William I, Elector of Hesse

 

This guy created a monster. 

Researching this Royal House - the House of Hesse -  led me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole last night. 

European royal histories and family trees is something I can get lost in. 

We have to remember that for most of human history the characters at the center of every historical drama were royalty. The last hundred years are an aberration. 

Before the rise of secret societies, ambitious revolutionaries, and modern industrialists and oligarchs, royal houses were the principal actors that moved, shaped, and catalogued history. They had the leisure, institutional memory, and wealth to direct events and make history.

And the House of Hesse in Germany has been at the center of the action and the European drama for centuries, participating in numerous historical conflicts from the Thirty Years' War to the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. 

They provided mercenaries to the British Empire in the American Revolutionary War and helped launch the Rothschild dynasty in the same century, inadvertently of course.

The women affiliated with this House, who were married into the courts across Europe, from France to Russia, are also impressive from a political and social perspective. They left a big imprint on history. 

II.

Wikipedia:

William I, Elector of Hesse (German: Wilhelm I., Kurfürst von Hessen; 3 June 1743 – 27 February 1821) was the eldest surviving son of Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Cassel) and Princess Mary of Great Britain, the daughter of George II.

. . .Upon the death of his father on 31 October 1785, he became William IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel. He was said to have inherited one of the largest fortunes in Europe at the time.

William looked for help in managing his estate. He hired Mayer Amschel Rothschild as "Hoffaktor" in 1769, to supervise the operation of his properties and tax-gathering. The wealth of William's estate provided a good living for Rothschild and the men had a strong relationship; he founded the Rothschild family dynasty, which became important in financing and banking in Europe. Although they had been acquainted since 1775, William IX did not formally designate Rothschild as his overseer until 1801.

The early fortunes of the Rothschild family were made through a conjunction of financial intelligence and the wealth of Prince William. During the Napoleonic Wars, William used the Frankfurt Rothschilds to hide his fortune from Napoleon. This money then saw its way through to Nathan Mayer, (N.M.) in London, where it helped fund the British movements through Portugal and Spain. The interest made from this venture was reaped by the budding banker barons, who used it to swiftly develop their fortune and prestige in Europe and Britain. It was not long before their riches outweighed those of their benefactor, William of Hesse-Kassel.

Wikipedia: 

Frederick II (German: Landgraf Friedrich II von Hessen-Kassel) (14 August 1720 – 31 October 1785) was Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel (or Hesse-Cassel) from 1760 to 1785. He ruled as an enlightened despot, and raised money by renting soldiers (called "Hessians") to Great Britain to help fight the American Revolutionary War. He combined Enlightenment ideas with Christian values, cameralist plans for central control of the economy, and a militaristic approach toward international diplomacy.

. . .During the 17th and 18th centuries, it was a fairly widespread practice for smaller principalities to rent out troops to other princes. However, this was carried on to excess in Hesse-Kassel, which maintained 7% of its population under arms throughout the eighteenth century. Frederick hired out so many troops to his nephew, King George III of Great Britain, for use in the American War of Independence, that "Hessian" has become an American term for all German soldiers deployed by the British in the War. Frederick used the revenue to finance his patronage of the arts and his opulent lifestyle. The architect Simon Louis du Ry transformed for Frederick II the town of Kassel into a modern capital.

Wikipedia:

Amalie Elisabeth of Hanau-Münzenberg (28 January 1602– 18 August 1651) was Landgravine consort and Regent of Hesse-Kassel. She married the future William V, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in 1619 and became Landgravine upon his ascension to power in 1627. In 1637, military defeats forced her and William V into exile in East Frisia. Later that year, she became regent for their son William VI upon her husband's death. Through skillful diplomacy and military successes in the Thirty Years' War, she advanced the fortunes of Hesse-Kassel and influenced the Peace of Westphalia that brought the conflict to an end. She handed over an enlarged landgraviate to her son when she abdicated upon his majority in 1650.

. . .Amalie Elisabeth was remembered fondly among Calvinists for her efforts to preserve the Reformed faith in the Holy Roman Empire. When she visited Heidelberg in 1651, she was praised by the city’s inhabitants, who called her a second Deborah. In his 1901 book Women of the Reformed Church, James Isaac Good calls her both a “Reformed Deborah” and a “Reformed Joan of Arc." Her first biography was likely written by Christian Gottfried Körner and appeared as an appendix to the Representation of the Thirty Years War by Friedrich Schiller. 

. . .Although Amalie Elisabeth’s reign was remembered for generations, modern scholarship on the Thirty Years’ War often pays little or no attention to her or her accomplishments. The foremost English-language biography on her is The Iron Princess: Amalia Elizabeth and the Thirty Years' War, written by Dr. Tryntje Helfferich and published in 2013. In her book, Dr. Helfferich argues that Amalie Elisabeth’s role in the Thirty Years’ War has been marginalized in modern works “largely because she was a woman, for her role in the Thirty Years War rivaled that of Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar, Cardinal Mazarin, or even King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden."

Wikipedia:

Madame Elizabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Orléans (born Princess Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate, German: Elisabeth Charlotte; 27 May 1652 – 8 December 1722), also known as Liselotte von der Pfalz, was a German member of the House of Wittelsbach who married into the French royal family. She was the second wife of Monsieur Philippe I, Duke of Orléans (younger brother of Louis XIV). By Philippe, Liselotte was the mother of Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, and Élisabeth Charlotte, Duchess of Lorraine. Philippe II was France's ruler during the Regency. Liselotte gained literary and historical importance primarily through preservation of her correspondence, which is of great cultural and historical value due to her sometimes very blunt descriptions of French court life and is today one of the best-known German-language texts of the Baroque period.

Liselotte not only became the ancestress of the House of Orléans, which came to the French throne with Louis Philippe I, the so-called "Citizen King" from 1830 to 1848, but also became the ancestress of numerous European royal families, so she was also called the "Grandmother of Europe". Through her daughter she was the grandmother of Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor, the husband of Maria Theresa, and great-grandmother of Joseph II and Leopold II (both Holy Roman Emperors) and Marie Antoinette, the last Queen of France before the French Revolution.

. . .Liselotte became very close to her brother-in-law Louis XIV. He was "...enchanted by the fact that this was an extremely witty and lovely woman, that she danced well...". He was often quite amused by her open, humorous and refreshingly uncomplicated nature. They often went hunting together—a rather unusual occupation for a noble lady of the time. Her habit of going for long walks was also noticed by the French court and was initially mocked (she even went for a walk in the park at night) but the King was delighted: "The King used to say: il n’y a que Vous qui jouissés des beautés de Versailles (you are the only one who enjoys the beauties of Versailles)"

. . .Louis XIV died on 1 September 1715 after a reign of 72 years and 110 days; one of the last people he summoned to his deathbed was Liselotte, saying goodbye to her with noble compliments. 

. . .Although she had not made it a habit to interfere in politics, only one month after the Louis XIV's death, Liselotte successfully campaigned for the release of Huguenots who had been sent to the galleys for many years because of their beliefs. 184 people, including many preachers, were released; two years later she managed to release a further 30.

. . .Most of all, Liselotte was worried about the many intrigues and conspiracies against her son. She loathed the foreign minister and later prime minister, Father Guillaume Dubois (cardinal from 1721) and mistrusted the economist and chief financial controller John Law, who caused a currency devaluation and speculative bubble (the so-called Mississippi bubble):

I wanted this Law to come to Blockula with his art and system and never come to France.

— Liselotte von der Pfalz: Letter to her half-sister Raugräfin Luise from 11 July 1720.

. . .Liselotte was interested in opera and theatre and followed their development over decades, and was also able to recite long passages by heart. She was well read, as evidenced by many of her letters, and had a library of more than 3,000 volumes, including all the popular French and German novels and plays of her time (Voltaire dedicated his tragedy Oedipe to her), as well as most of the classical Greek and Latin authors (in German and French translation), Luther Bibles, maps with copperplate engravings, travelogues from all over the world as well as the tomes of natural history, medicine and mathematics. She amassed an extensive coin collection, primarily of antique gold coins (it was not her father who inherited the 12,000 copies her father had inherited in Kassel, but her mother), she owned 30 books on coin science and corresponded with Spanheim and other numismatists. She also bought three of the recently invented microscopes, with which she examined insects and other things. She spent her days at court gatherings, writing letters, reading and researching.

. . .Liselotte is said to have written an estimated 60,000 letters throughout her life, 2/3 in German and 1/3 in French, of which about 5,000 have survived, and about 850 of these are in French. With this, she surpasses the second great letter writer and contemporary witness of her epoch, Madame de Sévigné with her approximately 1,200 letters.

The letters deal with all aspects of life. They contain vivid and often satirical descriptions of court life, memories of her childhood and youth in Germany, the latest court gossip from all over Europe, reflections on literature and theatre, and thoughts about God and the world. Liselotte sought relief by writing long letters to her relatives in Germany, and the constant exchange became a cure for her inner melancholy and sadness.

Wikipedia:

Alexandra Feodorovna (Russian: Александра Фёдоровна, romanized: Aleksandra Fyodorovna; born Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine; 6 June 1872 – 17 July 1918) was the last empress of Russia as the consort of Nicholas II from their marriage on 26 November [O.S. 14 November] 1894 until his forced abdication on 15 March [O.S. 2 March] 1917.

Alexandra was deeply involved in the personal and political life of her husband, Tsar Nicholas II. Her reputation suffered due to her influence over Nicholas, particularly in her insistence on maintaining autocratic rule in the face of growing revolutionary pressures in Russia.[2] Her relationship with the Russian mystic Grigori Rasputin became a subject of controversy. Rasputin's alleged ability to alleviate Alexei's suffering from hemophilia increased Alexandra's reliance on him, damaging the public perception of the Romanovs and fueling rumors about Rasputin's power within the royal family. These associations with Rasputin and her opposition to political reform were seen as contributing factors to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty.

Following Nicholas II's abdication, the imperial family were placed under house arrest by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. On 17 July 1918, they were murdered by Bolshevik forces in Yekaterinburg, marking the violent end of over three centuries of Romanov rule. Despite her unpopularity during her reign, Alexandra was canonized as Saint Alexandra the Passion Bearer by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000.

The Weaponization of Refugees And Migrants + The Strategic Significance of The Middle East During WWII

"War also was a mighty purveyor of human chattels. When we remember that Titus, in a single campaign in Judæa (70 A.D.), reduced to slavery 90,000 Jews, our imagination becomes appalled at the multitudes of captives that the incessant struggles with the Parthians, and particularly the conquests of Trajan, must have thrown on the markets of the Occident.

But whether taken en masse after some great victory, or acquired singly by the professional traffickers in human flesh, these slaves were particularly numerous in the maritime towns, to which their transportation was cheap and easy." - Franz Cumont, "The Mysteries of Mithra" 1903, Pg. 64. 

What the dishonourable King of Morocco did the other day, weaponizing his subjects and using them as precision guided human missiles against the territory of Spain, was an act of war. 

Spain is fully in the right to throw out the Moroccan ambassador and declare war on Morocco. 

This act must not go unpunished or else it will continue. 

The King of Morocco received bad advice from the lunatics governing Washington and Tel Aviv. He mistakenly believes Spain won't act to defend its interests and its historic territory. 

Spain has to remind Mohammed VI he's a corrupt playboy King, not a warrior. 

II.

An excerpt from, "Europe and the Islamic World: A History" By John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, and Henry Laurens; Translated by Jane Marie Todd, Princeton University Press, 2013, Pg. 387 - 391:

The French and British sought to draw Turkey into their camp by providing it with major benefits. France completely ceded the sanjak of Alexandretta, part of its mandate in the Levant, leading to lasting resentment among the Syrians. The German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact changed the situation. Moscow called on the Ankara regime to remain neutral. It complied, even after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, In 1943-1944, the English-speaking countries tried to persuade Turkey to join the war on their side, but Ankara quietly refused using as a pretext the weakness of its army, which lacked modern materiel, and the geographical vulnerability of its territory. (The Axis powers controlled all of Greece, the Balkans, and the islands in the Aegean Sea).

Turkey was the chief Muslim country to be spared by the new war that had begun in Europe. The populations of the French and British colonial empires were not consulted when the European countries joined the war in September 1939. The Indian nationalists protested the decision, which called into question the dyarchy of the previous years. With the Japanese invasion of 1942, military operations reached the borders of India. The Congress Party actively opposed the war and was subjected to harsh repression. The Indian Muslims, by contrast, were patently "loyal." In a context where the British were compelled to draw on India's resources to the maximum extent, and to promise the status of Dominion or even complete independence after the war, the Muslims obtained a true veto right over the future. In those terrible years, the idea developed of constituting a "Pakistan," a "Muslim nation" uniting northern India into a federation with rather loose ties to the rest of the subcontinent.

The war in North Africa began in June 1940. The French possessions fell under the provisions of the Armistice agreement, later constituting, under Maxime Weygand's command, the sole instance of unified management of the Maghreb. In 1943, the "Western Desert," covering Libya and Egypt, became one of the main battlefields. For a year, the British Empire fought the Axis Powers with almost absurdly inadequate means, but also with unflagging resolve. The conquest of the Balkans, then of Crete, by the German forces in spring 1941 brought the threat dangerously close. The Arab nationalists in Iraq staged a coup détat and made contact with the Germans. The British counterattack was swift. With rough-and-ready forces, they reoccupied Iraq in May 1941. Because Vichy France had authorized the Germans to use the Levantine airports to bring aid to the Iraqis, the British imperial troops, while they were at it, penetrated the French Mandate, with the cooperation of the Free French Forces and a contingent of Zionists. That miniwar, which on the French side took on the aspect of a civil war, also created the oddity of Arab nationalists fighting on Vichy's side. In mid-July, the Vichy forces obtained an armistice that allowed them to return to metropolitan France on a voluntary basis.

To calm tensions, on May 29, 1941, Anthony Eden, British secretary of state for foreign affairs, made a declaration expressing his country's sympathy for the cause of Arab unity, without mentioning Zionism. On June 8, 1941, the French general Georges Catroux announced, in General de Gaulle's name, the principle of independence for Syria and Lebanon, based on treaties to be concluded.

The German invasion of the Soviet Union changed the strategic game. The Iran of Reza Shah seemed to have moved too close to Germany. The Soviets and the British called on Tehran to expel the Germans present in Iran and jointly invaded the country in late August 1941. Reza Shah was deposed and replaced by his son. The imperial regime seemed on the point of collapse, but above all, the country was for the first time under complete occupation.

In early 1941, the Italo-German threat to Egypt became more acute. King Farouk and his entourage attempted to make contact with the enemies of the British. On February 4, 1942, the British staged a true coup ďétat, which forced Farouk to recall the Wafd to power. The Egyptian public felt a real nationa humiliation. On June 27, 1942, the Italo-German forces entered Egyptian territory. They arrived on July 1 in El Alamein, sixty kilometers from Alexandria. Simultaneously in Russia, the Germans took Crimea and proceeded toward the Caucasus. With the Japanese advance in the Pacific, the Middle East seemed to be the point of convergence for the three major offensives of the Axis Powers.

The British mobilized the entire economic potential of the Middle East to sustain the rising power of their war machine in the Western Desert. They would soon have at their disposal more than a million soldiers, from Iran to Libya, restoring the illusion of power that had existed in 1918. That war effort was financed on credit and favored the industrialization of the region as a whole. Great Britain rapidly went into debt, with hundreds of millions of pounds sterling owed to every country between India and Egypt. Inflation was high, which worked to the advantage of all debtors. Rural debt, the traditional scourge of the Arab countryside, was practically liquidated. Although, overall, the Middle East enriched itself during these war years, food rationing was imposed. It was substantially less restrictive than that existing in Europe at the same time and far from the famine conditions experienced during World War I.

Caught up in a fight to the death with Nazism, Great Britain proved steadfast in its opposition to all forms of nationalism (Zionism included) suspected of serving German interests, whether intentionally or unintentionallv. The British violated all the political compromises of the interwar period. For the time being, they seemed to have an overpowering force at their disposal, but in practice they destroyed any possibility for political collaboration in the following period. They did try to conduct an ideological war of propaganda against Fascism, but any discourse promoting the defense of human freedoms could only turn against their colonial practices.

With the fall of France, emotion ran high in North Africa. A real feeling of unity briefly brought together Europeans and Muslims. But the Vichy regime abolished democratic freedoms and proved particularly paternalistic toward the indigenous Arabs. It applied the anti-Semitic laws with particular rigor (the Algerian Jews lost their status as French citizens), without even the excuse of pressure from the Occupation forces. In Algeria as in the two protectorates. the Muslims had a rather negative view of that state-sponsored anti-Semitism.

Nazi Germany had no political ambitions in the Muslim world. The Mediterranean was supposed to be an Italian zone of influence. Germany was tempted to support Arab nationalist movements in Iraq. Paradoxically, the existence of the Vichy regime paralyzed the Nazis' actions in that direction. If German support of the Muslims were too overt, it would risk pushing all of North Africa into the camp of de Gaulle and the Allies (the United Nations, as of 1942). The Arab nationalists who had taken refuge in Nazi-dominated Europe attempted to obtain a clearer declaration than that of the Allies in World War I, but Hitler and Mussolini equivocated. The best they could offer was a secret declaration, dated April 28, 1942, recognizing the sovereignty and independence of the Arab countries of the Near East and accepting their union, insofar as it was desired by the countries concerned, and the destruction of the Jewish national homeland in Palestine.

Fascist and especially Nazi propaganda broadcast over the radio waves elaborated anti-Semitic themes and pointed out the contradiction between the proclaimed doctrine of the United Nations and their colonial policy. It had a clear impact in the Middle East but did not lead to political mobilization. The Muslim countries from Iran to Egypt, legally independent or under mandate, did not take part in combat. Their military potential was low and their loyalty dubious. Some volunteered, but they primarily served in logistical positions for the Allied forces. (A few Syrians and Lebanese joined the French Free Forces.)

It was the British who, during the crucial year of 1941, made the United States aware of the strategic importance of the Middle East. Desperately lacking in means, they insisted on the direct delivery of American war materiel to the forces engaged in the Western Desert. When Saudi Arabia appeared at risk of collapse because of the drop in its revenues (resulting from the de facto suspension of the Muslim pilgrimage), Great Britain asked the U.S. government to grant the kingdom financial aid. After the Soviet Union entered the war, the Americans took direct control of the "Persian corridor," supplying materiel to the Red Army from the Gulf ports. More than twenty thousand American soldiers participated in that vast logistical operation, which in September 1942 became the Persian Gulf Command. The Americans became involved in the overall economic management of the Middle East.

In summer 1942, the American military realized that if the Egyptian and Caucasian fronts collapsed, the deciding battle would unfold in southern Iraq, near Basra, and the U.S. army would be part of it. The Allies made the decision to proceed to a North African rear landing. This was Operation Torch, which took place on November 8, 1942.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was firmly opposed to European colonialism. In his view, the aim of the war for the United States was not only the liberation of the European peoples from Nazi domination but the general application of the right to self-determination. He recognized that the colonized peoples were not immediately ready for independence and considered setting in place a system of international trusteeship for the interim period. Its application was supposed to be more rapid for peoples of the "brown or "yellow" races than for those of the black race. Roosevelt had to take into account the exigencies of the war, to the point of accepting the "temporary expedient" of maintaining the Vichy regime in North Africa under the leadership of Jean-Louis Darlan and then Henri Giraud. The war spread to Tunisia until the surrender of the German forces on May 13, 1943. Once French reunification had occurred with the constitution of the "government of Algiers" and de Gaulle's victory, the Americans did not interfere in North African affairs, but their show of force had been overwhelming.

Once the war had shifted away from the Muslim world, politics returned. The Americans pushed for the rapid independence of Syria and Lebanon, despite the resistance of the Free French Forces and then of the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

The war demonstrated the strategic importance of Middle Eastern oil, especially since the reserves on the American continent were expected to be exhausted over the medium term. Saudi Arabia, defined as an American "nationa interest," became the privileged partner of the United States in the Middle East. The kingdom took the opportunity to emancipate itself from British influence.

Everywhere, the Americans opposed maintaining the economic and honorific privileges of the British in the Middle East. American-Arab relations were defined in terms of cooperation and fraternity, in contrast to the hierarchical view held by the British.

But the Palestine question was still not settled. The British had in mind a new partitioning, with an Arab part based in a future "Greater Syria." They gave up that idea in late 1944. In the United States, the question had become an internal policy issue. Roosevelt envisioned making Palestine the testing ground for the new policy of trusteeship, but his premature death kept him from carrying out his intentions.

In 1945, all the Middle Eastern states declared war on the Axis Powers, the price of admission for participating in the constitution of the United Nations. The prestige of the United States was at its height in the Muslim world, whereas the European powers seemed to belong to the past.

When History Rhymes: Some History On The Roman-Iranian Wars In Late Antiquity

 

The leaders of Zionist America and Islamic Iran must ask themselves some important questions before they further destroy and sacrifice their own countries' wealth, infrastructure, reputation, economy, and military.

Is Jerusalem worth it? Is Israel worth it? Is Palestine worth it? Would Jews and Arabs fight for them if they found themselves in a similar situation? And what is best for their own forgotten peoples - endless war or economic development?

I don't pose these questions as a peacenik. Wars are necessary. There's nothing wrong with a fight. I think war can be healthy if it's fought for the right reasons. Sometimes war must be waged, especially when a nation's core national security interests are at stake. But that's not the case for either America or Iran in this war. 

Wars fought for ideological or imperial reasons almost always end in disaster. And they also have the most unintended consequences.

With this war, those consequences include a global famine, mass migration of refugees, and the economic collapse of various countries.

So, again, is Jerusalem worth all that trouble?

II.

An excerpt from, "Towards One World: Ancient Persia and the West" By Warwick Ball, Olive Branch Press, 2011, Pg. 131 - 33:

Khusrau made a cardinal mistake when the Persians seized the Christian holy relics in Jerusalem. More than anything else, this spurred the Christian empire of Rome into response as nothing else would, and in 622 Heraclius went on the offensive. In particular, Heraclius unleashed a demon that has continued to haunt the world ever since: he formulated the concept of Holy War whereby killing could be justified as a religious act and those who perishing in doing this would ascend directly to heaven. Heraclius first safeguarded his rear from the Slav threat by using Byzantium's greatest single weapon, money: he simply bought them off. Then, armed with religious zeal, these first Crusaders were able to penetrate deep into Iran in 622 where they plundered the Iranian holy city of Shiz, partly to seize back the holy relics, and partly to avenge the plunder of Jerusalem.

In 624-5 Heraclius moved the war to Transcaucasia once more: the Caucasus remained a strategic factor throughout. Accordingly, Khusrau sent his three best generals into Transcaucasia, including Shahin, the legendary besieger of Constantinople. Faced with such opponents, Heraclius wisely avoided open battle. In the meantime, Khusrau's diplomatic intelligence had been as busy as his military, and as successful. The following year his agents formed an alliance with the Avars, Slavs and Bulgars of south-eastern Europe in a move to encircle Constantinople. Acting in concert, the Sasanian army, commanded this time by Shahrvaraz, advanced in 626 once more to the Bosphorus, laying siege to Constantinople from Chalcedon, while the Avars laid siege on the landward side. Indeed, according to one source, Shahrvaraz actually crossed the Bosphorus and surrounded Constantinople, laying siege from the west as well. For the first time since Xerxes, an army from Persia occupied a part of Europe. Constantinople's massive defences, however, held.

Faced with encirclement, Heraclius used the same tactic himself, and in 626 opened negotiations with the Khazar Turks of the Caspian to outflank Iran in the east. Accordingly, a Khazar army commanded by their king advanced through the Caucasus passes and joined forces with Heraclius under the walls of Tbilisi, which was still held by the Persians. Betrothing his daughter Eudocia to the Kagan (the first but by no means the last time that Byzantine and Turkish royal families would be united by marriage), the combined force entered Iran in 627, leaving a smaller Turk force to continue the siege of Tbilisi.

Heraclius advanced to the historic battlefield of Nineveh in 627, whose capture by the Medes in 612 BC had first signalled the arrival of the Iranians upon the Near Eastern stage. This time the Iranians were defeated and a combination of both luck and secret intelligence work began to work in Heraclius' favour. The Persian general Shahin had died of illness the previous year, removing one of Khusrau's military geniuses from the wat. This left only Shahrvaraz, still besieging Constantinople. Heraclius' agents, however, were able to show him a letter of Khusrau, which Roman agents had intercepted, ordering Shahrvaraz' execution as a potential challenger to his throne. Accordingly, Shahrvaraz entered into secret negotiation with Heraclius and withdrew his forces from Constantinople---the Persians 'evacuated Europe and returned to Asia' according to John of Ephesus.

The following vear Khusrau I Parviz was murdered, possibly at the instigation of his son Kavadh acting in concert with Shahrvaraz. His successor, Kavadh II, sued for peace in 629. Heraclius was able to negotiate an evacuation of Egypt directly with Shahrvaraz (now connected by marriage ties: Shahrvaraz' daughter married Heraclius' son) and a withdrawal back to previous borders.

Peace, like countless previous ones, was established once again. Many regard the wars between Rome and Sasanian Persia between the third and seventh centuries as 'endemic', as both empires claimed universal rule hence leaving few options apart from war. Others regard it as just another chapter in a Manichean war between east and west that we have reviewed in the Introduction. Both views overlook the long periods of peace between the two powers when trade and cross-fertilisation of ideas---particularly religious----went both ways: relations between any two powers are always complex and can never be described in simple terms. More important, both views obscure the real significance of this particular century-long war.

After a century of war the borders remained exactly as they had been at the outbreak: the war, it seemed, had changed nothing. At the same time it had changed everything. Ultimately, it was not a peace like the previous ones, for the war had awoken a new giant from an unexpected quarter. Throughout the war, monotheistic religion had not only become arms of the state of both superpowers, but for the first time was used as offensive weapons: militant Persian Zoroastrianism versus militant Roman Christianity. The period also saw militant Judaism in the hands of an Arab prince in Yemen with Dhu Nawas' religious offensive against the Christians. Furthermore, both powers used Arab allies to fight each other in proxy wars: Persian Lakhmids versus Roman Ghassanids. This combination of militant monotheism with resurgant Arab power was to have profound implications, particularly when we realise that Heraclius' proclamation of holy war has its exact counterpart in the Islamic concept of jihad, first traditionally articulated by Muhammad in the very same year---622----when Heraclius formulated his.

An excerpt from, "Rome And Persia: The Seven Hundred Year Rivalry" By Adrian Goldsworthy, Basic Books, 2023, Pg. 484 - 487:

The story of the conflicts between the Romans, the Parthians, and the Persians is one of ongoing adaptation and innovation. Both sides learned from the other, trying to shift the odds in their favour. Well-balanced, all-arms Roman forces proved very hard for the Parthians to deal with in later generations. Over time, the two sides became more and more alike, so that the difference between the armies of the sixth and seventh centuries was slight, coming in matters of detail rather than overall style of fighting.

Tactically, the advantage between the two sides ebbed and flowed with neither gaining a decisive edge for very long. Strategically, it was much the same, especially once the Sasanians proved themselves as adept as the Romans in siege-craft, after which both sides were capable of taking strongly fortified cities. In the main, conquered territory was readily consolidated. There is no sign of long-term resistance to Roman rule in Mesopotamia, just as cities taken by war or treaty by the Sasanians appear to have accepted this new reality--in some cases because new citizens were brought in. The rebellions against Trajan in 116 need not mean that, in time, areas such as Babylonia could not have become reconciled to Roman rule.

That the Romans never conquered these regions had little to do with tactical and strategic capability. It did have a lot to do with the sheer scale of the task. Conquering substantial parts of the Parthian-Sasanian empire would have required very large numbers of troops and a willingness to wage war and enforce occupation over a long period of time. Trajan tried but was too old, although it is harder to say whether he gave up on the idea because of failing health or whether giving up was the trigger for his rapid decline. No one else really tried, whether because calculation swiftly led to the conclusion that such a project was too expensive, too difficult, or simply impractical in the foreseeable future, or more likely because the prospective advantages did not match the risks and cost. Instead, there was limited war with limited obiectives, both sides seemingly understanding the rules and stepping back from pushing the other too far.

Many wars were fought, however limited they were in scale and obiectives, but even though they figure prominently in our sources, they were rarer than we might expect. The first century was a time of almost unbroken peace, with Nero's war in Armenia the only major exception. This conflict was very much a limited war, interrupted by frequent negotiation, and with a minor exception restricted to Armenia itself. If the second century saw grander campaigns, with two conflicts started by the Romans and one by the Parthians, it still meant barely a decade of fighting compared to some ninety years of peace.

In the third century and some of the fourth century, warfare between the empires became a good deal more common, only to be very rare indeed in the fifth century, then frequent after that.

The overall pattern is of long periods of essentially peaceful coexistence, which sometimes broke down. Whether from coincidence, their own agenda, or the side effects of Rome's lack of internal stability, the era of the Sasanians witnessed far more conflict than that of the Arsacids. Even so, until the time of Khusro II, the Sasanians sought glory, profit, and the preservation or improvement of their position along the frontiers with the Roman provinces. They did not actively seek any greater outcome than this.

This was about dominance rather than conquest, and dominance in turn has a lot to do with perception. Throughout these seven centuries, both empires felt it necessary to demonstrate their might, to feel that they were strong and have others believe it as well. This was important for Rome's elite under the republic and then for the emperors, and it was equally important for the king of kings, but there was always more than one audience.

The first was the peoples living outside the empire or near its borders. These needed to be convinced that the empire was so strong that it was far better to be its friend than its enemy. Ideally, this made everyone compliant, discouraging the rival empire from seeking confrontation, and making allies and provincial populations eager to please. Impressing this audience meant possessing substantial military forces and appearing willing and able to use them, and sometimes having to wage war as proof.

A second group was the population of the empire, especially the elite who were more significant politically. A ruler needed to assure this audience that he was a great and strong leader and that they were all part of the greatest empire in the world. In the main, most of this audience was far away from any actual conflict, which made it easier for a regime to exaggerate any achievements and present a treaty that was reasonably fair, or even involved concessions, as an unambiguous triumph.

On the whole, the system worked for both empires, allowing most rulers a measure of security from internal threats and avoiding conflict with the other empire unless it seemed advantageous There was good deal of bluster and sabre-rattling in all periods, each side revelling in proclamations of its overwhelming supremacy, even in diplomatic exchanges. Both sides knew the rules, imposing limits on their response. Simultaneously, a Roman emperor and a king of kings could each assure their own subjects that they were strong, and that the other man and his empire were weak and feeble, without this requiring an attempt to prove the claim by going to war. This was yet another way in which the two sides became so alike.

The Importance of Spain In Occult History

 

An excerpt from the interview below that William Ramsey did with author David Livingstone:

"Livingstone: So this is the period, a whole gap, a chapter in history, which from what I've seen, has been completely forgotten in usual explorations of occult history. This is basically the period of Spain. Of course, Spain at the time for a period was under Muslim domination, there was also a large Jewish community. And the particular Muslim approach to minorities allowed the Jews to basically flourish at that time. In fact the 9th and 10th centuries of Spain are considered the Golden Age of Judaism. 

So this is the community that really gives birth and allows the Kabbalah to emerge. 

And so what happened is that the Templars are arrested. Where they survive is in Spain. And they survive into a number of Orders like the Order of Montesa, the Order of Calatrava, the Order of Santiago, and most importantly the Order of Christ.

Ramsey: That’s super influential, the Kabbalah. In my last interview we were just talking about the Kabbalah. And apparently Jews at that time considered themselves the best under the Muslims, not under the Christians. They thought if they just pay the Jizya they were actually more free than what happened later in Spain, right?

Livingstone: Yeah, exactly. The Jews themselves call it the Golden Age of Judaism. 

So, the Order of Christ basically becomes responsible for the Age of Exploration, beginning out of Portugal, particularly with a guy named Prince Henry the Navigator.

And so these families now are all connected to the bloodline, Grail bloodlines in England, and France. And this is where you get the birth of several important families. What's important to remember is all these families claimed descent from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the hereditary Kings of Jerusalem. This is beside the fact Jerusalem was lost to the Muslims, but they continued to carry their title. It's important to understand that these are families that claim descent from King David. It's the Davidic bloodline. 

So with all these families, the Kabbalah, the conspiracy, the whole purpose of it is to fulfill Bible prophecy in their version of it. And that Bible prophecy basically entails the arrival of the Messiah who then fights Gog and Magog, establishing a world kingdom based out of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Third Temple.

That's why the Templars named themselves Templars. And that's also why the Masons call themselves Masons, because allegorically they're rebuilding the Third Temple of Jerusalem.

So that's why these families are preserving this line of descent, because they believe from them the Messiah is going to come.

Video Title: Esoteric Nazism from his book Ordo Ab Chao with Author David Livingstone. (2021). Source: William Ramsey Investigates. Date Published: November 15, 2025.

Some History On The Emancipation of Moroccan Jews

 

An excerpt from, "Europe and the Islamic World: A History" By John Tolan, Gilles Veinstein, and Henry Laurens; Translated by Jane Marie Todd, Princeton University Press, 2013, Pg. 303 - 305:

In Morocco, where the large Jewish community played an essential role in commercial transactions with Europe, the sultan attempted to ban consular protection for these traders, which would have removed them from his authority and tax system. France and Great Britain opposed him and did not hesitate to use naval demonstrations accompanied by the bombing of Moroccan ports, in 1851 especially. The Moroccan authorities were forced to give in and, at the same time, to accept a capitulary system similar to that which existed in the Ottoman Empire. The Anglo-Moroccan treaty of December 1856 enshrined that change, since it granted the Europeans freedom of commerce, set customs duties at 10 percent ad valorem, dispensed with all other taxes, and established a consular justice system.

As a result, the protected Jews (about three thousand of them, or 1 percent of the Jews of Morocco), benefiting from a sort of reverse discrimination, played the role of mediators between Europe and Morocco and became the agents for European penetration. The Spanish-Moroccan War over Tétouan in 1859- 1860 precipitated the shift, which produced strong tensions between communities, similar to those that existed in the Levant. The sultan of Morocco, without going so far as an edict of emancipation, pledged in a rescript of 1864 to treat the Jews fairly: "To apply to them, in the administration, the same scales of justice as to those who are not Jewish, so that none shall be a victim of the slightest injustice, so that no ill shall afflict them, and so that neither the agents of the Makhzen [administration] nor anyone else shall harm them in their persons or in their property."

The European powers, soon joined by the United States, seized on the rescript and congratulated the sultan for having granted full equality to his Jewish subiects. At the same time, they made themselves its guarantors and thus granted themselves the right to protect the Moroccan Jews as a whole, a right of intervention avant la lettre. That protection was in turn limited by the powerlessness of the Moroccan state to impose its authority on part of its territory.

Unlike the Ottoman Empire, which was undergoing recentralization, the Sharifian empire was weakened by its contact with Europe.

After the taking of Algiers, Tunisia found itself in a position of semivassaldom vis-à-vis France, which guaranteed its independence from the Ottoman Porte. The bey of Tunis took advantage of that situation. refusing to apply the Edict of Gülhane as well as the principal reforms of fthe Ottoman authority. He attempted to create a modern state and army, but the reforms, poorly planned, failed miserably. Taxes became even more burdensome as the agricultural economy declined. Following the execution of a Jew for blasphemy in 1857, France and Great Britain, by means of a naval demonstration, imposed reforms. The fundamental pact of September 9, 1857, reiterated the terms of Gülhane and of the Hatt of 1856, and proclaimed the security of the life and property of residents of the regency, equality before the law and with respect to taxes, and the abolition of the Muslims' privileges, of restrictions on commerce, and of monopolies. Furthermore, it granted foreigners the right to own property and to practice any trade. A constitution founded on these principles was promulgated in 1861 with Europe's boisterous approval. It was suspended in 1865 following an uprising of tribes, primarily against taxes. Although the revolt was harshly repressed, the Tunisian state found itself in debt for a long time. It declared bankruptcy in 1867, and a foreign financial commission (France, Great Britain, and Italy) was imposed the next year to manage the resources of the Tunisian state.

In Tunisia and Morocco, the semi-emancipation of the Jews came about thanks to the tireless actions of representatives of the Jews of Great Britain and France, Claude Montefiore and Adolphe Crémieux in particular. In addition to the humanitarian aspect, which garnered them the support of the chancelleries in their home countries, the demand for reforms, backed by gunboat diplomacy, served to assure European economic penetration and to establish increased dependence on the Concert of Europe.

Perhaps the only person in Europe who understood the anomaly of emancipating non-Muslims while proceeding to subjugate Muslims within the colonial framework was Napoleon III. Aided by enlightened advisers such as Ismail Urbain, he attempted to alter the course of the process under way in Algeria, with his famous policy of an Arab kingdom. That kingdom was supposed to be associated with France more than subject to it. As shown by his famous leter to Marie-Edme MacMahon of June 20, 1865, he wanted to make treatment of the Muslims in Algeria the new mode of influence for French policy in the East:

France, which sympathizes everywhere with the ideas of nationhood, cannot, in the eyes of the world, justify the dependency in which it is obliged to hold the Arab people if it does not summon them to a better existence. When our manner of governing a defeated people is an object of envy for the 15 million Arabs spread throughout the other parts of Africa and Asia; the day our power, established at the foot of the Atlas Mountains, appears to them as an intervention of Providence to elevate a fallen race; on that day, the glory of France will ring out from Tunis to the Euphrates and will assure our country the kind of preponderance that cannot rouse anyone's jealousy because it rests not on conquest but on the love of humanity and progress. An effective policy is the most powerful vehicle for commercial interests. And what more effective policy for France than to give the Muhammadan races, so numerous in the East and so unified with one another despite the distances, unimpeachable guarantees of tolerance, justice, and respect for the difference in mores, faiths, and races within its own states?

That policy failed because of the resistance of administrative and military circles and the opposition of liberals and republicans to an enterprise too closely linked to personal power and dynastic activities. At the very end of Napoleon III's reign, French policy turned toward supporting Ottoman reform measures with, in particular, the creation of the imperial secondary school of Galatasaray in Constantinople to train the new Ottoman elites. 

Napoleon III's discourse can be understood within the context of the transformations of space and identity proper to the 1860s.