area fell to the Seljuks. In fact, Melitene fell even before that, being conquered in 1058. Gabriel ruled after that, so there is no chance the ruler of the city would be Greek Orthodox. Given his name, he too was probably Jewish. The Seljuks would not have appointed a Christian to run the city, but they may have appointed a wealthy Jew to run their local finances. Or, Gabriel may have bought his independence with huge tributes to the Seljuks. Also remember what we found above: Armenia was settled by Jewish immigrants from Greece centuries earlier. So Gabriel may have been Greek in that sense. His ancestors may have come from Greece, but they were Jewish.

I encourage you to note all the other glaring contradictions in the posted history of Gabriel. We are told he rose from the ranks of the Byzantine army. OK, then why would he run the city after the Byzantine army was routed? We are told he preserved the independence of Melitene with the help of the Danishmends—rivals of the Seljuks—but they didn't capture Melitene until 1100. And besides, they too were great enemies of the Crusaders. And yet on the same page we are told that after 1100, Gabriel “invested heavily on the commanders of the First Crusade”. Can it be both ways? Since his daughter married the King of Jerusalem, there is something we aren't being told here. The only way to make sense of it is to recognize that Gabriel was very wealthy, likely from cloth trade or something similar, and he bought off the Turks, who didn't realize he was also funneling money to the Crusaders. Gabriel was obviously using the Crusaders to keep the Turks occupied with wars to the south, keeping their minds off Melitene—which they thought they already owned. This worked until 1100, when the Turks saw through Gabriel's double-dealing, and Melitene itself became the site of a huge battle. Gabriel called in his Crusader buddies, but they couldn't help him. The Turks won and executed Gabriel. Can't say he didn't have it coming.

But Gabriel had already played his greatest card in marrying his daughter to Baldwin. When the Crusaders eventually returned to Western Europe, they carried with them the genes of all these Eastern wives they had taken. They also carried with them other family members in the entourage, who also married at court once they returned. In this way, the long term effect of the Crusades was not a conquering of Jerusalem, Palestine, or the Middle East, it was the reverse: an infiltration of Western royal lines by Eastern families. We saw this later when the Medicis and Jagiellons and Vasas married into the royal houses of Europe, but it had been going on back to the First Crusade, and before. 

You will say it worked both ways and was just another example of worldwide miscegenation, and to some extent that is true. The difference being, it now appears the Jews had a plan while the Gentiles didn't. The Crusaders had no intention of infiltrating Jewish or Turkish or Arabic royal houses, since they apparently didn't even see that as a desirable goal. If they took Eastern wives, it was only because these women were beautiful or alluring. But in the reverse direction, there was definitely a plan, otherwise the Jews would have married their daughters to Europeans indiscriminately. Instead, we see them marrying only kings or other top nobility. In most other cases, the Jews were far more strict about marrying their own. 

If we look closely, we can tell who is rewriting this history. Almost without exception, the Jewish protagonists remain in the shadows. You usually don't hear about them, and the few times Jews are mentioned in these stories, it is as helpless victims, being slaughtered for no apparent reason. In these stories of the Crusades, we are told the Crusaders were sent by the Pope to free the holy lands from malicious Arabs, but if that is the case why would we be slaughtering Jews? It never makes any sense. Given what we know about later history, a more likely scenario is that it is the Jews who wanted the holy lands cleansed of these Arabs, and it was they who were inviting and paying the Crusaders to come. [That is the story of that region to this day, although the Crusaders are now from the US.] We have already seen evidence of that above, since it is admitted the Byzantine emperors asked for help from the Pope. That is what started the Crusades. Well, I just showed you the Byzantine emperors at the time were Komnenos, and they were very likely of Jewish descent.

It is therefore very unlikely that Jews were indiscriminately slaughtered. If some were killed, it was likely by Crusaders who didn't know the difference between a Jew and an Arab. But my assumption is the Jewish deaths were vastly inflated, to deflect attention away from them in the overall story. Also to make them appear to be victims of a greater struggle they had little part in. Just the opposite of the truth, as usual.

But let us return to the Sixth Crusade. If you can make sense of this Crusade you deserve a medal. The whole story looks like a cover for the struggle between the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire (which is pretty much admitted on the Wiki page). Frederick set out for Acre in 1227, but had to return to Italy when his army came down with an epidemic (of what, we aren't told). Pope Gregory IX immediately excommunicated him, though we aren't told how fleeing an epidemic was an excommunicable offense. Since Frederick soon continued on with the Crusade, it is not clear why he was excommunicated or why the excommunication wasn't lifted once he went on. Frederick then stopped in Cyprus, where another squabble with John of Ibelin was manufactured to explain why he had little support. But if that were the case, the Pope should have excommunicated John for interfering with the Crusade. When Frederick reached Acre, the Patriarch and clergy refused to support Frederick due to the excommunication. But in that case, it was the Pope himself who was standing in the way of the Crusade. He should have excommunicated himself.

As I said, none of this makes a lick of sense. Although Frederick could only show a token of force, for some reason the Sultan of Egypt ceded Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jaffa, and Sidon to the Crusaders without a fight. Strange list of names, I have to say. Did the Sultan also cede Mt. Ararat, the Dead Sea, and Disneyland? We are told that one of the results of the treaty was that the Jews were prohibited from living in Jerusalem. Right. I guess the Sultan also agreed that Egyptians were to be prohibited from living in Cairo. 

Frankly, this 6th Crusade looks totally fabricated, which would explain Frederick's excommunication: he never went. He could have achieved the same treaty without ever showing up, couldn't he? It would also explain the lack of a battle. Did the Sultan actually cede anything? It is doubtful. It looks to me like he was busy elsewhere, so the Europeans simply claimed Jerusalem while he was away. In 1244 (just 15 years later) he returned from the East and put a final end to all their empty claims. I'd be interested to see Egypt's copy of this treaty, giving Jerusalem up without a fight. My guess is it either doesn't exist or is written on a Big Chief tablet.

 So this takes us back to the Fifth Crusade. If you can make sense of this by reading the various histories on the internet, you deserve two gold medals and a kiss on the cheek by Natalie Portman. These histories look like they were farmed out to phone banks in Uttar Pradesh. Not only are they simplistic and non-grammatical, they contradict each other in many places. At Wikipedia we are told the Crusaders, aware they could not take Jerusalem while it was controlled by a powerful Sultan in Egypt, decided to attack Egypt first. But then they tell us the Muslims of Jerusalem, fearing another bloodbath like the First Crusade, fled the city and threw down the walls, so that the Christians would have no protection after they took the city. Well, if that was so, then what was keeping the Crusaders from taking Jerusalem? I guess they just passed it by as they moved south, refusing to take the unprotected city until they had defeated the well-protected Egypt first.

The  University of Michigan tells us that in 1218 Andrew II of Hungary tried to take Acre. But the other sites tell us Acre was a base of operations for the Fifth Crusade from the beginning. It was supposed to be the seat of John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem. That leads us to a problem of many Crusades, which is how these Kings of Jerusalem maintained any seat at all in the Holy Land in these long periods when the area was controlled by the Seljuks, Egyptians, or other Eastern parties. It is hard to believe they left Acre alone, since it was supposed to be incredibly wealthy. We are told that by 1170 it was the main port of the Eastern Mediterranean, and provided more wealth for its ruler than the total revenues of the King of England. It was supposedly held by the Crusaders for a whole century, from 1191 to 1291, but this is hard to believe given that after the Third Crusade, all the Crusader armies left and returned to Europe. Philip II of France and Leopold V of Austria left with their armies in 1191, and the next year Richard I of England also left. Without these armies, all that Acre had was a treaty, which was basically worthless. The various Kings of Jerusalem would have required huge standing armies to keep at bay all the Eastern armies, and they simply didn't have them. So none of this is believable from the first word.

In support of that, we are told the leaders of the Fifth Crusade required an alliance with the Seljuks in order to attack Egypt. What? Why would the Seljuks ally with the Crusaders? What exactly did they have to gain? Or, I should say, what did the Crusaders have to offer? The Crusaders wanted Jerusalem (which, remember, was allegedly Muslim-free and wall-less at the time), but what did the Crusaders have that the Seljuks could use? Nothing but Acre. And that they could take anytime they liked. All they had to do is wait for the Crusader armies to return to Europe.

All this does is remind us that the Crusaders had many enemies in the East, not just one. They had both the Seljuks and the Ayyubids to fight to start with, and if anyone was going to ally it was those armies. They were both of the East, and the last thing they wanted was a Western power coming in starting religious wars. The Seljuks and Ayyubids may have been enemies, but they were both Muslim states. More than that, they were both Sunni Muslims. So their wars were not religious wars. Neither would have allied themselves with Western Christians just for the fun of it. 

Here's something worth studying: 

That is the Seljuk Empire at its greatest extent in 1092. It's western capital was in Hamadan, now western Iran (north and west of the star there). So this wasn't a two-bit empire of goat-herders. These guys were serious warriors. However, that isn't why I posted this map. There's a rather conspicuous hole in the map, isn't there, above Palestine and east of Byzantium. What is that? That's Armenia. Why would these Seljuks be able to conquer Byzantium all the way to Constantinople, but not be able to conquer Armenia?

You may be confused, since that isn't the present-day Armenia, which is hundreds of miles to the East. But in the time of the Crusades, Armenia was centered on the northeast corner of the Mediterranean, above Antioch. So, again, why did the Seljuks leave Armenia alone? That is a central clue to this whole mystery, since Armenia just keeps coming up. Still not reading that clue? Add this clue to it: about dead center of that hole in the map of the Seljuk Empire and dead center of Armenia of that time is Mt. Ararat (above). Unless you are a pretty well-read Christian or Jew, you may have assumed Mt. Ararat was in Israel or Syria or Jordan, but it is actually in present-day Turkey, far to the north. It is where Noah's Ark is supposed to be. 

Which requires another detour. If you go to the Wikipedia page for Noah's Ark, you find the statement, “There is no scientific evidence for a global flood”. Wiki even has a page titled “flood myth”. Amusingly, on that page they admit 

Floods in the wake of the  last glacial period may have inspired myths that survive to this day. 

Sort of puts the lie to the title of the page, doesn't it? If there were widespread floods in the wake of the last glacial period, then how are these floods a myth?

And if you do a general search on “were there global floods?”, you see how the mainstream contradicts itself. In fact, the second entry in that search takes us to a 2012 article at ABCNews, telling us there is evidence of a great flood in the Holy Lands at that time. Beyond that, mainstream science knows of a series of ice ages, in data from ice core samples taken from Antarctica, and from much other evidence. The last ice age ended about 9500 BC—not that long ago. When ice ages end, obviously you are going to have widespread flooding on a very large scale. So whether or not there was a great flood as recently as the time of Noah (5000 BC?), the probability there were earlier great floods is very high. In fact, the evidence for these floods stacks to the Moon, and the only people who would buy the line that there is no evidence are people who have never read a book written before Oprah. For those who don't wish to dig out old scientific treatises, various popularizers have compiled and footnoted evidence, including Velikovsky and Donnelly. Both are now reviled, but Donnelly's Ragnarok compiles much interesting evidence in his first chapters, using the respected research of Sir Archibald Geikie, Louis Agassiz and others. Velikovsky does the same. I am not promoting the conclusions of either man, but their books are an easy source of much interesting data, otherwise hard to find. 

But let's return to the Fifth Crusade. There is something else that doesn't make any sense. When the Crusaders besieged Damietta in northern Egypt, we are told they took the famous tower outside the city, but couldn't take the city itself. Despite that, the Sultan Al-Kamil offered to exchange Jerusalem for Damietta. Mighty generous of him, considering that the Crusaders hadn't even taken Damietta.

Nonetheless, these Crusaders refused. How could they refuse, when the whole point of the Crusade was to take Jerusalem? Here it was being offered to them in exchange for something they didn't even have (and couldn't possibly keep), so on what grounds could they refuse? Their leader Pelagius should have been excommunicated, and then drawn and quartered by his own troops. Instead, we are told these troops followed Pelagius in an attack on Cairo. Again, in the middle of summer! Apparently, no one in the Crusader army realized the Nile flooded in the summer, and they got trapped and annihilated. Again, not believable. Everyone in the entire Old World over the age of ten knew the Nile flooded in the summer back then. The village idiots in Iceland and Outer Mongolia knew that.

OK, so let's move on the Knights Templar. The first clue we get at Wiki is this: 

Non-combatant members of the order managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom,[7] developing innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking. . . . 

Hmmm. Banking you say? Who else do we know that were bankers? 

They also admit that the Templars were closely tied to the Crusades. I just showed you the Crusades were an early Jewish project, started by the Byzantine emperors of the house of Komnenos. So we should ask if the Templars were part of this project. You will tell me the Templars were disbanded at the instigation of Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V working in concert, but we should put another ? by that story and come back to it. Since Philip's men had kidnapped the previous Pope Boniface just a few years earlier, it doesn't really make any sense that the new Pope Clement would be doing Philip any favors. 

Before we get into it, also remind yourself that the Templars were actually called the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon. The word Templars comes from the Temple of Solomon. Don't you find it curious to see them connecting themselves overtly to the Temple of Solomon? Would Christians be more likely to do that, or. . . say. . . Jews? The Temple was where the Ark of the Covenant was housed, and the Ark contained the original stone Ten Commandments and the rod of Aaron. Most Christians couldn't care less about the rod of Aaron. Also curious that the King of Jerusalem set up his Templum Domini on the Dome of the Rock, where the Jewish Temple had been. Note that the King didn't call that the Templum Christi or Templum Jesu. Just the Templum Domini, which could be any Lord—Christian, Jewish, or other. 

From what I understand, the early Christians were more interested in the life and teachings of Christ, not in Jewish temples. So why were the Crusaders so interested in Jerusalem and its Jewish holy sites? We are told it was for Christian pilgrims, but I have never been clear on that concept. I don't remember Christ teaching his flock to take pilgrimages to Jewish holy sites, so that they could bow down and venerate Old Testament figures and hoodoo. Isn't it more likely that it was prominent Jews that were so interested in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount? 

It is also amusing that the founder of the Templars is a guy named Hugues de Payens. Sometimes that is given as Hugo de Paganis, which may help you see through it. That is, Hugo from Pagan, or alternately, Hugo the Pagan. They tell you it means Hugo from the village of Payns, but it almost certainly does not. Look it up: payen is a common French word, meaning heathen or pagan. So this alleged founder of a prominent Christian order is named Hugo the Pagan or Hugo of the Pagans. You have to laugh. Other than that, nothing is known of this person. He is a ghost. 

To muddy the waters further, Hugues de Payens is tied in the literature to Hugh, Count of Champagne. If they lay enough Hugh's and Hugos on you, maybe you will quit asking questions. But this Count of Champagne is also a red flag. His mother was Adele of Valois, and her father was Ralph IV of Valois. He just happened to marry the ex-Queen of Henry I of France, and her name was Anna Yaroslavna. She was the mother of King Philip I. So Ralph's stepson was the King, making the King the uncle of Hugh of Champagne. Mark that: a primary Templar was nephew of the King. So these guys were of the royal house.

And Yaroslavna? Really? Doesn't sound very French, does it? She was the daughter of the Grand Prince of Kiev, Yaroslav I. Kiev is in Ukraine, of course, but we saw above that the Kings of Georgia claim descent from David. Is there some connection here? We'll see, but for now you should know that Anna was the granddaughter of Vladimir the Great of the Rurik dynasty, who was in turn the son of Sviatoslav I, who in turn was the son of St. Olga—who allegedly converted to Christianity in 957. Olga was supposed to be a Viking, but we have heard that old story before. We have also uncovered several fake saints, so we are not too impressed. Here are some of the things this Saint did: she had twenty suitors buried alive; she had another twenty burned alive; she had her soldiers kill 5,000 guests at a funeral feast; not content with that, she burned the entire city to the ground and ordered her soldiers to kill anyone who fled the flames. This lady really didn't want to get re-married! I guess we now see why women aren't put in charge of armies. A lovely person to make the first Christian saint of Russia, eh? Do you think that was just an accident? It couldn't be an early blackwash of Christianity, could it? 

Guess who wrote the book referenced on this Wiki page for St. Olga? A woman named Barbara Evans Clements. From the families? See Mark Twain [Samuel Clements], the Salem Clements, etc. Just a coincidence, right?

Sviatoslav, St. Olga's son, then became King. He is admitted to be the first ruler of Kievan Russia with a Slavic instead of an Old Norse name. That sort of conflicts with what they told us of Olga, doesn't it? She was supposed to be a Viking. So where did the Slavic influence come in? From the mailman? The famous ethnographer Tatishchev gave Olga's mother as Predslava, which is Slavic not Viking. The fake scholars at Wiki try to explain this away, but don't do a very good job, as usual. In the same way, we are told the young Sviatoslav was tutored by a Viking named Asmud, but Asmud isn't a Viking name, either. It is likely Jewish, becoming Asimov, as in Isaac Asimov, Jewish. Curiously, the origin of Sviatoslav's wives are not given, always a red flag. Vladimir's mother is given as Malusha, whom the Norse Sagas describe as a witch and the housekeeper of Sviatoslav. Strange place to find a queen. [Otherwise, Vladimir had 800 concubines—note the number.] And guess what, Malusha is a Jewish name. See this page at Rootsweb, which tells us Malusha derives from the Hebrew word Malka, which means Princess. The guy on this page, Andrew Kalinkin, tries to belittle the posted research*, but only by attaching snide commentary. He provides zero rebuttal or counter-argument, simply lending credence to all the claims he is posting. For example, he has nothing to say against Malusha coming from Malka, the most important claim in the entire post. He doesn't even address it.

With 800 concubines and any number of wives, why would Sviatoslav make the son of his housekeeper his heir? No, let me guess: she bewitched him by twinkling her nose? 

But let's return to Ralph of Valois. In marrying the Queen he was marrying a cousin, since we are told “the union broke the rules of consanguinity”. So what does that tell us? It tells us Ralph was also closely related to these “Slavs” from Russia. I will be told Ralph was related to Yaroslavna through her Swedish mother, but I found no Swedes in Ralph's immediate ancestry. Wikipedia misdirects by telling us Ralph “was related to the Capetian house to within the prohibited degree”, but he hadn't married the King, he had married the Queen, who wasn't Capetian by blood. 

Anyway, this Ralph was eventually excommunicated, and we are told it was due his marriage problems. But I have shown you how that story was manufactured. He couldn't have shared blood with the Queen unless he was a Yaroslav. So possibly he was excommunicated for being crypto/Jewish. At any rate, we have the usual red flags here, all flapping in the same direction as all the other flags.

What this means is that Ralph's grandson Hugh of Champagne was also probably Jewish, explaining his connection to the Knights of Solomon's Temple. More importantly, perhaps, it also made King Philip Jewish through his mother Anne of Kiev. They admit that she is the one who named Philip, and we are told it was a Greek name. She ruled as regent until Philip was 14, the first Queen of France ever to do so. That is another common story with these crypto-Jewish queens: see Catherine de' Medici, for instance, who also ruled as regent for her son. 

We have seen that Hugh of Champagne was the nephew of the King. Well, he was also the son-in-law, since he married Philip's daughter Constance. They named their child Manasses. What sort of name is that for a French child of the 12th century? It's Hebrew! The home town of this Count of Champagne was Troyes, which is also a big clue here. It was an important trading center, famous for its cloth fairs. It was also a premier market for leather, furs, and spices. Hmmm. What does that make you think of? Maybe the later East India Company? And note this from the Wiki page on these Champagne fairs: 

From the later 12th century, the fairs, conveniently sited on ancient land routes and largely self-regulated through the development of the Lex mercatoria the "merchant law", dominated the commercial and banking relations operating at the frontier region between the north and the Mediterranean. 

I guess you saw the banking relations? Also this: 

The predominance of the Champagne fairs over those of other cities has been attributed to the personal role of the Counts in guaranteeing the security and property rights of merchants and trading organizations attending the fairs, and in ensuring that contracts signed at the fairs would be honored throughout Western Christendom. [3] The counts provided the fairs with a police force, the "Guards of the Fair", who heard complaints and enforced contracts, excluding defaulters from future participation; weights and measures were strictly regulated. Historian  Jean Favier has written "the success of the Champagne fairs can be attributed solely to this intelligent policy of applying public order to business."[15] The Counts' concern for protection of this profitable trade extended beyond their borders:  Thibaut II negotiated a treaty in which the kings of France pledged themselves to take under royal protection all merchants passing through royal territory on their way to and from the Champagne fairs.[16] Eventually even the king became involved; in 1209 Philip Augustus granted safe conduct within France to merchants traveling to and from the Champagne fairs, increasing their international importance. 

So it seems the Counts of Champagne were extraordinarily involved in the protection of merchants. I wonder why? 

In fact, Troyes almost became the Capital of France in the 1400s, and possibly would have if it hadn't been retaken by Joan of Arc in 1429. It was the English who wanted Troyes as the capital, and they were abetted by the Counts of Troyes and the Dukes of Burgundy, who we saw above. Which we will have to unwind another time. Also something to look at another time is St. Bernard (below, note the nose), who—with his Cistercian monks—was set up at Clairvaux Abbey by Hugh in 1115. This hoists the red flag over that enterprise as well. 

Hugh of Champagne was one of the first dozen Knights Templar. Another was Andre de Montbard, who just happened to be St. Bernard's uncle. But no nepotism was involved, I assure you. Of course, what this indicates is that both Montbard and Bernard were related to Hugh of Champagne, although no “real” historian ever notices that. They are too busy toting that barge and lifting that bail to notice things like that. 

Now let's take a quick look at Baldwin II, Crusader and third King of Jerusalem, closely tied to the Templars. His father was Hugh I, Count of Rethel, who himself was the son of Manasses III and Judith of Roucy. Hello! Is anyone awake? Those are more obviously Jewish names. Baldwin's siblings were Manasses, Beatrice, and Hodierna. His maternal grandmother was also Hodierna. They were from Gometz. 

That doesn't look like a French name either, does it? Because it's not. It's Hebrew as well. It later became Gomez. Wiki tries to link this Gometz to a train stop between Paris and Chartres, the Gometzes were Counts of Troyes and Vexin back to the 800s.. Geni.com traces them back to Charles Martel and Childebrand, Duke of Burgundy. 

But back to Baldwin. We have already seen that he married Morphia of Melitene, and it is now easier to understand why he took this Jewish Armenian woman as his wife. She wasn't just a stop on the way. She was also Jewish royalty and may have been a distant cousin. They don't tell you, but Baldwin also had close connections to Troyes. His uncle was Milo the Great, and Milo's son was Milo II, Viscount of Troyes. Milo died in 1118, the year Baldwin took the throne of Jerusalem. Since this Milo was a contemporary of Hugh of Champagne, one a Count with his seat in Troyes and the other a Viscount of Troyes, they must have been closely related. They both also had Manasses in the family, doubling our bet. They must have been close cousins. Strange that all the Templars and Kings of Jerusalem are so closely related, and that they don't bother telling you that. They seem to all come out of the same family. 

Take a moment to catalog the name Milo as well. Ireland was taken over by Milesians, led by a Milo, at about this time. He is said to have come from Spain, but these families we have been studying were linked to Navarre, which of course is in Northern Spain, bordering France. So if Milo, Viscount of Troyes, was Jewish, the Milesians may have been as well. Something for further research. 

Now, I left hanging the fact that the Templars had been forcibly disbanded by the King of France and the Pope. You will tell me that maybe the King and Pope finally figured out they were Jewish, and shut them down for that reason (and to steal their assets). But I have shown you the King of France was also from prominent Jewish lines at the time, so that solution doesn't really scan. As you will see, the answer is something completely different. 

The King of France at the time was Philip IV, called the Fair. Not an apt appellation, as we are about to discover. Philip's queen was Joan of Navarre, so Philip was also the King of Navarre. They also ruled Champagne, which is a huge clue, given what we just discovered about Hugh of Champagne. They ruled Champagne because they were closely related to Hugh, Count of Champagne, one of the first Templars. Joan of Navarre's great-grandfather was Theobald III, Count of Champagne, and his great grandfather was Theobald II, Count of Champagne. Hugh was the Count before him, up to 1125. 

Being from the same family, there is no chance the King of France was an enemy of the Templars. Let me make this really easy for you: the Templars were rulers of Champagne and the King of France was also the ruler of Champagne. They were the same people. So it is logically impossible for one party here to have destroyed the other party. For what we have been told to be true, the rulers of Champagne would have had to destroy themselves. So the end of the Templars was just another hoax. They didn't end, they just changed names. The assets remained in the same family, they just shuffled the paperwork. 

But I have a sort of doubled proof for you. Philip IV wasn't just related to all these same people through his Queen, he was related to them by blood. Consanguinity. His mother was Isabella of Aragon, and her grandfather was Andrew II of Hungary, an Arpad. His maternal great-grandmother was Alice of Jerusalem, who we saw above. Her father was King of Jerusalem Baldwin II, also related to the Counts of Champagne. So, basically, King Philip IV of France and his Queen Joan of Navarre were Templars. So when they tell you Philip IV destroyed the Templars, they are relying on your ignorance of these genealogies. 

'And there's even more, since Philip IV and Queen Joan were actually cousins. Philip's grandfather was Louis IX, and his great-grandmother was Blanche of Navarre, an ancestor of Joan of Navarre. And there's even more: if we stay in Joan's maternal line, we find her 2g-grandmother was Irene Angelina of Byzantium, who we saw above. Do you remember her? She was a Komnene! Her father was Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium. 

Hopefully you see what that means? It means we have linked the Templars, the Kings of France, and the Emperors of Byzantium to the same family. So this was an inside job of major proportions. One arm of the family called for the Crusades, and another arm showed up to lead it. 

Which implies that the Popes were part of the project, probably being from the same family. As far as the alleged end of the Templars go, it means that Pope Clement V must have been in on it. We should look for evidence he was of the same families. They make this a bit difficult, since—unlike the nobles —the genealogies of these Popes aren't given at the mainstream sites. But we have a big clue, because Clement was said to have been from Villandraut in Aquitaine. Well, you may remember Eleanor of Aquitaine from The Lion in Winter, where she was played by Katharine Hepburn. Eleanor was the mother of Eleanor of England, who was the grandmother of Louis IX, linking us to all these people again. 

But we have more than that. Clement's page gives us a big clue when it admits his brother was the Archbishop of Lyon from 1289-1294. On this brother's page [Berard de Got], we find their father was the Lord of Villandraut. And if we go to the page for the Archbishop of Lyon, we find a substantial problem. There we are told the Archbishop of Lyon from 1290-1295 was Louis of Naples [St. Louis of Toulouse], appointed by Clement (above) but not related to him. 

That is St. Francis and St. Louis of Toulouse, a fresco painted in 1318 by Simone Martini. We see again the very long faces and long noses, which characteristics become frightfully obvious with St. Louis. Even though these are stylized, with Martini perhaps lengthening all the faces he painted (like El Greco, say), you can see that St. Louis is more pronounced in that regard that St. Francis. At the least, we have to ask why Martini painted him that way. 

Anyway, something doesn't add up in the history we are told here. Berard and Louis couldn't have both been Archbishops of Lyon in the same years. There was only one at a time. But the mystery is quickly solved (in a way they didn't intend), since we find this Louis of Naples wasn't from Naples at all. He was from Provence, and his parents were. . . wait for it. . . Charles of Anjou and Maria Arpad of Hungary. We saw her above, didn't we? We have come full circle, since her great-grandson was the John of Gaunt we saw in the big portrait above. Her father was the King of Hungary and her grandmother was Maria Laskarina. Maria Laskarina's mother was Anna Angelina Komnene, and Anna was the daughter of Alexios III Angelos, Byzantine Emperor during the Fourth Crusade. So it looks like the histories have been fudged here, to hide the fact that Pope Clement V was actually the brother of St. Louis of Toulouse, and thereby a Komnene. 

So I have just proved to you—using only mainstream sources—that the Kings of France, Pope Clement V, and the Templars were all related directly and closely to the Emperors of Byzantium. Therefore, we know the whole end of the Templars was a hoax. There is no chance Philip IV ordered the arrest of any Templars. The charges of homosexuality were manufactured, no one spat on the cross, no one was tortured, the Papal bulls were faked, and no one was burned at the stake. The order may have disbanded, but that just means their assets were absorbed by these other relatives. Philip didn't need to seize any assets, since those assets were already in the family. And he wasn't in debt to the Templars, since, again, they were family. He was a Templar, in effect, and couldn't have been in debt to himself. 

This basically blows the entire history. But what does it mean? Am I telling you the Crusades were completely faked? No. I don't think so. It looks like they were cover for something else. Above, I suggested they were cover for a Jewish infiltration of Western royal houses, but we have seen that these royal houses were already Jewish to start with. So although the Crusades may have been a continuation of that old project, they had to be something more. My guess is it had to do with keeping the overland trade routes to the Far East open, so that these families could continue to freely or cheaply import cloth, spices, furs, and I suppose opium. I had to look it up, to see if the opium trade went back that far, and sure enough it did. We are told the Arabs were exporting opium to China as early as 400 AD, and if it was moving east it was surely moving west as well. 

This means the Crusades were an arm of and precursor to what would later become the East India Company, with the Templars, Armenians, Byzantine Emperors, and Kings of France, Germany, Bohemia and Hungary acting as the agents of the Western leg, from Acre to Western Europe. It wasn't about Christian pilgrimage, it was about money. This is why the Champagne cloth fairs were such an important clue, as was the admission that a lot more was traded there than cloth. 

And what about Philip III the Bold? Was he replaced by an impostor? Well, it is hard to say for sure, even after all we have learned. I would say the story of that Crusade is definitely the cover for something, and that the given history is false. I have shown you that St. Louis his father was probably already Jewish to begin with, so the family didn't need to be infiltrated. But it is obvious to me that something wasn't going as planned and required a rather magnificent fix. Since we are looking at Jewish lines, it is the females that are actually more important, so Philip's wife Isabella of Aragon is the key here. Her grandfather was Andrew of Jerusalem, descended from Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem. And Baldwin's grandparents were Manasses and Judith remember. [Since Isabella was the grandmother of Joan of Valois, this means John of Gaunt was the 8g-grandson of Manasses and Judith]. In other words, Queen Isabella ties us to the main action here. Her line is even more important than the Capetian royal line in France, which wouldn't interest the Jewish scholars except at the point that it had been previously intercepted by Anna Yaroslavna (who we already covered above). Therefore, Philip III the Bold was just a placeholder. He was relatively unimportant as a matter of blood, being useful only because he was the heir to the throne. But if St. Louis should decide to change the line of succession for some reason after Phillip III had already been married to Isabella (and after Phillip IV had already been born), a very large problem would arise for the powers behind Isabella. In fact, we saw a very similar problem centuries later, when those behind Catherine de' Medici had to get rid of Henry II. Henry may have been talking about changing his heir, and that couldn't be allowed. In the present case, I suggest Louis was talking about naming Philip's younger brother John Tristan as heir, and that couldn't be allowed. Things had to be arranged so that Isabella's son remained heir. That may have required very drastic measures, explaining all the deaths. Or all the relocations to Tunis. As now, all these deaths may have been faked. As we have seen in dozens of previous papers, relocations accomplish the same thing as deaths, without the bad karma involved in an actual murder. Tunis may have been the South America of the time, acting as a destination for people that needed to disappear from Europe. 

Although that theory isn't as amusing or cinematic as the impostor theory, I think that—given what we have discovered of the genealogies—it is more likely. I will go with it for now. 

Some will have tripped over my claim of “people behind Isabella”. Am I saying the King and Queen weren't the top of the food chain? Yep, that is what I am saying. Same as now. Those who appear to be ruling aren't really ruling. The rulers remain in the shadows, where it is easier to get things done. We may assume that those behind Isabella were the Jewish merchants and bankers—same as now— probably from the Armenian house of Komnene. 

And what happened to these Komnenos? Did they fade away? It is doubtful. Since nothing much has changed in the past thousand years, the logical assumption is that the same families running things then are still running it. The Komnenos may have changed their name to Rothschild, for instance. In that regard, this may interest you: in Armenian, Komnen means “Hell”. So what is a Komnene? A denizen of Hell? And what color shields would they carry in Hell? Perhaps red shields? Red shield=Roth Schild. Just a suggestion.

At any rate, you have seen again what a powerful tool the genealogies are, and the next time you hear someone complaining that I have lost my way in the ancestries, send them to this paper. If they aren't fascinated by the links uncovered here, they aren't worth talking to. 
http://mileswmathis.com/phillip.pdf