David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   David Icke: Research & Media (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   David Icke's geneaology research (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=300504)

georggearless 13-10-2015 11:59 AM

David Icke's geneaology research
 
First off, let me say that I haven't read DI's books on the subject, so forgive me if this has allready been covered in his book(s).

In most of his talks that I've seen, he refers to a bloodline that you can follow back to very ancient times. As far as I can tell, he has taken prominent political, financial and royal names and says that these family trees can be traced back into ancient times. And by doing so, proving a kind of 'breeding program' for the powerful. Very unnerving, to say the least.

Then I saw QI (a quirky british gameshow-like program that deals with interesting little known facts and such), where the gamemaster, Stephen Fry, put it to the panel that they were all decendants of Charlemagne. I can't say that I followed his explanation to the letter, and so I searched for more information about this and found this article that explains essentialy the same thing a bit better Our Universal Royalty. It seems that I too am a decendant from Charlemagne. And so are you.

So, here's my point:

If this is true, then couldn't any and all subjects that you choose to investigate (royalty or otherwise), be traced back to ancient times, to any historicaly interesting figure you wish?

I mean, I would share the same bloodline as that of queen Elisabeth or any other royalty for that matter. It would just be a matter of going far enough back in time before we found our shared great-great-great-timesx-grandfather.

Wouldn't this make the fact that you can trace royal bloodlines back to Charlemagne (or Nefertiti for that matter), less conspicuous, since you can say that about anyone alive today?

Hope someone with more knowledge about this subject can elaborate.

silent revolution 13-10-2015 12:19 PM

~We are family
 
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oMVe_HcyP9Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The way I see it I have just as much claim to the throne of England as the queen does. We all do. And if you take the story of Adam and Eve as truth, we are all descendants of those two people. I don't believe or disbelieve the story of Adam and Eve (it's a possibility).

We are many who came from few. There is no valid right to rule, but we do have a right to see ourselves as all brothers and sisters and cousins etc. We are family.

Peace, love, harmony and wisdom friend:)

georggearless 13-10-2015 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent revolution (Post 1062601933)

The way I see it I have just as much claim to the throne of England as the queen does. We all do. *snip*

Couldn't agree more.

A bit beside the point I was trying to make. But true, none the less.

guessed 13-10-2015 12:26 PM

My bloodline goes back to the beginning of the human race and so does yours. It's being ABLE to trace it that's the difference.

georggearless 13-10-2015 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guessed (Post 1062601939)
My bloodline goes back to the beginning of the human race and so does yours. It's being ABLE to trace it that's the difference.

Not sure I follow?

Could you elaborate on why being able to trace it, is significant as opposed to not being able to?

Edit: I mean, that wouldn't change the ancestry.

guessed 13-10-2015 01:39 PM

I didn't mean it as a significant difference despite the capitals.
I would guess a lot of us can be traced back to a bastard child of wealthy land owners or perhaps even royalty, but I would expect the majority have been alongside these fortuned bloodlines.
It's a shame that all of our bloodlines didn't have the will, means, or thoughts of self worth to have kept a record of our ancestry, perhaps it's that our ancestors weren't able to read or write to keep such a record, or were killed in battle before updating/passing on such a record to our children. Those children may have ended up in orphanages and lost all history of their bloodline.
I certainly don't see the royals or anyone else for that matter being any better for being able to show some painted portraits or claims of being descended from someone who sat on a horse on a hill while our ancestors dies for their claim to land they now own.

georggearless 13-10-2015 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guessed (Post 1062601973)
I didn't mean it as a significant difference despite the capitals.
I would guess a lot of us can be traced back to a bastard child of wealthy land owners or perhaps even royalty, but I would expect the majority have been alongside these fortuned bloodlines.
It's a shame that all of our bloodlines didn't have the will, means, or thoughts of self worth to have kept a record of our ancestry, perhaps it's that our ancestors weren't able to read or write to keep such a record, or were killed in battle before updating/passing on such a record to our children. Those children may have ended up in orphanages and lost all history of their bloodline.
I certainly don't see the royals or anyone else for that matter being any better for being able to show some painted portraits or claims of being descended from someone who sat on a horse on a hill while our ancestors dies for their claim to land they now own.

Ah ok. I see what you mean now.

But it's not realy relevant to the point I was making. DI places significanse in the fact that we can follow the leaders of todays world back to wealthy and powerful families of the past (interbreeding of bloodlines as he calls it). The point is, it wouldn't matter whom he chose to follow back in time. He would ALWAYS end up with the same result. He would ALWAYS find that Mr Whatever, is a decendant of Charlemagne. As he would if he tracked back MY ancestry.

DI hasn't tracked back my ancestry, because let's be fair, I'm not that interesting :). But if I by some freak accident became President of the World, he could 'prove' that my ancestry goes back to Charlemagne and that I was part of some interbreeding bloodline. Which would be true, but genealogicaly unsurprising. In fact, it's a given.

See what I mean?

guessed 13-10-2015 03:07 PM

I think it's the point of bloodlines of families and breeding within just those families over a long period of time. While some may have historic royalty impregnating their distant relative, their distant relative wasnt' in the small group of families.

georggearless 13-10-2015 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guessed (Post 1062602000)
I think it's the point of bloodlines of families and breeding within just those families over a long period of time. While some may have historic royalty impregnating their distant relative, their distant relative wasnt' in the small group of families.

I get what you're saying, I think. That some branches of the family tree have had higher priority than others, right? For instance if Charlemagne had two sons, he would only let one of his sons family be 'in on it' so to speak? The others sons offspring would dwindle off into genetic oblivion and become peasants like you and me :).

Is that what you mean?

white light 13-10-2015 03:39 PM

The reason why it's important is because we have royals and their evil minions lording it up over us. The bloodlines are clearly important to them so they should be to us too, at least until they are important no longer, and the sooner the better.

guessed 13-10-2015 03:52 PM

I think two sons born within wedlock would both be used, the youngest son may produce a grand daughter who would be prime for marriage to the eldest sons grandson for instance.
Hence the inter breeding.

iamawaveofthesea 13-10-2015 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guessed (Post 1062602000)
I think it's the point of bloodlines of families and breeding within just those families over a long period of time. While some may have historic royalty impregnating their distant relative, their distant relative wasnt' in the small group of families.

They are trying to protect something by keeping it in the family

Icke might say they are managing their reptilian DNA

Science will tell you that psychopathy is passed down hereditarily in the DNA

Either way history will tell you that the monarchies and aristocracies (and the ashkenazi banking families that manage(d) their money and intermarried with them) of europe have proven themselves incredibly cold blooded and cruel over centuries

''it's a big club and you ain't in it''- George Carlin

''they don't give a fuck about you''- George Carlin

georggearless 13-10-2015 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guessed (Post 1062602015)
I think two sons born within wedlock would both be used, the youngest son may produce a grand daughter who would be prime for marriage to the eldest sons grandson for instance.
Hence the inter breeding.

Possibly that would be the way to think. But it realy doesn't change anything in the genealogy.

Queen Elisabeth is still a direct decendant from Charlemagne. And so am I. Well, at least according to that website I posted originaly.

Yet David Icke delivers the information about queen Elisabeth as if there is some sinister plan at work. A sick kind of husbandry, if you will. The problem I have with this, is that it doesn't matter who he points his finger at. Be it the queen, president Bush, chancelor Merkel.....or me. We are all direct decendants of Charlemagne.

You can safely point your finger at anyone you suspect of being an illuminati insider and say "look, their ancestry goes waaaaay back to ancient times. This proves that they are part of a breeding program".

My point is that it proves nothing of the sort. If it did, I would be an illuminati insider too. We all would.

iamawaveofthesea 13-10-2015 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by georggearless (Post 1062602053)
Possibly that would be the way to think. But it realy doesn't change anything in the genealogy.

Queen Elisabeth is still a direct decendant from Charlemagne. And so am I. Well, at least according to that website I posted originaly.

Yet David Icke delivers the information about queen Elisabeth as if there is some sinister plan at work. A sick kind of husbandry, if you will. The problem I have with this, is that it doesn't matter who he points his finger at. Be it the queen, president Bush, chancelor Merkel.....or me. We are all direct decendants of Charlemagne.

You can safely point your finger at anyone you suspect of being an illuminati insider and say "look, their ancestry goes waaaaay back to ancient times. This proves that they are part of a breeding program".

My point is that it proves nothing of the sort. If it did, I would be an illuminati insider too. We all would.

If you read ickes work he talks about concentrations of reptillian DNA which they must manage to maintain successful hybridisation

So they are selective about who they breed with

For example Princess Diana said she was the royals 'brood mare' used to breed offspring

If you go into theosophical teachings they speak of the '7 root races'

Hitler and his gang were very much into all that race stuff and saw themselves as they aryan root race

Many israelis also are obsessed with race and are seeking as jewish supremicists to create a jew only state

The Nation of Islam was a black supremicist group who were against racial mixing

So there are supremicist groups of all hues obsessed with race

Icke speaks about how the illuminati bloodlines trace themselves back to Babylon

This idea of racial cohesion gives their group a cohesion. They are an intermarried mafia of bloodlines and interlocked business interests

Burke's peerages has traced how all US presidents are blood relations of the british monarchy

georggearless 13-10-2015 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamawaveofthesea (Post 1062602055)
If you read ickes work he talks about concentrations of reptillian DNA which they must manage to maintain successful hybridisation

So they are selective about who they breed with

For example Princess Diana said she was the royals 'brood mare' used to breed offspring

If you go into theosophical teachings they speak of the '7 root races'

Hitler and his gang were very much into all that race stuff and saw themselves as they aryan root race

Many israelis also are obsessed with race and are seeking as jewish supremicists to create a jew only state

The Nation of Islam was a black supremicist group who were against racial mixing

So there are supremicist groups of all hues obsessed with race

Icke speaks about how the illuminati bloodlines trace themselves back to Babylon

This idea of racial cohesion gives their group a cohesion. They are an intermarried mafia of bloodlines and interlocked business interests

Burke's peerages has traced how all US presidents are blood relations of the british monarchy

I am sure they are selective about whom they breed with. I am too ;). The point is that you can't place any significance on the fact that a lineage goes back to babylon. Mine does too. It is only because David Icke chooses to place significanse on the queens ancient lineage and not on mine, that it becomes 'proof'. Because in genealogical terms, we share the same bloodline.

If I rose up and became dictator of Denmark, I could have David Icke put up a picture of me at his talks and say that this ugly guys lineage can be traced back to ancient Babylon (everyone goes *oooooh* and *gasp*). And he'd be absolutey right. He can take ANYONE and say that their lineage goes back to ancient Babylon. That's the point. That he has chosen a select few to 'out' this information about, says nothing that it doesn't also say about you or me.

As for american presidents being blood related to the british monarchy, I am hardly surprised. Since all americans are.

It is simply a question of going far enough back in time before we find a common ancestor. And I am not just talking about a family or a vague financial affiliation. No, I am talking about one single person from which all of us alive today, are derived.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:35 AM.