The Franklin Files

Mariah · Senior Member

RE: The Book Of Love

Mariah · Senior Member

But history is messy business, and things don't always go according to plans. In the France of Joan, René and Charles VII, Catholic and British influences were seen as being threatened; so the Brits and Rome garnered their cumulative forces to crush the threat. Joan of Arc was the symbolic “heart” of the French nation. France, used to the tradition of the French national goddess Marianne, as well as the Magdalen cult, saw Joan as an emanation of the French spirit, of their very race-soul. Therefore, she and her influence had to be brought to a halt and discredited. Otherwise Rome and Britain stood no chance. They would have been defeated by a young girl perceived to be the embodiment of an eternal ideal. Their only recourse was to demonize her and label her a heretic, or to entice her into their fold and convince her to recant, to deny her past proclamations. But Joan was a tough nut to crack. She told her inquisitors that even should they “separate [her] soul from her body”, she would not recant. Her judges, learned and scholarly men all, felt impotent in the face of this bizarre young woman. So strong was her will, her belief, that she refused to give an inch.

The transcripts of her trial (never accurately reflected in modern films about Joan) reveal the true modus operandi of these court sessions. It is not a trial of a heretic, it is a trial in which one historical tradition is being brushed by another. It is, yet again, the bloodline of the Grail being suppressed by orthodoxy. It is France being subjugated by Britain and Rome. What one immediately notices in the testimony of Joan at her trial is how closely her responses seem to match those of the Templars and Cathars tried for heresy. She is asked essentially the same types of questions, and her answers are at times so identical as to match word for word. When accused of having been sent by the Devil, Joan replied: “No, it was you who were sent by the Devil, to torture me.” Interestingly, many years later, another woman related to the Angevins gave a very similar response in a trial related to the attempted overthrow of Louis XIV's monarchy. She was the Duchess de Bouillon, and when a magistrate inquired as to whether or not she had ever seen the Devil, she stared him in the face and replied: “I'm looking at him now.”

Mariah · Senior Member

A true window into Joan's history can be glimpsed in the remarkable Carl Dreger film, The Passion of Joan of Arc. This is a film that was thought to be forever lost, and then was “miraculously” rediscovered. All known copies of the movie had, like Joan herself, been “destroyed by fire.” Then, in 1981, a negative of the film was discovered in (of all places) a Norwegian mental institution. The film is most well-known perhaps for its use of “Theatre of Cruelty” advocate Antonin Arteau, acting as a monk. But this is the film's least compelling offering, although Arteau gives a brilliant performance. The most compelling aspect of the film is that it documents the trial of Joan word for word, based on manuscripts still held at a library in Paris. As the film opens, it proclaims these manuscripts to be the “most important” documents in the history of the
world.

Important, obviously, but “most” important? Is someone trying to convey the idea that the Joan of Arc drama represented a crossroads in history? One in which the True Faith was (yet again) suppressed by
orthodoxy? It certainly seems likely.

One notices in the title sequence that certain members of Jean Cocteau's inner circle seem to be involved in some capacity, for we see the names of Jean Hugo and Valentine Hugo. Mr. Hugo was a close associate of Cocteau, and son of the Priory of Sion's former Grand Master, Victor Hugo, whose time in office immediately preceded that of Cocteau himself. In fact, the whole film seems to emanate the Priory of Sion ethos. That Catholics are all fat, debauched, decadent, and have faces covered with ugly warts. Joan represents the French race-soul as it should be: pure and unyielding.

Mariah · Senior Member

The upshot of the narrative is never that she was a heretic, but that she refused to submit to the authority of Rome, that one who experiences a direct connection with God has no need of the Church. This was also the message, essentially, of the German mystic Meister Eckart, who proclaimed that God lives in and through all things; therefore, to experience communion with God required no church and no priesthood. Eckart's fate, not surprisingly, was not much different than Joan's. He too was a mystic, a visionary, and a prophet far beyond his times. In consequence, he is remembered as a heretic and not a saint. Joan, in fact, received sainthood, as did other key Merovingian “heretics” such as King Dagobert II. The Church, recognizing the futility of opposing public opinion, attempted to incorporate all that they couldn't entirely expunge from public memory. This is by no means anything new.

The building of cathedrals on ancient pagan holy sites was an early example, as was the co-opting of ancient holidays. Right or wrong, the Church knows what it's doing, just as it knew that Joan of Arc was a viable threat. Here was the “Virgin of Orleans”, a warrior and a reputed “Daughter of God”, a French Christ in feminine form. Given the proper circumstances, a figure of this magnitude might well have overshadowed the Church of Rome. She could have made France (and not Rome) the focal point of global religion, and indeed, the center of the world.

Was Joan a mere pawn of the Angevins, or a conscious co-conspirator? We opt for the latter, because Joan was always conscious of the bigger picture, and fanatical in her devotion to her ideals. She embraced her martyrdom, as Christ did his, understanding full well that she would exercise far more power living on as an ideal than she ever could in the course of her day-to-day life. She told her accusers that she would win a “great victory” over them. A monk, preparing her for death at the stake, inquired as to what had happened to the “great victory” her God had promised her. Where was it now? Unhesitatingly, she replied: “My martyrdom.” And she was correct.

Mariah · Senior Member

SECRETS OF THE CATHARS

Why the Dark Age Church Was Out to Destroy Them
(originally published in Atlantis Rising, Dec. 2002)
William Henry

http://williamhenry.net/documents/secrets_of_the_cathars.pdf

From 1208-1244 the first European holocaust was conducted. The Church of Rome
savagely attacked the Cathars, the peaceful ‘heretics of the Languedoc’ of Southern
France, with a viciousness and detestable arrogance paralleled only by the Nazi atrocities during WW II.

The Cathars called themselves Pure Ones after the Goddess known as the Pure One,
their term for the Virgin Great Creator Mother Mari (meaning ‘love’). The reason the
Church resorted to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Cathars most certainly had to do with their alternative views about Jesus.

They claimed to possess a secret Book of Love (Mari, TARA). This mysterious
manuscript is attributed to Jesus who gave it to John the Divine. It was transmitted
through the centuries until the Knights Templar and the Cathars adopted it.

The Book of Love was the foundation of the Cathar Church of Love or Amor (the
reverse of Roma). The existence of this lost (or hidden) gospel was revealed when the Catholic Church subjected the Cathars and Templar (in 1308) to torture.
Its contents were a secret skill (symbolized by the Templar skull) said to grant one the ability to control the forces of nature and to transform ordinary human blood into that of the wise, holy and pure blood of life of the immortal Illi or Illuminati. It is equated with the Holy Grail.

THE JESUS CODE

According to Catharic belief, one object of Earth life was to make over the human
body as a worthy vehicle for the light of the Holy Spirit (love). The point was to know
the Grail not as a cup but as a process. Jesus was its modeler.
Insight into this teaching radiates from the name of the Cathar’s home, the
Languedoc. Named after the pre-Flood language system the Cathar priests claimed Jesus preached in -- the Language of Oc (possibly short for occamy, a corruption of alchemy) -- this place name is Cathar Jesus code.

Webster’s says ‘Oc’ is the root of octo, 8, and ocular, the eye. A related Egyptian
word, Ak, means ‘light’, and aker means ‘light being’. Ak-hu is the archetypal Cosmic Man of Light, or ideal archetype of humanity found in a host of Hermetic and Gnostic teachings, whether Egyptian, Jewish, Christian or Islamic.

As Mircea Eliade notes in Shamanism, among the Iglulik Eskimos, who were driven
out of some unknown homeland, a sequence of initiations concludes with the ang-ak-oq (virtually the same word as Languedoc or L’ang-ak-oq), meaning ‘lightening’ or
‘illumination’.

This angakoq, writes Eliade, consists of “a mysterious light which the shamansuddenly feels in his body, inside his head, within his brain, an inexplicable searchlight, a luminous fire which enables him to see with both eyes, both literally and metaphorically speaking, for he can now, even with closed eyes, see through darkness and perceive things and coming events which are hidden from others.” The emphasis here is on eyes and light.