Arcadia Discussion Zone

I'm surprised too



It isn't all about Plantard...Phillipe had American friends ....so says Jean Luc
They attended his funeral of which Plantard wished to avoid them didn't attend his funeral
Does anybody know who these American friends were?
http://www.portail-rennes-le-chateau.com/chaumeil_decherisey_english.htm

Henri LOBINEAU - of course, the name was taken from rue Lobineau, named after Dom Alexis Lobineau (who was connected to POUSSIN). But why Henri de LENONCOURT? The French translation of Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (Songe de Poliphile) was dedicated to the real Henri, Comte de LENONCOURT. This book being the 'bible' of the Societe Angelique. (Sorry about the lack of accents - I don't know how to include them). The later user of this name, who used various other pseudonyms, knew Louis VAZART who dedicated a book on the Merovingian genealogies to him - who had died in 1978, and on the last page was a photo of Thomas PLANTARD de SAINT-CLAIR, as a child taken on Blanchefort. We must put two and two together!

Gino SANDRI is entirely correct, for disclosing his true identity would not be good for the family - the PLANTARD family...

'De LENONCOURT' spent his time between Paris, Geneva, London and Rennes in the 50-60's. He never actually lived in the Aude, but stayed there often - innocently collecting coins, medals, etc. and sending them off to his friend Herbert REGIS (rue Foch). He was also a friend of the 'Marquis de B', Leo SCHIDLOF, Roland MALRAUX, and knew Abbe Pierre PLANTARD and Earl SELBORNE well. In fact he was working in London in 1955/6.

In the light of all these clues, what can my readers work out from this?

I'll have more to say when I'm back in France and not tied to 1 hour on a library computer!

Il est triste de constater que certaines personnes ne savent pas differencier entre un tampon et une machine fort utile appelee "auto-pen". De la meme maniere ils semblent ignorer le "bleu photo".

Je ne saurais assez prevenir les lecteurs de ce forum contre les affabulations d'anciens adherents de la pretendue Societe Augustinienne.

Meanwhile

This is the only thing that really interests me in this thread.

Saint Jacut de la Mer contains a monastery began by Irish Monks. Guy Alexis Lobineau is buried there. I visited there last year.

Jania MacGillivray

Thanks Lov I saw the link. Seems nobody else did.

Just let me lay down a self evident rule here that nobody seems to have grasped. We are dealing with a Secret Society and Secret Societies are Secret. They will lie if you get too close (the term they use is Diverting a Discourse), they will put out false trials, that's what Secret Societies do.

Ten years ago I was convinced that Plantard and De Cherisey were both charlatans and one couldn't believe a word of what any of them says, however recently I've altered my view on both of them.

I am convinced that Jean Luc Chaumeil is a fully paid up disinformation agent for the Security Services.

To quote Henry Lincoln himself

"Nothing is certain when it comes to this mystery, it's all hearsay."

So Secret Societies are Secret, they are like a Black Hole. You cannot examine them closely however IF they are as powerful as they say then you may be able to see their effect.

I am working on the hypothesis that the Prieure de Sion is merely a front for a more clandestine Inner Temple pulling the strings, and testing the water so to speak.

NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM

Only the ones at the top of the pyramid know the whole picture.

Plantard did seem to have been marginalized in his later years he may have overstepped the mark in the view of his masters.

T.H.E.Y. would be amused at the close attention to detail being displayed on this thread.

Roscoe wrote:



IMHO you are attributing a level omnipotence that simply does not exist!

IMHO this combination of specific names was used specifically to suggest that the leadership of the Priory of Sion, or part thereof, was based within 'Chicago banking'. This was IMHO to associate the Priory of Sion with the supposed headquarters of the B’nai B’rith, deliberately to fool people like Roscoe into believing in the 'Jewish bankers conspiracy' nonsense (that spurious notion being based on the claim made in Freemasonry and Judaism: The Secret Powers Behind Revolution by Leon de Poncins)...

Yes, absolutely.

Interesting. I seem to recall both yourself and Seeker strongly denying that the Sion Mythos was a deliberate attempt to develop the Jewish banker hogwash...

I did? I thought I only denied the veracity of the Jewish banker hogwash itself, not the attempt to weave it into the tale.

If the Priory of Sion is a Surrealist piece, how did Plantard’s apparent ‘royalist pretensions’ fit the Surrealists ‘fierce hatred of authority’? Or how did his crude attempts to link the Merovingians (and therefore the PoS) with Judaism fit the Surrealist ‘fierce hatred of religion’? Or the Priory Document attempts to link the Merovingians with Judaism?

At a meeting with Baigent and Lincoln in April, 1982, Plantard:




In an interview on French radio Plantard was even more explicate:



How does this statement fit with the claim that Plantard was a fantasist trying desperately to place himself at the heart of something important? Why then was being a supposed descendent of Jesus not enough?

Note the contradictory nature of Plantard’s claim. He denied that it was possible to trace a ‘lineage of four centuries from Jesus to the Merovingians’, yet had no hesitation in claiming that the Merovingians could trace their lineage back approximately fifteen centuries to the Jewish King David!! Clearly, Plantard’s agenda was not simply to aggrandise the Merovingians or he would have simply encouraged the supposed Christian connection. He was specifically trying to link the Merovingians with Judaism. Why?

Spartacus Paraclete wrote:



How does this statement fit with the claim that Plantard was a fantasist trying desperately to place himself at the heart of something important? Why then was being a supposed descendent of Jesus not enough?

Tim wrote:

I think the point here is that, according to Plantard, the notion of descent from Jesus was "too much" rather than "not enough". For him, "Merovingian" was enough.

Spartacus wrote:

That’s exactly my point. If Plantard was a fantasist desperately seeking fame or acknowledgement, why was descent from Jesus ‘too much’? Surely such a claim should be snatched at by a fantasist desperately seeking fame or acknowledgement? Just look at the current crop of Magdalenian fantasists desperately seeking fame or acknowledgement from patently spurious back stories. And just look how many suckers out there are desperate to believe this type of drivel. Even if ‘Plantard the Jesus Descendent’ was a concept destroyed by academia, he still could have had a substantial following. It simply doesn’t add up.

And as ‘for him [Plantard], Merovingian was enough’. NO WAY. The Priory Documents were designed IMHO to link the Merovingians with Judaism (or a branch of it at least). The statements Plantard made later support this conclusion. So the Merovingians weren’t ‘enough’. There is something more. Again, I ask why was Plantard determined to link the Merovingians with Judaism? And why did the Priory Documents declare that the Merovingians were behind every major heresy and revolution in French history? Why did the Priory Documents try to link the Merovingians with every ‘anti-conservative’ trend in French history? Why did the Priory Documents even try to link the Merovingians with communism at the very height of the Cold War? All of which, essentially, made ‘Jews’ (at least of some description) the source of all major heresies and revolution in French history! Where else have we heard that tired old crock of anti-Semitic shite?

‘Roger’ opined on another forum that such tactics were merely a powerful form of 'carrier-wave'. That’s a reasonable answer. Yet, is it reasonable to accept that Plantard was genuinely trying to place himself at the head of a group that was (by his own concocted literature) supposedly the most subversive in France!? At a time when tensions were so high. At the very least, I think it is reasonable to argue that Plantard had no genuine desire to ‘head a popular monarchy that would suppress the Church and invite a Communist takeover (or government)’ (or something along those lines). So what was his agenda?

Because his target audience would have drawn a line at that. Pierre Plantard did have hopes of being taken seriously, you know.



And do you honestly think Plantard would have appreciated being lumped in with that crowd? Please. I'm sure the man thought he had more going for himself than that.



You mean why is the PoS a bundle of contradictions?

C'mon, Spart - you've been at this long enough to know that it isn't supposed to make sense "as written".



Self-aggrandizement? His own amusement? A desperate need for attention? Or perhaps simply to gain entrée into a netherworld for which he had nothing to recommend him? No one seems willing to look at the man from a human level, everything must be part of a greater conspiracy. Which is why this "enigma" will keep whetting appetites for decades to come.

TCP

Hi Tim,




Well, that’s my point. IMHO the ‘PoS’ and its associated literature is not at all contradictory, and it does ‘make sense as written’, to anti-Semites at least. The Priory Documents have IMHO been carefully crafted to frighten the bejesus out of credulous ‘socially conservative’ people. The meme seeded by the Priory Documents is not contradictory. It is specific, and is tailored for a particular target audience.

All the necessary Bugaboos are there, ‘cleverly’ woven together.

The question then IMHO is – was Plantard genuinely trying to place himself as the leader of a (fictional) subversive movement with supposedly strong links to heresy, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, paganism, homosexuality, and social ‘decadence’?

Or was there another agenda?





On the contrary, it is precisely because I am willing to look at the man from a human level, that I have reached the conclusions that I have. The human ‘psychology’ is all wrong IMHO, unless ‘everything’ is ‘part of a greater conspiracy’!

The only contradiction is why someone like the ‘Alpha Galates Plantard’ would, a few decades later, attempt to portray himself as the ‘Priory Plantard’.

As I’ve written elsewhere, if it looks like a fish, swims like a fish, smells like a fish, and tastes like a fish, IMHO it is indeed a fish. IMHO Plantard was a typical anti-Semite during his earlier years. This does not mean IMHO that he was necessary pro-Nazi. As an arch French patriot he may well have been fiercely anti-Nazi, and even part of the resistance. But to ignore his previous anti-Semitic form is IMHO an error.

Professor has pointed out that people do change, and I accept this completely. I just don’t believe (as of Oct 2010 at least) that Plantard did. The wording and tone of the Priory Documents is IMHO too precise, too tailored, for a particular agenda. If Plantard had genuinely left the dark side and come over to the light, the Priory Documents and his later statements would IMHO be much different.

However, having said all that I’ll add two things. Firstly, my background is in psychology, and secondly my French is very poor. So I’m fairly confident in my conclusions regarding the SEEMINLY contradictory psychology IF my personal translation of the Priory Documents is accurate!

Regards,

Spartacus

As I've said for over a decade, the message is tailored to a particular audience, that being the neo-chivalric undercurrent of the 1960s/70s who would in no way, shape or form have been "frightened" by anything in the Priory documents. However, there is about as much interest on PoS-related fora in following this line of inquiry as there would be in knitting tea cozies. In groupthink, what isn't understood is typically undervalued.



I don't think you know how to properly interpret, evaluate, or differentiate your "links"...



Sorry, I disagree with you.



No contradiction at all from where I sit. You seem very anxious to apply generic and superficial labels to the man without understanding his environment or the milieu he sought to attract at all.



The key word here being "typical" - you've described probably 95% of non-Jewish French males of his time. Hard to find much significance in that.



Too tailored and too precise for a particular agenda. Wouldn't promotion of an agenda be easier with a high degree of precision?



OK, well, you're entitled to your own diagnosis then.

TCP

OK Spartacus. We're both looking at the same contradictions, and I can say at least one thing: I'm glad you've noticed them, for a long time I seemed to be the only pointing them out.

The arch-Catholic traditionalist order that attacks the Catholic Church and claims to be behind every heresy against it.
The anti-Masonic organization that regularly appropriates the symbols of Freemasonry.
The anti-Semitic organization that regularly appropriates Jewish symbols.
The "rightist" group that seems to have quite a few "leftist" members.
The "royalist" order that would seem to want to bring about more popular democracy and low-cost housing.
A "traditionalist" group that claimed to be headed for several decades by a gay opium addict and declared cultural subversive, Jean Cocteau.

But now, bear in mind: here's what I find very odd about your theory.

It seems to go like this: Plantard wanted to be seen as Jewish and people to think he was the head of a Jewish secret conspiracy a la the Protocols to control the world, so that he could trigger an anti-Semitic backlash. OK. And if somebody became so unhinged as to believe this, I suspect the first thing they'd try, a la James W. Von Brunn (google him if you don't know who he is), is to try and assassinate him! I think that would be very hazardous to his own lifespan... why on Earth would he do such a thing?

Personally, I’m interested in all aspects of ‘this enigma of ours’ and would happily follow this line of inquiry. Unfortunately I could only be a ‘lurker’ as I know very little about this theme, as you have pointed out to me previously elsewhere. Perhaps I missed some your early posts on ‘the neo-chivalric undercurrent of the 1960s/70s’. Most of your references to this undercurrent that I have seen are vague and hardly educational. By that, I don’t mean that I think you don’t know what you’re talking about. I simply assume you’re not inclined to share or you are fed up sharing and being ignored. But either way, if you want to tell me your thoughts about the neo-chivalric undercurrent of the 1960s/70s I can guarantee that I will be very interested.



No worries…



I’m not anxious at all. Perhaps you’re projecting again.




True, but 95% of non-Jewish French males of his time were not members of Alpha Galates or took the time to write anti-Semitic letters to the Vichy government.

.

Thank you.

Regards,

Spartacus

No use getting enmired in a back-and-forth regarding anything up to this point...



Which is what has you stuck in a logical conundrum. You assume these details belie commitment, true feelings - and yet you can't quite interpret the volte-face of a decade later because of these same assumptions. It has to be one or the other and that has you stumped. Or so you believe.

TCP

What, then, would be the desired effect of intentionally seeding so many apparent contradictions into their narrative? Assuming that you do believe it was intentional, of course.

TCP

Well, there is a technique of things pretending to be their own opposite - has a very distinguished history in France - mostly associated with the Situationists of the 60s but I think as a kind of "culture jamming" may be a bit older ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Détournement

I'd say the best U.S. practicioner-example of this guerilla technique is Steven Colbert, who by pretending to be a crazy rightist, undermines crazy rightists ...

See I agree with Spart that the 30s Plantard and the 60s Plantard don't seem to "fit" and so maybe he was "faking" a gig on either side of the temporal divide ... however, for suggesting the fakery was earlier rather than later, and that maybe the guy some people seem to think was an arch-Catholico-fascist who was anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic (despite him declaring his atheism, having a Masonic mentor even back in the 30s, and spending more time lauding Buddhism while putting down Catholicism in his little kooky newsletter) ... wasn't ... got me labelled a Holocaust Denier akin to David Irving by HWMNBN .... all I will say is, and I continue to assert this, there's stuff going on Vaincre that is ambiguous, at the very least.

I've seen some of the anti-Semitic literature of Vichy France. Compare the supposedly anti-Semitic Vaincre to the output of Edouard Drumont, and there is just no comparison. These guys did not hide their enthusiasm for deportations of Jews ... they celebrated it. That seems oddly missing in Vaincre, there's only ONE reference to it, and it's dated January 17th, in strange, almost coded language. That's something that makes you go hmmm.

But really, honestly, I would say the main source of the contradictions of the multiple pseudonymous "peedox" is a little bit like the contradictions among the various books of the Bible -- they had multiple authors. Dunno. The general consensus of most people seems to be that all of them were written solely and only either by Plantard himself, or de Cherisey, himself. I just don't think that's the case. I see multiple viewpoints represented. Looks to me like at least three, certainly more than two. I'm not saying this to say whether or not any larger "conspiracy" or force was involved in their creation, I have no idea, it just has always looked to me that based on the extent to which the "dox" will even contradict each other suggests several authors - at least two, maybe three, perhaps four or more. I have at times suggested theories as to who some of these additional authors might have been. Of course, my perspective puts de Sede at a higher level of involvement in the "spin machine" than most people do, as more a initial co-conspirator than later-recruited subsidiary.

For both you and Spartacus, one image must be true, and by default, the other fake - would you say that's an accurate assessment?

TCP

Well, I think the point you would be making is that he was a man of no real convictions at all, and therefore willing to appeal to whatever audiences were around at the time, which could broadly be called the French "right" in the 30s and the "left" in the 60s.

Or just nuts. I don't know. Frankly, I have no idea. But, as I think I've said, because he seems to have been a bit of a sphinx, for whatever reason, I started looking at the people around him. Honestly, they strike me as more interesting.

BTW, I used to run into the Larouchians all the time back in Baltimore in the 1980s. They used to leave their stupid newspapers all over campus. Environmentalism was a plot to destroy human civilization. Satanists were everywhere in the echelons of power. The Royal Family of England and others were involved in international drug smuggling. Oh, and nuclear radiation wasn't all that bad, in fact, they used to reprint stuff from Edward Teller arguing it was a good idea to use nuclear bombs to dig canals and do massive earth-moving projects. Plus, the usual anti-Semitism.

Whackjobs.

I have to say, without trying to be contrary, that whenever you tell me what I’m assuming or insisting, you seem to be IMHO misjudging me.

Firstly, I don’t feel stuck in a logical conundrum. As noted, I believe the second Plantard incarnation makes perfect sense if viewed as a continuation of his early anti-Semitic strategy.

Secondly, I don’t assume ‘these details belie commitment, or true feelings’. I don’t necessarily believe that an individual spouting anti-Semitism has to be an anti-Semite. How many people PUBLICLY fulminate against adultery and homosexuality, or drug use or pornography, while they secretly indulge? How many high profile ‘social conservatives’ have been revealed as fakes? They adopt the public persona as a social strategy, for whatever reason, usually for social advancement or financial reward.

IMHO peoples ‘beliefs’ are much more malleable than is generally accepted, and are rooted in appeal based judgement.

So, thirdly, I don’t think it has to be one or the other.

I would tend to see Plantard’s anti-Semitism as a social strategy first and foremost. Whether he was or was not fully committed to such beliefs is IMHO of secondary concern. Plantard IMHO wanted to ingratiate himself to elements of the ESTABLISHMENT, although this must be understood as a FRENCH first establishment, which is why IMHO he may have tried to resist the Driscoll influence (nod to Roger). I have little doubt that the Professor is correct in stating that Plantard was a ‘sphinx’. IMHO this is one of Plantard’s defining characteristics, along with his ‘attempts to be at the centre of important goings on’. If the status-quo suddenly changed, so would Plantard’s ‘loyalties’ IMHO. With that in mind, I have no trouble at all accepting that Plantard may have hedged his bets occasionally for precisely that reason. This may perhaps explain his public ambiguity.



No. Neither image need be ‘true’. What is crucial are his actions, who he was trying to please, and what he hoped to achieve.

Regards,

Spartacus

Hi Professor,



These contradictions have been central to my studies for quite some time, and are IMHO of crucial significance.



Exactly.



Basically, correct. But perhaps not just Jewish. Add the rest of usual Bugaboo suspects as well.



It’s a good point, but the answer may be as simple as a calculated risk. In the 1989 book Guardians of the Grail, the author J.R. Church has interpreted the Priory narrative as a secret Jewish conspiracy to control the world. He goes as far as suggesting that Plantard might be the Anti-Christ, although Karl Habsburg is his preferred candidate. There is even a helpful picture of Plantard so one can see the face of ‘evil’. So, whether intentional or not he was depicted in exactly the manner you describe above, yet nobody tried to kill him. Perhaps the benefits as he saw them simply out weighed the potential risks!

The way the Priory Documents were concocted it was inevitable that someone like Church would present the Priory narrative as a Jewish conspiracy (although he posits a Danite specific conspiracy that is also anti-Semitic!).

J. R. Church wrote:

‘For the Anti-Christ there are certain characteristics we should note. First of all, it appears that he will be a descendent of the children of Israel…many identify the beast “out of the sea” as the Anti-Christ…Many prophetic scholars interpret the first beast, “out of the sea” to be the political ruler, the dictator of the revived Roman Empire – the Anti-Christ’

Interestingly, Church makes no mention of the ‘Quinotuar’ connection during his rant.

A la the Protocols…

Signed by the representatives of Sion of the 33rd Degree. The text writes of a coming ‘Masonic Kingdom’ and of a ‘King of the blood of Sion’…the future king will be of ‘the dynastic roots of King David’…’Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the King and his heirs…Only the King and the three who stood sponsor for him will know what is coming…

The Grandmaster and the three Sénéchaux…could it be more blatant?

Regards,

Spartacus

The photograph is taken from the back of the American Dollar.

But may I respond to the rest.

Talking AT me makes me not wish to speak to you. There's nothing but time wasting and grief in it for me. Whatever I do or say I get shouted down. So you go off and pursue your own fantasies please don't include me.

OK?

Post in English Roger! Or have you completely lost your bottle?

Just let me lay down a self evident rule here that nobody seems to have grasped. We are dealing with a Secret Society and Secret Societies are Secret. They will lie if you get too close (the term they use is Diverting a Discourse), they will put out false trials, that's what Secret Societies do.

He does it for effect, to disguise the fact that he has nothing to say.

TCP

Vous devriez avoir honte !
Mais pour cela il vous faudrait une conscience

I would imagine secret societies don't often angle for free publicity by giving interviews to authors either.

TCP

He does it for effect, to disguise the fact that he has nothing to say.

TCP

I beg to differ .......did any of you bother finding out what Tertius is saying here....it's actually rather important.

If you would all stop jumping down the man's throat...you will see that you've been given some rather interesting bit's of information here....get translating and then go figure.

Oh my giddy aunt , spart you have way to much time on your hands
Hands up all those that lost the will to live after the first few paragraphs.

why does it need to get so personal...where does that come in.

Surely, if someone gives you a bit of info, veiled or otherwise, it's usually best to meditate on it and come to your own conclusions.

Holy crap, Spartacus...

Reading the above exchange, one might get the impression that you believe Plantard and his intimate cohorts were directly and solely responsible for defining that which you refer to as the "Sion mythos" in its entirety, rather than merely laying the groundwork for the multi-headed hydra it's become, thanks to the input and effort of dozens (hundreds?) adding layer upon layer to try to define the entire matter according to their own agendas.

I was arguing the point that Plantard's primary motivation was to advance his "Merovingian" claims, but that doesn't mean I therefore deny the fact that the "mythos" has become a petri dish for "Jewish banker" hysteria. I simply wouldn't go so far as to say the latter was Plantard's motivation.

I would imagine secret societies don't often angle for free publicity by giving interviews to authors either.

TCP

I beg to differ .......did any of you bother finding out what Tertius is saying here....it's actually rather important.

If you would all stop jumping down the man's throat...you will see that you've been given some rather interesting bit's of information here....get translating and then go figure.

Sub Tillia indeed.