Conspiracy Theory Review-Analysis; Our Hidden Rulers are Phoenician
Last Updated on April 20, 2022 by Hamad Subani
Part Two: Spookish Relations
Gerry has discovered that many ancient civilizations of the Middle East depict a peculiar kind of tree in what remains of their royal sculptures. To quote,
The Tree of Life is usually depicted with two genies, winged and bearded, eagle-headed, or fishcloaked, flanking it while holding bucket [handbag?] and cone. They seem to use the cone to sprinkle something on the tree, in some kind of fertilization ritual. In some images they point the cone at the king or gateways. The cone is of course made of seeds, and that is another clue—as you are about to see.
So, what may be the secret behind all these funny-looking trees? It’s not like Assyrian masons couldn’t carve trees: Their trees are usually almost as realistic as the humans. Obviously, this Tree of Life isn’t a literal tree, but a symbol of something important to the royals. It grows in separated layers, with branches that criss-cross to connect to one another at the far end, in visible nodes.
Then there is the story of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit from a tree, a story which is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Except that in the Bible, Gerry has discovered some wordplay, in which the tree actually refers to The Tree of Lives, not Life.
Here is Gerry’s interpretation of the strange motif:
It’s not so hard to guess, is it? If you’ve been a regular readers of Miles’ column, then you all know a tree just like that, very very important to the spook aristocracy. And it sometimes appears with a genie. And it bestows eternal life! It’s the Family Trees of the interbred aristocratic clans, so important to the cryptocrats that they put them on public genealogy sites, like the one named “Geni”, and risk detection. They grow in generations, branch out, but then the related families intermarry again, reconnecting the ends. By nurturing the family tree, aristocrats achieve eternal life through their families! I think that’s what the Assyrian Tree of Life means. And that’s why it’s a fertility rite, and directed towards the king and visitor entrances.
You could say that a symbol like this is harmless, as everyone would wish for a “fertile” family tree. I think the harm was done once these trees connected internationally in secret, to form one giant global mega-tree, as with the core trunk and intertwined branches. Why do I have a problem with that? Because the Jewish aristocrats were always the top of the food chain. They could reign with impunity and scam their subjects at whim. . . almost. The only thing that held them in check, or so we’re told, was that they’d constantly backstab each other. In theory, if a king overplayed his corruption hand, he’d lose the support of other aristocrats, and would be supplanted. But as soon as family trees connected as one, that one check of aristocratic power was gone, and I think it vanished millennia ago.
How were all these clans made to cooperate? Gerry hints that homosexuality may have played a role. To quote,
Miles has also found out that many spooks seem to be gay, with some official officeholders being lovers of powerful spooks. This might have helped them in keeping up cooperation across clans. As we know, homosexual mentor-student relationships were publicly lived out among the Ancient Greek elites, who inherited much of their culture from the Ancient Spookians. Perhaps their openly gay aristocracy was unique only in that it was openly gay, and not secretly.
Fast forward to present times, and we do get hints of such mechanisms in place at major institutions. CIBC, a major Canadian (Rothschild-oriented) Bank, actually promotes a culture of gay sex among employees (to ensure subordination?). Those becoming bottoms in such relationships with superiors might be unlikely to raise alarm if they see suspicious activity. WHO Chief Tedros, who presided over the current COVID-19 Plandemic, has been seen in an interesting video. There are similar rumours about Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (They get to be bottoms for bald white men who fly into China).
Gerry has also noted distinct homosexual undertones to the way historical figures such as Johnathan, David, Saul are portrayed. In my opinion, the Spookians deliberately inserted these, because they scorned some of these figures. More on that later. Gerry also notes that not much is to be found regarding the reign of Soloman in historical and Biblical records. I have a theory on that later.
Gerry has also interpreted certain narratives in the Bible as being those of “fake-kings” who assume public office, only to serve unseen masters. To quote,
It seems that even in ancient times, the succession of kings was decided by someone else. If these kings were not allowed to make certain decisions on their own, what personality would such a king develop? I’d say he might become a manic-depressive egomaniac, who oscillates between extravagance and decadence, and then frustration and nihilism. There is a Biblical book narrated by an unspecified king that I think expresses just such a split personality: the Book of Ecclesiastes. The narrator endlessly repeats that “all is in vain”. Apart from that, he switches between boasting of his life in luxury—giving tips for a humble lifestyle enjoying little things like eating and drinking— and complaining that you cannot change the way things are run. If that comes from an ancient king, then I’d find it quite troubling, though it might be more honest and closer to the truth than other records that simply list “great deeds”.
In same the Book of Ecclesiastes, we even come across tips on how such fake-kings should behave in the presence of the real “Lords,” and how the “Lords” had a surveillance network, and therefore the necessity of being careful to criticize them, even in one’s own bedroom!
In a 2017 paper on the Crusades, Miles Mathis went slightly off tangent and threw in a brilliant suggestion that the invasion of Judah (then ruled by King Hezekiah) by Sennacherib, the King of Assyria, may have been staged, and both Kings may have been acting in concert. To quote him,
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.
Miles goes on to suggest that Sennacherib may have married into Jewish women, making his line Jewish. This indicates that there was considerable Jewish influence at his court even if he was not Jewish. What is strange is Sennacherib’s later campaign against Judah for its rebellion. Prior to that (when he destroyed Babylon) Miles has detected that they were allies. Strangely, Sennacherib leaves without conquering (or destroying) Jerusalem, despite the fact that Judah caved in after Sidon and Ashkelon caved in. Later, we see Hezekiah entering into a peace treaty by sending considerable wealth, and even his daughters to Sennacherib’s capital Nineveh.
What exactly was the purpose of this war? Why did Hezekiah unnecessarily rebel? We get a cryptic clue from Gerry. To quote,
He [An Assyrian Military leader] also openly claims that the smashing of altars in Judah was not about purging foreign religions, but about destroying the altars of God himself to centralize worship in the capital.
My theory: The Spookians wanted to loot Judah and remodel Jewish faith on their own terms. What better way to do it considering the fact that they now had considerable influence in the court of Sennacherib, the man who had literally destroyed their headquarters at Babylon? And it seems the King of Judah was also their man (which is why he unnecessarily rebelled). But it seems pragmatic minds at Judah prevailed and sued for peace at the last moment. Confirming this theory is the fact that Sennacherib gets assassinated in mysterious circumstances shortly after this campaign. Maybe this peace was never intended.
Also confirming this theory is the hostile takeover that followed Sennacherib’s death. To quote Gerry,
What then did his son Esarhaddon do? He rebuilt Babylon eight years later. Maybe the destruction hadn’t been that complete?
If you are with my theory, you will agree that Esarhaddon was a Babylonian mole, maybe the son of one of Sennacherib’s Spookian Jewish wives. Babylon was indeed destroyed completely by Sennacherib. It was rebuilt because the Spooks have a special attachment to it. So did Saddam Hussein. To quote an earlier book of mine,
Saddam saw himself as a Babylonian king, despite the rich Islamic history of Iraq. Did he represent the modern day shadowy anti-Islamic groups that once operated out of Ctesiphon? In 1983, Saddam started rebuilding the city of Babylon atop its ruins. He inscribed his name on the bricks that were used. Overlooking the ruins of Babylon, Saddam built his summer palace atop an artificial, pyramidal hill. Saddam’s son Uday named a state newspaper as Babel. Uday’s email address was also email@example.com.
If you follow that Esarhaddon was a Spookian, we can infer that his brothers (from other wives) who “fled to the land of Ararat” were definitely not, and may have been more entitled to the throne.
This gives us another interesting detail. Ararat is in Armenia. The genuine sons of Sennacherib may have succeeded in briefly re-establishing Assyrian power over there. Which is maybe why the Spookians, to this day, hate the Armenian people. In them, they see the destroyers of their Babylon.
Half a Century later, the Assyrian capital of Nineveh gets mopped off the map. Gerry has discovered some creepy references to the Spookians in this event. To quote,
A strange migration pattern is noted in the Book of Nahum, which is three chapters of wailing over Nineveh’s destruction, addressing the city as “you”.
You have increased your traders more than the stars of heaven – The creeping locust strips and flies away. NAHUM 3:16
…and seeks a new host body, we might add. The author points out the fact that Nineveh-based merchants, like maturing locusts, are abandoning the city and seeking out new hosts. While his likening of merchants to locusts isn’t flattering, he doesn’t seem to mind, or at least is aware, that they don’t share the fate of lesser citizens. We can induce from this that the elites by and large weren’t affected by wars, which were likely arranged to be net profitable to them. Guess what other kind of people proliferated in Nineveh, and are always able to leave the sinking ship? Nazir-ed people. There’s only this one occurrence of the word, but they’re translated as “from the crown”, written M-NZR ( מנזר ), with the Nazir root from Part I.
Sometime later, Babylon has re-emerged and the infiltrated Assyrians no longer pose any threat to it. Under Nebuchadnezzar II, Judah is attacked, and the temple at Jerusalem is thoroughly destroyed and ransacked. Later, his successor Belshazzar is enjoying a feast while using some sacred cups plundered from the temple, when a miracle happens. Hebrew words appear, prophesizing the fall of Babylon, and soon enough Cyrus II of Persia (Cyrus the Great) marches into Babylon, and Belshazzar supposedly died during the fall of the city.
Gerry tries to read into a painting of Rembrandt which supposedly depicts this miracle. Why was Rembrandt interested in Jewish folklore? Well anyway, here is his translation of the phrase on the wall:
“Die must he who completed the cycle, O secret lord.”
The people at the table don’t exactly seem to be surprised. Gerry has also discovered a Nazir reference. To quote,
And while I couldn’t construct a Nazir phrase out of the three lines, I think we still have a Nazir clue in the painting. Look at Belshazzar’s giant turban, with the tiny crown sitting askew on top. That looks silly as well. But we may have more insider references here. The ancient Levites were decreed to wear a turban with a crown ( EX 29:6 , LEV 8:9 ), nezer ( נזר ) in Hebrew, same as a vowel-less Nazir.
So was the Babylonian king merely a Nazir, serving hidden “Lords,” and faking his death once his assignment was complete?
Gerry further deduces that this refers to the subsequent invasion of Cyrus the Great being part of the same old hoax cycle. I differ. But more on that later.
Unrelated to the above, Gerry also points out to the fact that the father of Belshazzar, Nabonidus, conquered a settlement on Northern Arabia known as Tayma, and spent a lot of time there. Later, Tayma is described in historical accounts as a Jewish settlement (Currently it has a large number of Shiites, so you get the hint). Just 258 kilometres South would later emerge the massive Jewish fortification of Khaybar, which was put to an end by the Muslims. Why was a Babylonian King, who destroyed Judah, creating “Jewish” settlements in North Arabia? Were these “Jews” different from the ones destroyed at Jerusalem? Maybe.