William Comyns Beaumont and the Secret History of Britain

[Lancelot]

Just watched this on Kerry's site and it introduced me to the fascinating character of Comyns Beaumont, a Fleet St journalist and credible and controversial author of several books about the secret history of Britain. He writes about comets, cataclysms and a subversive history of the world with Britain central to a previous civilisation (atlantis). Also how Constantine subverted the role of Britain and displaced historical events from Britain to the Middle East.
Beaumont was also a proponent of the Shakespeare authorship question, arguing Shakespeare's plays were written by Francis Bacon.
He accepted the existence of giants and other mythological creatures based on British folklore.

Further research revealed some extremely rare books written by Comyns Beaumont-

Britain the key to world history 1879
The riddle of the earth,1925
The Mysterious Comet 1932
The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain 1946
Britain: the key to World history 1948

Are any members familiar with the works of William Comyns Beaumont?
Also help with sourcing pdfs of these books would certainly be appreciated.. They would certainly make fascinating reading and would be excellent additions to the avalon library.

Thanks in advance.
Lancelot.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DPJHqSLaJUo

[shaberon]

Never heard of him or don't recollect.

I tend to view Britain (Ireland and Wales anyway) as more or less an exodus from Atlantis--hence, Avalon. Not quite sure how that accounts for the Picts, who seem to have inhabited the area from around that same age.

The Constantine bit sounds a little like "Judaism was invented by someone else during the Christian era"..not sure if that's what was intended...and while a good bit of Jewish history is reflected by the records of others, one would have to determine that a lot of it, is not, such as the Egyptian exodus, or Yahweh roasting 100,000 Canaanites on a single day.

[Lancelot]

Constantine invented and moulded the Christian church as we now know it- that is not to say it didn't already exist- particularly in Britain, albeit in a very different form. None of the well established British christian church representatives were present at the council of Nicaea in Ad 325 despite Glastonbury Abbey in England claiming to be the oldest and longest established Christian church in the world at at that time. A claim which is still upheld today, as is the claim that Glastonbury abbey was established by Jesus himself, but that is a cause for further debate.

For the avoidance of confusion, Judaism existed in pre- christian times. Jesus himself was a Jew. The tribe of Judah was only one of the 12 tribes of Israel, the full history of which is recorded throughout the old testament.

[Foxie Loxie]

I remember reading here on the Forum about a battle in 616 AD in which 1200 monks in Britain were slaughtered to enforce the Roman version of Christianity. So apparently there WAS a real Jesus Story, but it was supressed & made into a system that would control the masses. The historian's name is Edmund Marriage. Joseph Atwill's book, "Ceasar's Messiah" brings more understanding to a very confusing subject of "Christianity". I would be more inclined to say Constantine "took over" Christianity for political purposes. There are no Christian symbols on Constantine's Arch, as The Naked Archaeologist proved by taking a cherry picker there to have a closer look. : His episodes on Secrets of Christianity are most interesting. One has to ask why only certain of the ancient texts were included in what we know as the Old Testament, when parts of it were lifted right out of the Book of Enoch? It seems we have a generic account of a local Creation Account only, which in its way, has contributed to the dumbing down of humanity. That is my opinion, I must say, based on having years of experience within the fundamentalist Protestantism. I am sure others have their own opinions.

[shaberon]

Constantine really just stamped a seal of approval on something a crowd of 90% illiterates came up with. He personally was Pontifex Maximus of Apollo who realized he could become "Christianized" on his death bed.

Jew is a medieval word for Judean. Jesus was a Nazarean. Old Testament is not a particularly solid source for historical events. There were a lot of Messiah movements in those times, and certainly a lot of splinters flew in different directions--Joseph of Aramithea to Glastonbury, Thomas to India, or even the simple church of Jerusalem (founded by brother James).

There are no Christian symbols; either the cross or the vesica piscis is external to it. Even the Chi Rho came out backwards from Rho Chi, which we still have today, Rx.

In terms of Britain, isn't the biggest mass of its ancient times recorded in the Welsh national epic?

[Lancelot]

Posted by shaberon (here)
Constantine really just stamped a seal of approval on something a crowd of 90% illiterates came up with. He personally was Pontifex Maximus of Apollo who realized he could become "Christianized" on his death bed.

Jew is a medieval word for Judean. Jesus was a Nazarean. Old Testament is not a particularly solid source for historical events. There were a lot of Messiah movements in those times, and certainly a lot of splinters flew in different directions--Joseph of Aramithea to Glastonbury, Thomas to India, or even the simple church of Jerusalem (founded by brother James).

There are no Christian symbols; either the cross or the vesica piscis is external to it. Even the Chi Rho came out backwards from Rho Chi, which we still have today, Rx.

In terms of Britain, isn't the biggest mass of its ancient times recorded in the Welsh national epic?

For the avoidance of doubt and confusion/ misunderstanding-

1-The 300 bishops present at the council of Nicaea weren't illiterate, they were the most learned and religious men in Europe who gathered to debate complex issues for several months. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons, so the total number of attendees was approx 1,800. Literacy was paramount to understanding and preaching the gospels.

2- Jesus was a Jew (nickname then and now for Judean- of the tribe of Judah)

3- The Old Testament is specifically a comprehensive history of the 12 tribes of Israel (of which Judea is one of those tribes)

4- Jesus was born in Bethlehem (the house of David- Judah) and was in all likelihood a member of the Nazarenes (a devoutly spiritual sect based near the dead sea where the dead sea scrolls were found)

5- Joseph of Aramithea was Jesus uncle and went to Glastonbury after the crucifixion. Thomas went to India after the crucifixion to spread the gospel. The church of Jerusalem was founded by brother James the just. None of them claimed to be the messiah- they all supported Jesus as being the messiah as predicted in the Old testament (from the tribe of David- Judah)

6- In terms of ancient British history, the Romans attempted to completely wipe it out, including the history and teachings of the Druids and King Arthur but there are scraps of ancient documents which still remain to verify these. Perhaps this is where William Comyns Beaumont comes in ?!

[shaberon]

Well, the "illiterate" thing was perhaps an unnecessary barb, which attributes to Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, who was neither at the first Nicea nor particularly fond of it. If a bishop's qualifications are as in 1 Timothy 3, then it does include "being a good teacher", so literacy is quite plausible for that. It says nothing as to formal education.

There were five or six churches from Latin provinces represented, and one of those was Carthage (Africa). The Bishop of Rome was not there, sending priests. The other roughly 300 bishops were from Greek provinces, including Anatolia/Turkey, Syria, and Egypt, with the more esteemed ones representing Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

Admittedly, I have not read Beaumont's very rare books, but his estate maintains a website http://www.comynsbeaumont.com/ which contains a few excerpts.

According to a contributor, Mason Bigelow: What the Roman conquerors were trying to control here was the faith in the old knowledge of the meaning and operation of life, death and spirit, and how closely it is bound up with the energies present in the planet (which Tesla rediscovered) and cycles of the cosmos.

This seems inaccurate, as Caesar was particularly fascinated by Druidry. They were wiped out purely for military reasons as they were the backbone of the society and liable to lead it in rebellions.

According to a reader on Irish Origins of Civilization website, Beaumont's initial thesis of catastrophe runs as: According to Beaumont, a large comet threatened Earth in the 14th century (1322 BC). Its debris (meteorites) caused a cosmic catastrophe that devastated early civilization, then centred in the Atlantis of antiquity – the British Isles. Plato’s story of Atlantis, and the Biblical account of the flood of Noah, were special attempts to record this disaster. The catastrophe so shattered the cradle of humankind’s earliest civilization that it immutably altered the religious beliefs of its survivors, who fled to the global Atlantean colonies in sunnier climes, themselves to become nations.

I get a sense of a sort of inverted British Israelism: instead of the British being descendants of the Lost Tribes, they simply are the Jews. Excerpted from The Great Deception:

In Britain the Key to World History, much care was given to show that Abraham originally led the Israelite people from the very
north of Scotland, where was situated Ur-of-the-Chaldees, his city, near Stennis, Orkney, to the plains of Wiltshire, settling first in the area of Avebury Great Circle, a very ancient Israelite temple. [snip] How did this error or deception come about? The explanation is that the Bible history of the Jews - which contains nothing in the least sacred to Christianity - is that Moses became subsequently elevated by the Jewish priesthood for their own purposes as their great prophet and patriarch, when they adopted his doctrines. Yet Jerusalem had never heard of him or his doctrines until in the reign of Josiah, when it was burst upon that credulous monarch by ambitious priests for the first time. (II Kings 2, 23: 3-13; II Chronicles 34: 14-21)

The next sentence I would agree with (but in a different context): When later the Old Testament came to be first compiled, at the time of the Babylonian Captivity - by Ezra and his assistants, who created Judasim - past chronology was tampered with recklessly in order to convey to the people of Judah that Moses had been their divine prophet who made them the Deity's “chosen people” ages before, thus giving his ordinances the necessary antiquity - besides claiming that their past kings had been defeated or overthrown because they had run after gods other than Moses' Jehovah.

A bit further on: Another most important factor is to recall that when Constantine the Great, as a political and religious act of major importance, established Christianity in the Roman world of the Mediterranean, every effort was used to change the venue of past history which related to the Jews and the beginnings of Christianity and to transfer it to an atmosphere free from prejudice, and thus to enable him to construct a new Jerusalem within the near vista of the Roman Empire and himself. The problem of how far Christianity was to be linked with the past history of Judaism was a question of deep concern.

He hardly established anything, he had very little to do with it, and the next emperor axed it anyway.

Later, the Welsh language is closely related to Hebrew...

I'm not sure if this closely resembles the Book of Taliesin. Not sure what it resembles. It's fairly unique.

[Hervé]

It gets even better... according to this researcher and scholar, the Bible is a large-scale psy-op experiment initiated by Plato...

What Does Plato Have To Do With the Bible? The Truth Perspective: Interview with Russell Gmirkin

Sott.net Sun, 11 Dec 2016 17:00 UTC

Just how old is the Old Testament?

If Moses didn't write the Pentateuch, who did?

For millennia, people have thought the Hebrew Bible was as old as many of the events it depicts. In recent generations, scholars have thought it was created over a long period of time, with various authors and editors. But the writings in the Hebrew Bible may not be as ancient as we've been led to believe.

On this episode of the Truth Perspective, we'll be interviewing Russell Gmirkin, independent researcher, scholar, and author of two of the most revolutionary books in biblical studies:

• Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch ​(New York-London: T&T Clark, 2006)

• Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible ​(London-New York: Routledge, 2016)

Russell's work radically challenges our understanding of the history of the Hebrew Bible. He demonstrates that there is simply no evidence that the Bible existed prior to the time of Alexander the Great (ca. 325 BC). All the evidence indicates that the collection of books we know of as the Hebrew Bible was written around the year 270 BC. And not only that: they relied heavily on Greek literature, particularly Plato's final work: Laws.

Listen in as we discuss how, when, and why the Bible was created.

You can visit Russell's website here: russellgmirkin.com

Running Time: 01:56:09

Download: OGG, MP3

... hard to fathom the amount of time in research, studies, speculations as well as lives and generations wasted on that #@%& book...
Disclosures about ETs, Aliens, government secrets, etc. are rendered very pale and insignificant in comparison to the enormous energy-release from three (3) major religions (based on that book) realizing they have been had...


PS: The above is a re-post from here (<---)

[onawah]

I guess those scholars haven't paid much attention to the Sumerian clay tablets.

[shaberon]

No, not much connection to Sumeria. I hadn't heard of this Plato thing either. I don't believe either Testament is quite what it's portrayed as by their established institutions, but I don't think it can be "outsourced" from the Mid-East either.

I surfed around to try to find anything that would indicate Britain was smashed by a meteor swarm around 1322 B. C. and couldn't find anything even close. Plato's Atlantis (coming from Egyptian records) at least corresponds to the end of the last Ice Age.

[Ewan]

Posted by shaberon (here)
I surfed around to try to find anything that would indicate Britain was smashed by a meteor swarm around 1322 B. C. and couldn't find anything even close. Plato's Atlantis (coming from Egyptian records) at least corresponds to the end of the last Ice Age.

Agreed. I did find a biggie from an estimated 1.2 billion years ago, a little out of our timescale I fear. (Before big G made the world <grin>)

[shaberon]

If a meteor kills everybody, but no one is there to see it...(?)

Rifling through some remaining excerpts of The Great Deception, there is one tiny piece of evidence:

"Moses did live at the time of the Plagues of Egypt - all forerunners of the presence of the cometary collapse as that
body - or bodies - traversed the heavens. in the region of the Earth. The Great Catastrophe occurred circa 1322 BC, as proved by the Sothic Cycle, the only certain means of ascertaining time based on the quadratures of the star Sirius."

He says it was produced by "twin comets". I am not sure what the proof is, however, it is the case that some researchers believe that 1322 B. C. was the beginning of a Sothic Cycle. What that means is the heliacal (pre-dawn) rising of Sirius matched the first day of the calendar, which has to do with what we call a leap year, or the need to make a calendar correction in order to match the physical observation of "fixed" stellar objects. Without the correction, it takes about 1460 years for the "physical" to cycle round to match the "calendar".

According to John Michell (Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions), Beaumont translated the "twin comet" from linked circles on the Golspie Stone of Sutherland and similar monuments. Says that he undertook his research because he was afraid of a Zionist plot to takeover Britain (which in my estimation was a done deal by Oliver Cromwell). The Jews "appear as the Silures, a variant of Illyrians, their more classical name; both geographically correct". Which is to equate the old southern Welsh with west Yugoslavians. His Zionist warnings abounded in the biographical A Rebel in Fleet Street (1944); I'm not sure what was common knowledge at the time, but that is an eensy bit post-Balfour Declaration. Oddly, Michell says that these books only caught on with British Israelites, despite the fact that the ideas are diametrically opposed.

Without even looking at the Golspie Stone, it sounds like the figure that yields the Vesica Piscis.