Perhaps many patriotic Americans will dismiss the controversial premise found in this penultimate examination of the American revolution and its most renowned revolutionary figures. But, as became evident in the previous installment concerning Benjamin Franklin, America’s cherished founders may not have been who scholarly historical documentation claims.

In the case of George Washington, often labeled the founder of America, the gulf between objective fact and mythical historical portrayal shall prove to be sharply drawn. That Washington was a land holding aristocrat and not numbered among the hoi polloi shall not prove to be a profound revelation.

However, the actual identity of America’s founder shall no doubt prove shocking.

More revealing still is what the history books have generally omitted concerning the biographical details of Washington’s life and military record prior to the start of America’s alleged revolutionary conflict with Great Britain.

Indeed, one shall soon discover, the historical accounts of Washington’s life, and that of the military victory over Great Britain, may have been wholly cut from mythical cloth.

Repetition, rather than corroborative examination, is often the magical ingredient in cementing historical fact. Indeed, if history has demonstrated anything, it is that if a story is repeated often enough, emerging as a resounding echo in the callow ears of succeeding generations, then that story is believed to be objective fact. Objective examination shall reveal the crux of historical myth often rests upon such repetition, both in print and through word of mouth.

After all, if enough people in positions of authority claim possession of objective truth, even when absent of critical examination, then many shall still reason it must be unquestionably so. With the masses emotional investment, the lie transforms into a psychological virus and is thereafter perceived as truth. This is the distorted logic the ruling elites rely upon to sell their lies as truths. Such is the case with General George Washington, who allegedly led a previously untested and comparatively poorly trained continental army against what was arguably, up until that time in the eighteenth century, reputed to be the most fearsome and well disciplined military machine yet assembled in the history of military conflict.

And yet, seemingly against great odds, Washington and his rag tag band somehow emerged, so the history books claim, victorious.

The unlikelihood of this scenario seems to have escaped historical scholars and students of American history alike. Furthermore, Washington’s rather dubious military record prior to taking command of the rebel continental forces seems to have escaped the notice of most historical scholars, embarrassing accounts which have been omitted from public school and university history texts. This is rather curious, since Washington’s incompetence as a military commander prior to the American revolutionary conflict was rather well documented.

However, historical scholars, and the American general public, seem respectively stricken with selective memory syndrome on the one hand, and willful blindness on the other. That the legendary historical status of General George Washington persists in the face of the following documented account is curious enough.

Considering further, perhaps this is not so incredible. Given the ‘war on terror’ conspiracy theory concocted by the US government still persists nearly a decade and one half proceeding in the wake of September 11, 2001, it becomes obvious the arrested public mindset of puerile patriotism, at least in America, finds no utility in searching for any documented facts which may betray the stubborn persistence of such conditioning myths.

So it is with the story of America’s colonial rebellion against the British crown. The masses assume the story to be true simply because it is handed down from a pedestal of scholarly authority.

After all, high school teachers and college professors couldn’t have willfully misinformed entire generations of students-or could they?

French and Indian war

Though virtually omitted from most American history texts, there exist certain documented accounts of the youthful George Washington’s military record, none of which, at least from the perspective of unfettered objectivity, turns out to appear very flattering. In truth, such accounts are a stunning indictment of both Washington’s inexperience and almost bumbling incompetence. Some of these accounts go so far to document Washington may have been solely responsible for launching what was alleged to have been the long and bloody French and Indian conflict. And yet, history texts claim this is the incompetent military field commander defeated the very same superior forces that would later sack the White House in 1812, and allegedly drove the historically vaunted Napoleon from the battlefield of Waterloo a mere three years later?

Indeed, official mainstream history is often found rife with such glaring contradictions. Consulting Washington’s biography, there too, one discovered the usual anomalies. In similar fashion to fellow founding father Ben Franklin, it is written Washington had no formal education beyond what was considered elementary levels, and yet, like our old friend Benny, George went on to scale the heights of achievement beyond that of other living mortals, even among those of the so-called ruling class. Improbabilities aside, as a young man Washington became adept at the land surveying trade, but reportedly dissatisfied, the future wealthy plantation owner and celebrated leader of men soon acquired larger ambitions.

One of those ambitions was to become a commissioned officer in the British armed forces, who along with French troops, were occupying most of the American colonial territories. But Washington’s youthful and somewhat quixotic ambitions would have to wait, and he instead opted for a commission in the local Ohio militia. One of Major Washington’s first military campaigns came at the behest of the Ohio royal governor, Robert Dinwiddie, who sought help in dealing with the presence of an increasing number of French troops in the territory. The question remains, why would the royal governor, considering there were more seasoned commanders numbered among the occupying British forces, opt to employ the services of a comparatively callow and inexperienced officer? Of course, this question remains largely unaddressed by historical scholars, but with the help of diligent research and perhaps reading between the lines, as it were, one was soon able to divine a hypothesis.

At this time, around the mid-eighteenth century, the English were in the midst of a legal dispute with the French over territorial ownership, and Dinwiddie was growing apprehensive concerning reports the French forces had begun to encroach on parcels of land held in trust by the British crown’s Ohio company. Growing increasingly desperate over French aggression, Dinwiddie felt compelled to turn to the young Major Washington to expedite the problem. Up to that point, the young Washington had learned guerrilla warfare tactics from the local Indian chiefs, and gained a more than adequate knowledge of woodlands navigation. With the help of Indian guides, Washington journeyed to a French military emplacement at the fork of the Ohio river, Fort LaBoeuf.

There, on behalf of the royal governor, and King George II, Washington delivered a message to a French diplomatic envoy, Legardeur Saint Pierre. Although appearing initially receptive to British concerns over French territorial encroachments, Pierre proved ultimately obstinate, and turned Major Washington back with the following reply addressed to the royal governor, “As to the summons you send me to retire,” Saint Pierre rebuffed, “I do not think myself obliged to obey it.”

At this juncture, the royal governor felt compelled to dispatch Major Washington at the command of 300 troops, to the banks of the Ohio river, to construct a fort for the purposes of not only acquiring intelligence on French military maneuvers, but as a strategic encampment from which an assault on French emplacements could possibly be launched. Perhaps dreading the prospect a confrontation with the French seemed inevitable, and well aware of his inexperience as a military field commander, Major Washington refused to take ultimate leadership of the small detachment, instead choosing to yield command to a more seasoned officer of the governor’s choosing.

When for some mysterious and inexplicable reason the veteran officer decided to abandon his assigned billet, Washington may have felt dismayed to find himself in the awkward position of having to take command after all. Despite the fact Washington was charged with merely holding the British position and remaining on the defensive, the brash young Major decided, reportedly without provocation, to attack an approaching French-Canadian diplomatic contingent sent to negotiate the terms and conditions of a new territorial treaty with the British. Not only were the unarmed diplomats allegedly slaughtered, but Washington’s Indian ally, a Mongo chief, reportedly ordered his braves to take diplomatic envoy Joseph Coulon de Jumonville prisoner and have him tomahawked and scalped.

While other fringe historical accounts claim it was British musket fire downed the unarmed de Jumonville, this disastrous imbroglio marked a truly inauspicious beginning to Washington’s military career. Although the young Major’s bush wack of the French-Canadian diplomats may have proven to be a perverse species of victory, Washington’s next military command against actual armed opposition allegedly proved not so fortuitous.

Battle of Fort Necessity

Despite Washington’s drubbing at the battle of Fort Necessity at the hands of French troops, history books still trumpet the battle as an example of Washington’s unmatched bravery and perseverance under fire. The problem from the beginning turned out to be the fact Washington had built the fort in an unenviable location. Not only was Fort Necessity situated in such a position as to deprive its sentries good command of high ground to scout any approaching enemy, but the British emplacement was constructed on a low ground river embankment with its back to the water where it was most vulnerable to attack, conditions which offered little or no chance of efficient retreat to higher ground.

Needless to say, as the documented story goes, Washington, during the heat of battle with one third of the 300 (1/3+3=33, highest degree of Scottish Rite Freemasonry) British troops under his command slain, abandoned by his Indian allies and badly outnumbered by an opposing French force of 700 (7, the Kabbalah zayin or mind weapon once again) led by the vengeful brother of slain diplomat de Jumonville, was finally forced to sign terms of surrender that turned out to be most favorable to the enemy.

Ironically, to this day, when a historical recounting of the battle of Fort Necessity appears in the annals of the state of Virginia, the location of Washington’s vaunted Mount Vernon residence, it is brazenly heralded as a glorious example of the founding father’s great courage under fire. As one can guess from the presence of numerology coding, this story, whether interpreted as an example of Washington’s valor or utter incompetence as a young and inexperienced military field marshal, was likely created out of whole or partial cloth.

The truth, as seems to be the case with most, if not all of documented American history, remains conceptually relative. Is it possible, in the heraldic traditions of his royal and noble ancestors, such epic stories of courage in battle were concocted to establish the young Major Washington’s reputation as a brave warrior in the eyes of posterity? Could it be, like the story of the young Benjamin Franklin running away to Philadelphia to begin a successful newspaper business, such an account served the purpose of laying the foundation of an historical narrative that would be repeated and taught to successive generations – a narrative that could then be built into mythical proportions?

The late philosopher Joseph Campbell once stipulated that myths serve as the very life blood coursing through the marrow of a nation’s culture. In the case of George Washington, could it be his historical character was a mythical identity upon which could be built the foundation of a new nation’s cultural heritage – a heritage of bravery in the classically romantic fight for individual freedom against political tyranny? Or better still, could not the creation of mythical stories like the battle of Fort Necessity, and the battles of the American revolutionary war, have also served to well conceal the true royal and noble heritage of the host actor portraying an historical character, as well conceal the assiduously planned grand scheme of global collectivism planned by the thirteen ruling elite families – the iron hand of the Holy Roman Jesuit global empire well hidden by the velvet glove of a superficially established democratic republic? As shall soon be demonstrated, the royal and noble heritage of George Washington, the seminal figure in the founding of America, runs a great deal more deeply than previously imagined.

Washington and royal lineage

Though in the past, the family connections between American presidents and European royalty have been documented, even by mainstream sources such as America’s so-called ‘newspaper of record’ the New York Times, they have all but been brushed over to appear to the American masses as a mere pop culture oddity or passing fascination. And though further revelations of royal or noble connections with George Washington may not seem all that surprising, it shall seem utterly shocking to observe just how deeply Washington’s genealogical roots were planted among the most renowned of European royal lineage.

Per painstaking research, one was able to glean Washington possessed a greatly extensive royal genealogical descent. Traced through Washington’s grandmother, Mildred Warner, the ancestry of America’s first president extends back to the early middle ages, all the way to Charlemagne, the first French king who is alleged to have united all of Western Europe and founded the feudal system, and to Brian Boru, the last High King of Ireland. Additionally, Washington’s male line can be traced back to Duncan I, the first king of Scotland (best remembered as the king betrayed by Shakespeare’s Macbeth), while it appears many of his subsequent male ancestors married into British royalty. Some other prominent royal ancestors of Washington include William I aka ‘The Conqueror’ and his son Henry I, as well King Edward III, who founded Britain’s Order of the Garter.

‘Old Washington Hall’

More revealing still, is the origin of the Washington family name from William de Hertburne (who just as an aside is directly related to the Hollywood family of Cathryn Hepburn), who upon decree from the Bishop of Durham and after marrying Margaret, the sister of Scottish kings Malcolm IV and William the Lion, assumed tenancy of many valuable parcels of land near the village of Wessyngton near the rivers of Tyne and Wear. This is quite significant, given that traditionally, the Bishop of Durham accompanies the new King or Queen when they are both crowned and anointed. Today, the castle is referred to as Washington Old Hall. It should be noted that in masonic and Jesuit traditions, a residence designated as ‘Hall’ is often where important and far reaching political decisions are made by the highest level decision making principals.

Regarding investigations into George Washington’s genealogy, a glaring pattern of deliberate deception became quite evident. Essentially, what mainstream genealogists have done, is to cleverly and systematically utilize misdirection and deliberate confusion to confound the masses and frustrate those curious enough in thoroughly researching the truth of the matter.

However, this is not so surprising.

The semantic distortion of language, including the deliberate tampering of proper names, are some of the most effective weapons the ruling elites possess in their arsenal of psychological weaponry. When one researches the genealogical record of both King George III and that of founding American father George Washington, one shall notice different names or alternative noble or royal titles have been used or perhaps switched out, obscuring the fact the same historical figures included in both royal lineages may indeed be synonymous. Curious too, that much of Washington’s genealogy, particularly on the maternal side, has been scrubbed from most of the sites online.

Thus, what is it historical scholars are trying to hide on behalf of their paymasters the ruling elite Jesuit families concerning the true identity of America’s first president, elected not by the masses of colonists, but by 69 (Kabbalah tree of life mirror reflection of 6, representing the heart or the higher virtues, and 9, representing mankind’s lower nature of material desire) members of the continental congress, many of whom were either Scottish Rite masons or sworn Esquires of the middle Crown Temple in London (See: How Crown Temple rules America).


In past installments, one has demonstrated beyond shadow of doubt, how members of royal families not only own and operate major American television networks such as Desilu productions (See: Columbine and Sandy Hook hoax connections)but have, under various pseudonyms, portrayed starring roles in many American hoax events (JFK assassination, Columbine, Sandy Hook).

If one views very closely the first two examples offered as visual aides in the trio of videos displayed above, paying particular attention to the artist renderings of both the man known to American history as George Washington and the figure known as King George III, one shall notice not only keen facial similarities, but anatomical ones as well. Consider too, that George Washington was a major plantation owner, and that King George, towards the latter part of his reign as British monarch, was often referred to as ‘Farmer George’.

Does this seem to be more than a coincidence?

The primary purpose in supplying the third video for the perusal of loyal readers, is so that one may consider what shall no doubt be perceived as a very telling narration heard right from the outset. This is a narrative sample taken from none other than a historical special aired on BBC years ago. Curiously, the narrator alludes to the theory that the recording of history, specifically the history of British antiquity, may be significantly distorted, if not completely created.

Additionally, in the first video, one shall notice there is a rendering of Washington donned in military dress uniform, with his left hand in a rather curious position, tucked within the folds of his military officer’s jacket. Comparatively speaking, one shall also notice similar hand gestures performed in other artist renderings and photographs of some other prominent historical figures, namely Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Napoleon Bonaparte, and several others too numerous to name here for lack of space.

What could this particular gesture involving Washington’s left hand possibly signify?

According to masonic lore, this gesture involving the left hand signifies an initiate into what has been historically referred to as the masonic degree of the Royal Arch, indicating the initiate has been made privy to secrets of the order unknown to members in good standing belonging to the blue lodge degrees. Could it be that the lodge masters of the higher degrees had made the young Washington privy to the revolutionary role he had been assigned to play through the course of history? Again referring to Albert Pike’s seminal masonic text Morals and Dogma, the concept of revolution is one of the chief concerns of the highest and most compartmentalized degrees of the Scottish Rite.

This revolutionary concept is tied in with the Hegelian dialectic of opposing forces, where the paths of the left hand and the right hand work separately but nonetheless secretly in concert to bring about a revolutionary synthesis of global collectivism. This revolutionary philosophy also relates to Fabian socialism, a political movement that while appearing to be spontaneous and organic, has in fact been planned well in advance, and is dependent upon gradual and incremental historical revolution to bring about the desired end game of global political change. This passage from Lords of the Left-Hand Path: Forbidden Practices and Spiritual Heresies by Stephen E. Flowers shall perhaps prove more instructive:

“While the Satan of the Decadents and the Neo-Romantics was being manifested in the world of the arts, another image of Satan was being revalued in the political sphere. The Satan of the Judeo-Christian tradition-as developed by Milton and the Romantics-was a highly suitable symbol for the embodiment of rebellion in the revolutionary period of the mid-nineteenth century. Even the materialist/positivist revolutionaries saw Satan as a hero of sorts. Almost in a revival of the ancient debate between Epicureans and Stoics, the mid-eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw the growth of a new form of materialism.”

For those loyal visitors to, does the gist of the preceding passage ring true with what the ruling elites have been demonstrated to hold most dear – money and power? While the exoteric and mainstream religious doctrines condition the masses to writhe in fear at an anthropomorphic Satan, behind the esoteric curtain awaits the real god of the thirteen ruling elite families ready to incrementally emerge into the light of day – the global creed of uniform commercialism.

While the mythical historical characters of Franklin and Washington were being used to condition the masses to accept a new republic appearing to rest on democratic principles, the ruling elite families planned to use this illusion as a political vehicle, through which the reality of their global system of uniform but centrally controlled material commercialism could be made eventually manifest. Part of that grand plan was to stage mythical battles that in totality would appear in the history books as the American revolution, with General George Washington starring as the mythical hero of the grand narrative.

Could it be, the so-called battles of the American revolution, much like the staged drills of Sandy Hook, Columbine, and Boston bombing, were nothing more than staged masonic theater, a series of military drills staged with the cooperation of occupying British troops and Hessian mercenaries?

More incredulous but perhaps intriguing still, could it be, given the evidence of host actors with royal connections and their direct participation under pseudonyms in modern day hoax events, that the character known to American historical posterity as George Washington, was in fact none other than King George III himself?

Just look at the evidence folks, then decide.



15 thoughts on “America’s war for independence: revolution or hoax? (Part III)

  1. An idea popped into my head while reading this article. King George III appears to bear a strong resemblance to Joseph II, Emperor of Austria (Joseph was the eldest brother of Marie-Antoinette, by the way). They also were around the same age (George was born in 1738, Joseph in 1741). Both were elected princes of the Holy Roman Empire, ran by the Habsburgs at the time. This further proves that America has always been under the control of the royal bloodlines that ran the Holy Roman Empire and, ultimately, the British Empire.

    George III:

    Joseph II:

    (King George’s wife, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, was a pen pal of Marie-Antoinette. They kept intimate tabs of each other for many years through reams of correspondence sent through the English Channel. It has been said that Charlotte was distraught at the news of Marie-Antoinette’s “execution”. Interesting, don’t you think?)

    The mothers of King George III and Emperor Joseph II look similar as well. George’s mother bears a strong resemblance to Marie-Antoinette. The mothers were around the same age, too.

    Augusta, Princess of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg:

    Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress:

    One big royal production, indeed.

    1. Yes, I too, have come to believe that many of the “presidents” of the US corporate government have been predominantly drawn from the bloodline and related bloodlines of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (formerly known as the Hanoverians AKA as “Windsor”), a family which – I’ve further discovered – has married into the Pallavicini, Orsini, and Farnese families. There does seem to be a strong resemblance between Washington and Joseph II.

      1. Quite true. As for George Washington, I honestly don’t find him resembling Joseph II or George III very much, though it is certain they were all related. I do believe it is very likely that the two monarchs were played by same host actor who came from the elite bloodlines that spawned the Hanover (now Windsor) and the Habsburg-Lorraine royal dynasties.

        And since the royal mothers look to be the same person, I suspect the same is true for their fathers.

        Frederick, Prince of Wales (father of George III):,_Prince_of_Wales_attr._to_Joseph_Highmore.jpg

        Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor (father of Joseph II):

        Like father, like son. Always playing both sides of the chess game. That explains the (double) cross of Lorraine I mentioned before.

      2. The same bloodline is the majority stockholder of Exxon, which, if memory serves, that corporate logo also features the identical double-cross. The concept of the double cross, I believe, is also reflected in the concept of the black and white (duality) tracing boards found in masonic lodges.

      3. And, of course, Exxon is one of the huge recipients of big federal awards. Another scam, as usual.

        And, of course, that same company has been implicated in numerous environmental abuses, such as the one below. Luckily for Exxon, federal and state authorities in the United States decided not to pursue further charges against them for severe malfeasance according to this October 2015 ruling from the Justice Department. Up until that time, they collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in damages. Looking at the above example, it seems that they were paid back the favor by the feds at the end of the day. Pay-to-play, y’know.

        “On Oct. 8, 1991, U.S. District Court Judge Russel Holland approved both a plea agreement resolving criminal charges against Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping (Exxon) under various federal environmental laws and a settlement agreement between Exxon and the United States and the state of Alaska resolving all civil claims between them pertaining to the spill. Under the plea agreement, the company paid $125 million for a criminal fine and restitution. The civil settlement required Exxon to pay the governments $900 million over 10 years to reimburse past costs and fund the restoration of injured natural resources.”

        And look at who are among the stockholders of Exxon! The usual politicians and their cronies who give tax dollars to them in return. Doesn’t that explain everything you need to know about why this oil giant has never been seriously punished by the authorities all this time? It’s too profitable for them to hold the “Big Boys” accountable. The largest shareholder is Rep. John Carter, a Republic from oil-rich Texas, of course. (Perhaps related to Jimmy Carter? Who knows for sure?) Rep. Joe Kennedy III, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is also among the larger shareholders of this oil company. Ironically, his family is heavily involved in the environmentalist movement, which makes them massive hypocrites. The family is also royalty by blood, which means they’re related to the Habsburgs. It’s a small world at the top.

        Robert Kennedy, Jr says climate change will bring “major disruptions” to civilization:

        Speaking of the Habsburgs, there’s a connection there, too. Apparently, one Kennedy owned a Habsburg scrapbook collection.

  2. I think you’ll find this interpretation of early American history to be insightful. In essence, “The Founders” were actually very pro-monarchy when you put their views, or what they actually believed in, into context. That also explains why they favored strong central government, similar to the one they supposedly broke free from in 1783.

    1. Essentially, I believe you’re correct. But there is a deeper reason as to why that was so. As I pointed out in my series of articles concerning the Crown Temple in the City of London, most of the “founders” of America were, in fact, lawyers called to the Temple Bar. Therefore, that is where their loyalties were placed. The Declaration of Independence was essentially an internal memo between sworn barristers representing both sides – between colonial America and the British Empire – during the negotiations. All of America’s founding documents are articulated in the terms and conditions of legalese. An example of this would be the mistaken interpretation of the words “We the People”, which was meant to refer only to the legal negotiators of the Crown Temple and their corporate land-holding interests.

      1. Exactly! And since many of the leaders of the revolution were themselves royals in disguise (Thomas Jefferson was played by a French aristocrat, Washington (actually) played by the 4th Duke of Cavendish, etc., etc.), that proves the whole thing was a massive pantomime created to give the Americans the illusion of freedom from the ‘Crown’ – when in fact their masters moved from overt rule of the thirteen colonies to clandestine control of the United States. In essence, nothing really changed.

        This is how the ruling bloodline always maintained their control over the masses. If outright dictatorship does not work, you simply assume behind-the-scenes control over national or world affairs under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. The masses will then quickly succumb to the illusion, thinking they are “free” from oppression, not knowing that it was all a magic trick to make them think their “free” and they’re actually more oppressed under their newfound “liberty” than they were before.

      2. Exactly! And since many of the leaders of the revolution were themselves royals in disguise (Thomas Jefferson was played by a French aristocrat, Washington (actually) played by the 4th Duke of Cavendish, etc., etc.), that proves the whole thing was a massive pantomime created to give the Americans the illusion of freedom from the ‘Crown’ – when in fact their masters moved from overt rule of the thirteen colonies to clandestine control of the United States. In essence, nothing really changed.

        This is how the ruling bloodlines always maintain their control over the masses. If outright dictatorship does not work, you simply assume behind-the-scenes control over national or world affairs under the guise of “democracy”. The masses will then quickly succumb to the illusion, thinking they are “free” from oppression, not knowing that it was all a magic trick to make them think their “free” and they’re actually more oppressed under their newfound “liberty” than they were before.

    2. Quite true! And since many of the leaders of the revolution were themselves royals in disguise (Thomas Jefferson was played by a French aristocrat, Washington (actually) played by the 4th Duke of Cavendish, etc., etc.), that proves the whole thing was a massive pantomime created to give the Americans the illusion of freedom from the ‘Crown’ – when in fact their masters moved from overt rule of the thirteen colonies to clandestine control of the United States. In essence, nothing really changed.

      This is how the ruling bloodline always maintained their control over the masses. If outright dictatorship does not work, you simply assume behind-the-scenes control over national or world affairs under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. The masses will then quickly succumb to the illusion, thinking they are “free” from oppression, not knowing that it was all a magic trick to make them think their “free” and they’re actually more oppressed under their newfound “liberty” than they were before.

Leave a Reply