Part 9 – OK. Even then I KNEW that I was being stolen from. Must’ve been a bad day chez moi!
9) The Language Reset
Wednesday, 8 May 2019, 10:01
Not all RESETS were huge, physical catastrophes. Some were much more subtle. And insidious – “gradually and secretly causing harm.”
The last two posts about language were necessary because, to my mind, one of the greatest, invisible manipulations has been the LANGUAGE RESET.
This is a subject that I intend to cover in depth (when my shock and awe have subsided. Talk about In Plain Sight!) but, for now, please just follow where this Hidden History of the British Isles is going.
Thank you :o)
It took me two days to recover!
10) FYI…
Friday, 10 May 2019, 4:08
This is too long to put into the final post about the Hidden History of the British Isles.
But it is important.
I don’t agree with everything that Alan Wilson, the Welsh Historian says, (The timelines are BS) but these are his own words about how the Cymric Coelbren alphabet was used to translate previously untranslatable “Etruscan” artefacts.
The following is from Alan Wilson 15/01/01:
ANSWER FROM ALAN WILSON REFERENCE ALPHABET & ETRUSCAN DECIPHERMENTS
On the question of Etruscan and the Ancient British Alphabet. There is
only ONE ancient British Alphabet and therefore it is very surprising
that the enquirer (a) claims some form of expertise, and (b) then states
that he is totally unaware of the same Ancient British Alphabet. The
reference the British Alphabet is in Julius Caesar’s “De Bello Gallico”
and is much quoted and extremely well known. Caesar stated that the
Alphabet is similar to that of the Greeks, and was much misquoted on
this by Disraeli and others.
The same Alphabet appears on ancient British Coins, certainly in the
British Museum collections, back to circa 150-100 B.C. So lack of
knowledge of this very well recorded and very well known Ancient
Alphabet is extraordinary.
The same Ancient Alphabet is on ancient stones in Wales, Scotland, and
England back to circa A.D.200, and on artefacts. It is also well
recorded in Manuscript forms and in much poetry certainly to pre
A.D.1267.
A researcher pointed out the near identicality of the British and
Etruscan Alphabets in A.D. 1793 and published both Alphabet and its
ciphers. Another Oxford writer published the ancient British alphabet in
1846, and exhibited the near identicality with Etruscan and Pelasgian. A
whole book of over 500 pages was then published in Welsh and English in
1852. Another writer published the complete Alphabets and Cipher in
1906.
So, for any self proclaimed “expert” to state that he/she is unaware of
the existence or nature of the Ancient Alphabet of the British, and how
to use it, is extraordinary. Unless of course the “expert” is not quite
so “expert” as we might be led to believe.
Anyone who claims that there is NO anti-Welsh=Anti-British environment
in matters of British Ancient History and Arthur I & Arthur II in
particular must live on the Dark Side of the Moon. Certainly he is
unaware of the very vicious and very nasty struggle we have fought off
in the past 26 years. For example, two academics, one English (a
Chemist) and one Scot (an archaeologist specialising in Gaul) wrote
widely referring to all ancient British History we were seeking to
explore as “from start to finish this is a mass of nonsense.”
It would seem that the writer is not British (?) and is unaware of the
true state of affairs in the “united ? kingdom”. You have to live on
another planet not to know of the vicious campaigns launched against
British-Welsh History , Culture, and Heritage, for centuries.
The “establishment” pretence is that this well documented, easily proven
ancient, British Ancient Alphabet, was forged and invented in circa
A.D.1800. Perhaps the most blatant and obvious political lie of all
time.
There is of course no known connection between the ancient British and
the Celts of Southern Gaul, apart from the vague and much disputed
notation by Tacitus, whose accuracy was criticised in his own lifetime
by his contemporaries. The only possible connection would be the
military expedition led by Urb Lwydawg against Macedonia around 284 B.C.
when returning groups are believed to have settled in parts of Southern
Gaul.
A number of claims have been made to read Etruscan and efforts of this
nature are published by the British Museum, and by many other authors.
The technique is flawed and it does depend on associations with Latin
and Greek no matter how indirectly. And how do we know that these claims
to decipher and translate Lepontic Gaulish are anywhere near correct? If
we are to judge by attempts at Etruscan, then these claims are more than
suspect.
All we do is to trace our ancestral migration trails backwards, rather
like modern Americans visiting their European and other homelands of
their migrating forefathers (and mothers of course). By going backwards
in time and distance Eastwards along the specified ancestral trails we
find inscriptions. These British, Etruscan, Rhaetian, “Pelasgian” Asia
Minor, and other inscriptions are all in the same Alphabet. So it does
not matter about alleged “words” derived from Lepontic Gauls whose
language no longer exists.
We possess (a) the Alphabets (near identical), (b) the Language still
spoken by some 750,000 people despite huge efforts to eradicate it by
London, (c) we have the Ciphers preserved for us by our ancestors.
So armed with the Alphabet (identical), the Language, and the Ciphers,
we can read Rhaetian, Pelasgian, Etruscan, and much more further back
along the trails. This should be simple enough for anyone to understand.
We are looking for connections which our own ancestors preserved for us
and we are using the tools which they handed down to us. So we have no
need of Lepontic Gauls and the claim that the British and the Gauls are
or were closely related is spurious and yet another academic blind alley
created by one man who never ever visited Britain – Tacitus. The ideas
of “os” and “us” endings again derive from this same misguided
theorising that the Irish and Khumry (Welsh) are Celts and Celtic. There
were no Celts in Britain and Ireland and this nonsense is finally being
debunked. The Celts lived in South Eastern Gaul, and none in Britain.
So all this blather about Combroges and Brittonic languages is just that
– useless blather. An exercise in total futility.
To accommodate the MODERN idea that the Khumry and the Irish are or were
Celts it is necessary to throw out and reject both British-Welsh and
Irish ancient History. We are proving that this rejection of our Native
Histories is a catastrophic blunder. It is the root cause in creating
confusions. Go back to our ancient Histories and Records and the truth
emerges. It is the modern theories which are wrong and incorrect and NOT
our native ancient Histories. These theories would never have been
invented if the ancient Histories had not been discarded and abandoned.
This notion that the Irish and Welsh were “Celts” and “Celtic” peoples
stems from a suggestion made in 1707, and NO ONE EVER BEFORE THOUGHT IT.
If you destroy a nation’s history then you destroy their identity.
Churchill knew that and wrote -“A nation without a past has no future”.
So by demolishing the histories of the ancient British the Anglo-Saxon
London government needed to give them a new suitable identity. And they
came up with “Celts”. Brilliant.
That’s all there is to it. We have the Language, the Alphabet, and the
Ciphers. Just like the French, the Germans, the English, and so on,
having German-English, and German-French, and English-French bilingual
dictionaries.
The statement by Chris Gwinn that Etruscan has been deciphered is
incorrect – to put it mildly. The statement that the values of almost
all Etruscan Letters are already known is incorrect – again to put it
very mildly. In fact academic guesses at Letter Values are generally
wildly wrong. The idea that words are known is incorrect, and again
academics are giving their minds treat, as their guesses at Etruscan
words and their meanings are just that “guesses” and are well wide of
the mark. They are claiming to have done what they definitely HAVE NOT
DONE.
They have constructed a tower of interlinked guesswork which has no
foundation in fact and is based on a quick-sand of useless comparative
guesswork. Guessing does not get it done. If they were honest they would
admit “we don’t know.” The academics DO NOT KNOW the correct Letter
Values for Etruscan; they DO NOT KNOW the correct Syntax; they DO NOT
KNOW the words or the meaning of the words; they DO NOT KNOW the
Grammar. In short they are making guesses and there is no one before
able to argue with them and to refute their guesswork. They have simply
failed to identify the surviving Language. End of Story.
Chris Gwinn misleads his self and everyone else with these laughable
unsubstantiated claims. The first correct decipherments of Etruscan,
Rhaetian, and “Pelasgian” were accomplished by Alan Wilson and Baram
Blackett, using the correct ancient Language, the correct ancient
Alphabet, and the correct ancient Ciphers and the academic fraternity
has been running away desperately from this truth ever since 1984. It is
evident that phoney academic reputations and their publications are at
risk here. The academics thought that they were safe and no one would
ever find the true way, and so they could do and say what they liked.
Hard luck because the correct method has been identified.
Chris Gwinn complains that if Wilson & Blackett are correct then the
decipherment of Lepontic Gaulish will have to be rejected. So what? If
it is correct it will stand up to examination, if it does not stand up,
then it should be rejected. That’s how progress is made. Maybe the
academics have been “giving their minds a treat” and fooling themselves
and the public about Lepontic Gauls, we shall have to wait and see. It
sounds as if more phoney academic reputations are at risk here. This
nonsense should not however be allowed to obstruct and disfigure our
correct authentic BRITISH histories and heritage.
Wilson & Blackett have no interest whatsoever in Lepontic Gauls and if
these Gauls did not speak Etruscan then it is difficult to see how they
could possibly assist in the direct decipherment and translation of
Etruscan, particularly if the alleged decipherment of Lepontic Gaulish
is now in question.
We must avoid these academic distress signals, and there is only one
Question. That is – Does the ancient British Language, the ancient
British Alphabet, and the ancient British Ciphers, serve to correctly
decipher and translate Etruscan, Rhaetian, “Pelasgian”, etc? There is
no other question and Lepontic Gauls and the surrounding academic
reputations at risk are irrelevant to us BRITISH.
Fortunately Chris Gwinn who obviously poses and postures as having some
expertise, succeeds in shooting himself in both feet. In an exhibition
of totally absurd muddled-thinking, Gwinn complains that we do not and
cannot construe the word Khumry in Britsh-Khumric = Welsh from the
Greek bastardisation of “Kimmeroi”. The Greeks expressed the names of
all other nations, gods, and kings, and so on, in their own language,
and it would be amazing to correctly construe a correct Khumric word
from a muddled Greek version.
The Assyrian records of around 740- 690 B.C.- contemporary, as they are
on baked clay tablets- name the Khumry as the “Khumry” and they also
identify them as the Ten Tribes of Israel. This has been well proven be
various Researchers, professors and other University employees. The
record of the Khumry moving off Westwards from Armenia around 690 B.C.
is also anciently preserved. When these Khumry people got into Asia
Minor the Greeks picked up on them, and in typically Greek fashion they
mangled “the Khumry” into the “Kimmeroi”. Nothing at all unusual about
this, and it remains a fact the original form in Israel and Assyria as
with the present form is still the Khumry.
To even think that the name Khumry is incorrect because it does not
construe into the mangled version in a foreign language of an alien
nation – the Greeks – is laughable. It shows an extraordinary level
of totally confused and muddled thinking. Imagine someone complaining
that Julius Caesar was not Julius Caesar because the Khumry called him
“Iwl Kesar” in ancient texts, and moaning that Julius Caesar does not
construe into Iwl Kesar. Hopefully some of these correspondents who
claim expertise will someday begin to demonstrate it. It is ridiculous
to state that the name Khumry should construe into the Greek “Kimmeroi”.
Alan Wilson