Thursday, March 7, 2013

Origin of the European Royal Blood Line

Today I’m going to discuss the origin of the European royal families based only on the known historical facts. I was compelled to write this essay after reading all kinds of speculations and hoaxes perpetrated by some authors and popular conspiracy talk show hosts.

Dan Brown’s story of Mary Magdalene having the child of Jesus Christ and moved to France to form the Merovingian royal blood line is very interesting and intriguing while offering very little historical facts.

The 800 pound gorilla sitting in the living room everybody is refusing to notice and ask is since when the central and northern Europeans started to have any wealth to form any kind of royal family. Remind you that it takes enormous amount of wealth and power to sustain a royal family.

With this in mind, try to watch any movie describing ancient Rome having battle against Germanic tribe, for example, “Gladiator” which is considered around 300's AD as the right general time frame. The Germanic tribe fighting against the Rome at this time period looks like a pathetic group of unorganized mobs. At least that may be the  way the Germanic tribes were viewed by the Romans at the time. The picture is hardly that of trained military machinery operated by dignified royal monarch if there were any. In fact, in the era of 300 AD, Germanic tribes did not have a united governing entity let alone any royal family. There is simply no record of it.

Let’s see what happened in the following years around 370 AD.

The basic principle to find the truth is as always, “follow the money”.

In the year around 370 AD, the powerful Huns invaded Europe coming from the region of northern China sweeping the entire European continent. The Huns successfully united the people along the path way to Europe and threatened Rome demanding ransom for not invading them with the full force. The result was the massive amount of gold transferring from Rome’s treasury to the hands of the King Attila the Hun.

The first thing in Attila's mind was to force the militarily weakened Eastern Roman Empire to recognize the superiority of his Huns. This he did in the treaty of Margus (435 AD), which the Romans were forced to sign. The treaty dealt with Hun merchants' rights, military alliance conducts, the return of Hun fugitives (that had sought refugee in the Romans), and a tribute of 700 pounds of gold that must be paid each year.

Attila the Hun was the most powerful King in the world in the 4th century AD. He is known to have over 300 wives mostly of the daughters offered by the regional tribal leaders who wanted to have upper hand in the power structure of the newly formed powerful kingdom. In the newly formed fragile empire, it would have been felt necessary for the tribal leaders to have blood relationship with the King. On the other hand, the King would not have wanted to have any regional tribal leaders left being unhappy by not being included in the King's family and the empire. As such, it could have been entirely a political move.

I’m not interested in knowing how he could handle 300 wives. He may have had quite a few of sons and daughters from all of his wives. The most important question here is where all the wealth, mainly gold, confiscated from Rome, has gone after he died. Of course, without question, the massive amount of gold went and distributed to his sons and daughters and his wives in accordance with the proper customs and cultures of the Huns at the time.

Now you can understand how the royal family has started in Europe. The magnificent castles were built and the defensive as well as offensive military force was formed, trained and organized according to the proper rules.

Before trying to form hatred against your own European royal families, think about all the wealth they brought to the whole nations. Their wealth created jobs, buildings, many infrastructures, commissioning artists and musicians for its people. Without their wealth, the modern day Europe will be hard to imagine. The redistribution of wealth possessed by Rome in the early Middle Ages was only possible by the Hun’s intervention.

Of course, the main reason the European Royal families marry among themselves was to protect their wealth within their own bloodlines that was inherited to them by the King Attila the Hun and not to dilute it, more so than the racial consciousness. Of course, Huns considered themselves superior and so there could be certain amount of racial reasons as well.

It is not difficult to imagine with this much of influence on their wealth, dignity and life style, the creation of "King Arthur” legend based on the true story of the King Attila the Hun was entirely possible. Also the story of the King's round table meeting with the knights and much later the passage of Magna Carta in England can all be traced to the King Attila the Hun's humble king image, which you will never see in any of the pompous Roman Emperor's pictures.

While the
Roman historian Jordanes was busy painting the King Attila the Hun as a ruthless baby killer, Jordanes was not an expert on Sun Tzu's Art of War. The first rule in Sun Tzu's Art of War is that it is the best to win a war without fighting if it is possible at all.  Obviously, Huns were the masters of Sun Tzu's Art of War. They rarely fought most of the wars to win and advance to entire Europe by showing their potential ruthlessness if their enemy does not surrender. Of course this was nothing more than a brilliant military tactic.

The 1972 discovery in a tomb of a nearly complete Western Han Dynasty(206 BC - 220 AD) copy of The Art of War, known as the Yinqueshan Han Slips, which is almost completely identical to modern editions, lends support that The Art of War had achieved its current form by at least the early Han dynasty, and findings of less-complete copies dated earlier support the view that it existed in roughly its current form by at least the time of the mid-late Warring States.

So according to the above information from Wikipedia, the Huns who advanced to Europe in the 4th century were already familiar with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

The most striking revelation about King Attila the Hun, according to Priscus who was a Greek ambassador to Huns court at the time, who witnessed King Attila the Hun in person at the dinner table with other guests, was that King Attila the Hun was using wooden cup while he let his guests use golden cups. Priscus left this eyewitness record as much non charlatan way as possible. Either he didn’t understand what he was observing or he was not interested in understanding it or most likely the both.

This was the King of Kings, to whom the Pope Leo begged for mercy with the following words,

Pope Leo met Attila, it is said, in the neighborhood of the river Mincio, and he spoke to the grim monarch, saying "The senate and the people of Rome, once conquerors of the world, now indeed vanquished, come before thee as suppliants. We pray for mercy and deliverance. O Attila, thou King of Kings, thou couldst have no greater glory than to see suppliant at thy feet this people before whom once all peoples and kings lay suppliant. Thou hast subdued, O Attila, the whole circle of the lands which it was granted to the Romans, victors over all peoples, to conquer. Now we pray that thou, who hast conquered others, shouldst conquer thyself The people have felt thy scourge; now as suppliants they would feel thy mercy."

And this King of Kings was using a wooden cup while he let his guests to use golden cups according to the eyewitness record of Priscus. You have to picture it very hard to understand what it means.

If you do not wonder what is really going on here, you are not paying attention to the details.

=Quote from the writings of Priscus=
When we returned to our tent the father of Orestes came with an invitation from Attila for both of us to a banquet at three o'clock. When the hour arrived we went to the palace, along with the embassy from the western Romans, and stood on the threshold of the hall in the presence of Attila. The cup-bearers gave us a cup, according to the national custom, that we might pray before we sat down. Having tasted the cup, we proceeded to take our seats; all the chairs were ranged along the walls of the room on either side. Attila sat in the middle on a couch; a second couch was set behind him, and from it steps led up to his bed, which was covered with linen sheets and wrought coverlets for ornament, such as Greeks and Romans use to deck bridal beds. The places on the right of Attila were held chief in honour, those on the left, where we sat, were only second. Berichus, a noble among the Scythians, sat on our side, but had the precedence of us. Onegesius sat on a chair on the right of Attila's couch, and over against Onegesius on a chair sat two of Attila's sons; his eldest son sat on his couch, not near him, but at the extreme end, with his eyes fixed on the ground, in shy respect for his father. When all were arranged, a cup-bearer came and handed Attila a wooden cup of wine. He took it, and saluted the first in precedence, who, honoured by the salutation, stood up, and might not sit down until the king, having tasted or drained the wine, returned the cup to the attendant. All the guests then honoured Attila in the same way, saluting him, and then tasting the cups; but he did not stand up. Each of us had a special cupbearer, who would come forward in order to present the wine, when the cup-bearer of Attila retired. When the second in precedence and those next to him had been honoured in like manner, Attila toasted us in the same way according to the order of the seats. When this ceremony was over the cup-bearers retired, and tables, large enough for three or four, or even more, to sit at, were placed next the table of Attila, so that each could take of the food on the dishes without leaving his seat. The attendant of Attila first entered with a dish full of meat, and behind him came the other attendants with bread and viands, which they laid on the tables. A luxurious meal, served on silver plate, had been made ready for us and the barbarian guests, but Attila ate nothing but meat on a wooden trencher. In everything else, too, he showed himself temperate; his cup was of wood, while to the guests were given goblets of gold and silver. His dress, too, was quite simple, affecting only to be clean.

 =End Quote=

Priscus was busy trying to paint Hun’s King’s court as barbarous and as cold as he can. In a way, you can also notice in his writing that he was trying hard to be an accurate observer. But he failed miserably on all those accounts in painting him a villain.

King Attila the Hun was a modest and humble king according to Priscus’ own description of him. He didn’t have a wicked looking hooked nose as portrayed by some painters who has never seen him. The king Attila the Hun had a flattish nose according to Priscus who had dinner with the King with other guests.

It’s obvious that Roman historian Jordanes tried hard to paint him as villain but Priscus disproved it entirely by his own record.

The bible does not say Jesus Christ used a wooden cup in the so called the "Last Supper". It was not even an issue in the New Testament. The description of picking the wooden cup as the Holy Grail in the Indian Jones movie "Raiders of the Lost Ark" did not come from the biblical origin at all and it was possibly originated from the legend based on the true story of the King Attila the Hun using the wooden cup. If the act of using a wooden cup is considered the show off of holiness, it certainly did not come from the Bible, it came from the true story of the King Attila the Hun. If this was a uniquely patented or licensed act to show off humbleness, the Catholic monks or the entire church essentially plagiarized and stole it without giving the due credit where it originally belong. 

There was obviously some juxtaposition of the story of Jesus Christ and King Attila the Hun in the early European legend. For many in Europe at the time, King Attila the Hun was a savior and a just ruler. He even presided over a civil court to rule the case of a civilian dispute according to the record of Priscus. At the contemporary time, he certainly exuded the Messianic image in his rulings of the world that he conquered. This image of King Attila the Hun was gradually distorted in Europe as the Roman Catholic Church realized the potential implications of this fact for their domination.

If you have to pay tribute 700 pounds of gold per every year to a barbarian conqueror after signing a treaty, you are lower than the barbarians. It is sad that no western historians and philosophers asked questions on how the east Asian barbarians from the steppe of Gobi desert could conquer the entire Europe in such a short period of time in the 4th century AD.

It is surprising to see that the political philosophy of the Huns was never studied by the scholars. They never asked how could the Huns amass such a large and diverse ethnic groups joined together to attack the mighty Roman empire at the time. What was the Hun's philosophy and value system? What did they value most in their lives?  They may not have had written language, which is debatable, but they certainly communicated with the locals and could get their message crossed and obtain undivided support. What was it that made them to be such a powerful political center of diverse ethnic military forces?

In general, humans do not trust cheaters, liars and scammers, especially when they are a group of races of slightly yet distinctively different looking people. After all, by joining the conqueror, the supporters were entrusting their lives to the Huns which would be even more unlikely unless the conquerors had shown them convincing proof that they are indeed honorable and trustable. One thing that can make such thing possible could be the principality and trust of the words and the subsequent proper action of the group of people who are leading the crowd.

Simply put, Huns kept their promises. They considered their uttered words like gold. No matter how it may turn out to be unfair to themselves, they kept their promises. Without such trust, the historic conglomeration of such a large diverse ethnic group of people for military offense against the mighty Roman empire would have been next to impossible.

As such, their moral values and governing political philosophy were far from barbaric as commonly believed.

How often honesty is despised in the corrupt societies? When lies and false propaganda are the norm, they say telling the truth is a heroic act. The King Attila the Hun was basically saying to his guests by using the wooden cup in the banquet table, "I'm the King but I'm no better human being than any of you."

What a powerful and divine morality!!!!

In front of the show off of such a grandiose gesture by the King of Kings, who in the world would not willingly join his military forces and fight for him?

It does not take a leap of faith to understand that this is essentially the same code of conduct as the King (both in the legendary story of King Arthur and King Attila) using Round Table to discuss military strategy with his subordinates. This also indicates that it was not a one time whimsical display of an act by the King in front of the banquet table and the guests when Priscus was invited. It was Hun King's royal tradition and it was their deeply rooted philosophy of ruling their people. It was a democracy with the most humblest form in the ancient world. It would be next to impossible to understand who the Huns were without understanding their mysterious royal tradition shown and recorded by Priscus.

Jordanese as well as all other the contemporary Roman scholars express deep bafflement on the structure of the ruling among the Huns. They could not see any official markings of ranking in the Hun's military structure. They all look the same yet the order of military maneuver was meticulous.

There are historic records showing that the Roman bureaucratic system was very corrupt as the people under the rule of Rome was fleeing to Hun's territory for just judicial system and fair taxes. After all, it may have been the bureaucratic corruption that caused the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire. The following is an excerpt from the book by Ramsay MacMullen

Corruption and the Decline of Rome

Ramsay MacMullen

"Bribery and abuses always occurred, of course. But by the fourth and fifth centuries they had become the norm: no longer abuses of a system, but an alternative system in itself. The cash nexus overrode all other ties. Everything was bought and sold: public office including army commands and bishoprics, judges' verdicts, tax assessments, access to authority on every level, and particularly the emperor. The traditional web of obligations became a marketplace of power, ruled only by naked self-interest. Government's operation was permanently, massively distorted. Imperial authority was of course upheld, since it was precisely the source of illicit gain. But its power was dissipated into thousands of private channels in a way that did not happen in the earlier empire. The very officials charged by emperors with investigating corruption would simply use their authority as hugely profitable protection rackets. Military commanders habitually avoided serious fighting, preferring armed extortion from civilians, embezzlement of army supplies, and the lucrative sale of exemptions from irksome duties all down the ranks. After all, they had to recoup the enormous sums they had borrowed to purchase their commands originally."

Sounds eerily like the modern day political and social problems.

King Attila the Hun basically punished Rome who persecuted Jews murdering thousands of them causing Diaspora and brought justice in the wealth redistribution for the entire European people. The historic records shows that he called himself "Scourge of God" Not many English speaking people know what "scourge" means. If you look at the dictionary, it means "Whip" that parents use when they discipline their kids. He was God's punishing whip for the Roman Empire for their misdeeds, evil doings, injustice and slaughtering of people under their corrupt rule.

There is so called “the order of bear” related to King Arthur as depicted in the recent movie "Avalon High". This is a society formed by a group of people who awaits the reincarnation of the King Arthur in the future to save humanity and they knew the symbol of the King Arthur was bear, so came the name "bear society".

Unbeknownst to the Europeans, Koreans have a legend saying that at the beginning of time, Son of God descended from heaven and married a bear at the mount BaikDu (tallest mountain at the China-North Korea border) who became the origin of the ancient Korean people.
Obviously this legend was also believed and known to Huns which indicates strongly that the modern day Koreans are the same people as the ancient Huns. In fact, Koreans still call themselves, Dae(great) Han(Hun) Min(people) Kuk(nation).  Korea is not the name they call themselves now. It is the name Marco Polo brought to Europe when there was Koryo dynasty in power in the Korean peninsula and Mongols (Hun descendants) ruled the world.

The typical trace of Hunic language left in European language is in the sound of Kuhn related to describe anything large, huge and/or great.

Many variation of the sound of Kuhn is Kuhn=Kun=Hun=Han=Kahn=Ang 

Kuhn Gol= Hun Gol= Ang Gol= Large Head : the origin of the English word "Angol"
, Angle or Anglo

I can not but notice the famous British news anchor and journalist, Jim Angle. His large size head and family name assures me that he is a descendant of the ancient Huns who conquered Europe and migrated to British isle around 5th century AD. If you have paid close attention, there is a large number of Asian looking famous British people in the movies and in real life. Their immediate ancestors are not from Asia but their long time ancestors have lived in Europe for the last 1500 years. Still they carry the genes of Huns that distinctively make them look different. I tend to think that quite a few of the Hun males (soldiers) who did not have the high rank in the military order to receive the nobility with the name (von) in Germany but married the locals moved to English isle.

On the other hand, it seems that the majority of the female Huns who refused to marry the locals moved to Hungary as can be seen from the following. They wanted to form their own group of culture keeping their language style intact instead of totally mixing with the locals. Historians say that the Huns lost power and they disappeared after the conquest of Europe in the 4th to 5th century AD. This can hardly be the truth. The King Attila the Hun had over 300 wives and they bore children of the King and numerous Hun officials gained prestigious nobility with the name "von". And also without doubt many Huns married locals and bore children as well. Essentially they have become a part of the new family in Europe. There are no records of Huns moved back to the steppe of Gobi desert where they have come from.

The modern day Europeans are essentially the mix of the Huns and the locals without bloody racial conflict between them. In other words, they co-mingled very well. The Huns may have lost their own cultural inheritances, but in the process, the newly created mixed group of northern Germanic tribes also lost their political weakness and have successfully formed the powerful nation that strongly challenge and dominate the southern Europeans as they call today Latinos.

Let's dig deeply into the origin of the name of the country Hungary.

Kuhn Gary=Hun Gary= Large Head (more to the weight on hair) : the origin of the name of the country Hungary.

Hungary still uses the unique Hunic structured language (Ural Altaic)  and they claim themselves that they are the descendants of the ancient Huns and they are proud to name their son's name "Attila". Children naturally follow their mother's tongue and the Hun females kept the Hunic (Ural Altaic) structured language which is also common in Mongol, Korea and Japan, but not in China. People in Europe have wondered why Hungarians use a language that is totally different in structure from that of other European countries. Now you have the answer.

If you pronounce "Attila" with a long and hard accent at "A" and a weak and short one at "tila", it becomes "Arthar" which is basically "Arthur" in British pronunciation. There you have it, King Attila=King Arthur.

"Gol" and "Gary" are two different words describing "head" in the present day Korean language. "Gol" is more to the bone and/or brain description of head. "Gary" is more to the hair in mind description of head with slight difference in nuance in Korean language.  

What would be the better way to name a newly created group of people than by emphasizing their distinctive physical features with their own language? Especially in the simplistic ancient world.

Obviously the name Genghis Kahn who was a Hun descendant to become the famous Mongol King, means Genghis The Great. In pure present day Korean language "Kuhn" means great and large. To display the real impression of being great, the sound "Kuhn" has to come from deep throat like the sound of "ch" in "Bach" in German language.

To this day, the largest river in South Korea is called, Kuhn Goang=Han Goang=Han River=Large River

Also the English word "mangle" came from the same word "mangle" in Hun Korean which means simply "make" or "create". If you "make" something too much, which may be a tendency of the Huns, you end up "mangling" it. This variation of the meaning of the word makes me chuckle. If you dig it deeply enough, there will be tons of English words originated from the ancient Huns which will be very similar to the present day Korean dialect.

At this point, the most serious question we face here now is

How can you respect your legendary Camelot King without respecting his true cultural and ethnic origin?"

This will be a serious question for all of the Europeans have to ponder for a long time because you got it all twisted and completely brain washed by the Roman Catholic Church for such a long time.

Who should get the original credit for the passage of "Magna Carta" in England that has greatly expanded human rights in history and also has later become the cornerstone of the US constitution?  Was it the great influence of the humble King Arthur, aka, King Attila or that of the Christian religion taught by the Roman Catholic Church?

As a long descendant of Hun race who ruled Korean peninsula when Shilla dynasty was in power, I share the same genetic code as the King Attila the Hun. I will bring the justice again to Europe not against the royal families, but against the same ruthless controllers behind the corrupt Roman Catholic Church with all of its "new world order" fakeries.