One lives through the hectic nature of their individual life never considering how the past, even the distant past, has such an indelible effect upon the present. But, in this case, the past represents tragic, even fatal prologue. Truly, what one has been taught regarding US history represents academic presentation of mere surface, leaving layers of great depth beneath shockingly untouched. Most, academics and the masses alike, imagine the history of this country begins in 1776. But, that it is a falsehood, designed to pacify the masses with what amounts to the subjective creation of folklore and myth.
WILLIAM ‘THE CONQUEROR’
In truth, the recording of history, particularly US history, represents the making of myths, not the assiduous recording of objective facts. Furthermore, the foundation for the history of this country goes all the way back beyond 1776, to 1066. Students of European and even Medieval British history will recognize that date as significant-the year William the Conqueror invaded England, and claimed the throne for himself after emerging victorious at the Battle of Hastings. Although many historical accounts chronicle William’s ascent to the English throne as a rather smooth transition, unencumbered by any notions of dissent, this was hardly so. Although it has been widely written the catalyst behind William’s violent seizure of the throne came upon encouragement from his predecessor William the Confessor, this is merely speculation. What is certain, was that this was a turbulent time in the history of England, an era which set the country on a long path of civil strife, of various factions fighting to claim the throne for themselves.
During this turbulent era, there were several claimants to the throne of England, among them Harold Godwinson and a royal Norwegian invader named Harald Hardrada. Godwinson managed to emerge as Edward’s successor and even managed to defeat the invader Hardrada at the battle of Stamford Bridge on the 25th of September in 1066.
But, his reign turned out to be quite short lived.
For, on the 14th of October, 1066, William took up arms and crossed the channel with a significant armed force. Alarmed, Harold hastily endeavored to meet this invading force at Hastings.
However, hastiness and a key strategic blunder, cost Harold dearly.
With most of his forces left behind in the north of England, what little defending force he fielded was easily dispensed by William’s invading mercenary forces. Not only did this strategic mistake cost Harold the battle, but his own life as well-shot through the eye with the lethal blow of a single arrow.
After coronation of the new reigning monarch, civil strife did not abate. William’s subsequent reign was marked by incessant internal turmoil. In those short years soon after taking the throne, there existed constant threats of violent struggle, between the usurping monarch and a number of aggrieved nobles. In fact, not until around 1072, was William able to secure some semblance of viable security for his kingdom. After securing some measure of fragile peace, William’s rule saw visible changes, to not only English culture, but to the prevailing structure of governance. For one, the Norman dialect altered the continuing development of the English language. In addition, both the judicial system and the role of the nobles were significantly altered. Through royal decree, the king now held sole ownership over the land, with the nobility obliged to pay annual tribute. Prior to this, the people held what was termed ‘Allodial’ title to the land. By sheer force of superior arms, William appropriated the king’s title and confiscated the land, levying heavy taxes upon the nobles. Needless to say, this royal maneuver was not popular and did not bode well. Because most of the rebelling nobles refused to pay the heavy taxes levied, this led to financial dire straits throughout the kingdom. England, in effect, fell into bankruptcy.
‘DEAD MAN’S HAND’
In attempting to formulate a solution, William’s successor, John, invoked the law of Mortmain. This was known as ‘the dead man’s hand’. In essence, this meant the people could not pass on the title of their lands to ancestors without express permission from the reigning monarch-a concept later developing into what we know today as legal ‘probate’.
THE VATICAN and CROWN TEMPLE
It is important to point out the establishment of the Crown Temple was closely related to the hegemony of the Vatican, in that Crown Temple represents the supporting bureaucratic banking and legal infrastructures of the Papal See. This is how men donned in mere robes, with only the perceived power over spiritual beauty and ecclesiastical truth, could maintain such tight control over Europe’s monarchs possessing the allegiance of powerful armies equipped with swords and armor. They achieved absolute hegemony through tight control over the land and even tighter control over the royal purse strings through constant maintenance and issue of interest bearing loans. It is also important to understand, without the law of Mortmain, the king would forfeit the ability to levy taxes on the lands he controlled. Since England was bankrupt, the wealthy Vatican bankers of the Crown Temple saw this as an opportunity to establish hegemony over the monarch with the imposition of their money lending schemes. Observing that King John owed tens of thousands of pound sterling to the Vatican and refused to pay, Pope Innocent saw fit to excommunicate the king, attempting to install his very own governing representative, Stephen Langton.
When John refused to recognize the Pope’s representative, England was placed under Papal interdict (prohibition). Trade and business greatly suffered, which meant the nobles were once more on the verge of rebellion. When finally, Pope Innocent excommunicated John, he was forced to turn over the land of his kingdom to the Vatican and the Crown Temple. In essence, England was a vassal of the Pope, its loyalty and fealty to the Vatican regime assured-with the caveat the Pope’s excommunication would only be lifted, when John accepted Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury.
TREATY OF 1213 and MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM
John’s capitulation to Crown Temple and the Holy See was made official in 1213, when under duress, he was forced to accept the Pope as Vicar of Christ, claiming ownership over the land and all its inhabitants. This arrangement did not endear the nobles, who further forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which was subsequently declared unlawful by the Vatican lawyers. The important part to understand, is that the Papal See represented heirs to both sides of the declared contract. If the Magna Carta had been declared lawful, this would have severely compromised the Vatican’s hegemonic land ownership. In effect, the nobles would have gained the upper hand in terms of future negotiations. This the Crown Temple and the Holy See could not afford to allow, for it would have meant surrendering legal and financial hegemony.
While the legal concepts described here may seem convoluted and even turgid to the uninitiated, the series of events taking place in this time period, were to be repeated in the conquest of the new world, across the sea, centuries later in America. Clearly, this is Crown Temple’s method of operation time and again-to first gain control over the land, then ensure hegemonic control with interests bearing loans, titles, liens and taxation, all supported by legal and lawful contracts.
This is integral to one’s understanding as to why, legally, the US corporation does not represent an independent nation. Rather, it is still a colony, operating under trust and contract with Crown Temple and the Holy See.
Thus, the treaty of 1213, signed by King John, was still in effect until the eighteenth century, when the so-called founding fathers, all Esquires affiliated with Crown Temple, decided to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the contract, but not for the sole benefit or independence of the people, but rather in their own interests. The results of that negotiation are the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, the preamble to what became known as the US constitution. These documents, held in such reverent esteem by American public school history books, were merely the result of a renegotiation of terms and conditions put down in the treaty of 1213, which is still in effect today!
Though many of you may dispute this, perhaps even wishing to heap scorn upon the messenger, one is encouraged to research this topic and arrive at one’s own educated conclusions.
In the meantime, it is important for one to remember all new ideas travel through three stages in the public mind: First, they are ridiculed. Second, they are violently opposed and third, they are finally accepted as self-evident.