Bloodlines - what's the big deal?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Hey guys,

Could someone explain why there seems to be an obsession amongst the conspiracy community with bloodlines?

Aren't they largely unimportant, given that executive power in this day and age is not derived via hereditary lineage (except in the most backward 3rd world countries)? Even the British House of Lords' hereditary peers have had their voting powers stripped from them.

I've noticed that every now and then we get someone posting on the forums, claiming some kind of special heritage, or drawing links between this family and that person.

Isn't it kind of... well, irrelevant?

I'm reminded of the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and, again, when considering the complex family trees that it proposes, I'm forced to conclude: "so what?"

Why should we care about bloodlines when most of the major powers are governed by democracies and those that aren't (eg: China) are governed by systems which largely disregard familial heritage?

We're not living in the Dark Ages. Someone enlighten me.




posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I am thinking that if you trace your heratiage back far enough, we all have some strange family blood somwhere. Like the interesting information that suposedly Obama is related to Bush, and other figures might be related to their polar oposites. Bloodlines have been diluted and mixed so much so that, anything other than direct relations (son, daughter, grandchild) would be the only ones to be sure of when using the bloodline theory. As you stated, it seems a bit archaic. Maybe just the Illuminate Grand wizzards and NWO leaders are the ones using this method. If so, I am destined to be a nobody. I am just A positive.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Just because Bloodlines do not play a prominent role in Democratic Republics, does not mean that they aren't influential or important.

Many businesses. secret societies, etc still are Bloodline based. Monarchies still exist worldwide.

Even in the United States we have begun to see how Bloodlines are gaining power politically as there becomes a neo-Aristocracy even in our Democratic Republic...although it could be argued that this is nothing new and goes back to the early days of our Nation.

However, the most important reason why Bloodlines are probably mentioned, and are still relevant, is DNA and Genetic Memory. Just as we can selectively breed species of crops, dogs, cats, and horses, Bloodlines represent selective breeding of different "sub-species" of humans. It has been going on long before Eugenics caught on in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and still continues after the downfall of Facism and the Holocaust.

As far as Genetic Memory, which still has yet to be proven, I am personally convinced that it does. There are common personality traits, even over 15 to 30 generations distant that persist within Bloodlines. We like to believe that our minds are conditioned as part of our upbringing, but there is a lot more to Nature than there is to Nurture. It is difficult for Science to see these things with but only a Century of Clinical Study, but as more and more generations pass by with scientific scrutiny, we'll be seeing Science catching up on this. (Computer Science already has discovered that the storage potential of just a few complex proteins far exceeds our comprehension. And it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint that major memories would be retained biologically and passed to subsequent generation to ensure survival of the species.)



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
It's an interesting question. I think the way that you posed it may reveal one of the possible answers, at least partially.

The rise of republicanism and representative democracy has indeed removed hereditary rule from many societies. I would posit that the "Bloodline conspiracy" of whichever flavor you choose owes its existence and acceptance among some to something akin to a folk memory of times when elite families were at the apex of political power. Perhaps those who embrace the concept of these bloodlines continuing to exert their will from behind the curtain have a subconscious yearning for such to be true today. For many generations, ruling families were sincerely admired by their subjects as having qualities superior to the ordinary, and in times of uncertainty such as these, a strong and stable central authority which could guide us for several decades or longer has some appeal.

It's also true that while pedigree may matter less in the public arena than it used to, it continues to hold some allure. Witness the public infatuation with the Kennedy family in America or the Gandhi political dynasty in India. And many of the world's powerful extra-political institutions remain in the same hands for generations, such as the Rockefeller family's financial businesses, or the Ford motor company. These facts make it understandable why some would find the notion of powerful lineages plausible.

However, I agree with you that it is unlikely to be the case that such lineages can actually direct events over the course of centuries; as you say, having a certain parentage does not guarantee that one will be successful or wise. As most anyone who has ever been to their family's reunion can attest, the apple frequently rolls some distance from the tree.

[edit on 4/21/09 by articulus]



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Bloodlines are said to preserve Satanic power.

People came into political power during the Renaissance because they had Satanic bloodlines, and could basically scare people into giving them power.

David Icke extends this further, saying that certain bloodlines actually harbor reptilian DNA.



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Roark
 


If there was someone who could prove beyond any doubt that he was a descendant of Jesus Christ, and he or she would go into politics... well, that would be something, I guess. Even today.

Maybe it's no big deal for a Belgian atheist - as I am - but in the USA, where Christian fundi's have real power...? And maybe it's now no big deal, but 50 years ago, even in Belgium, with the Catholic Church having real political power, it sure was.

The "bloodline" theme was made popular by Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln - and Dan Brown - and they see history from a Anglosaxon/French point of view. For me, the real mystery is why they don't mention one single time the Holy Blood of Bruges. Indeed, the Holy Blood of Christ (= the Holy Grail or "Bloodline") seems to have turned medieval Bruges (in Flanders, Belgium) into a Holy City. It's what, since the 19th century, made tourism popular in Bruges. But look closer, and you'll see that this Holy City is not as holy as it seems, just because of this Precious Holy Blood that... well, could be pretty unholy too.

It was the secret of the bloodline of Christ that turned the chaplain of the Chapel of the Holy Blood in Bruges into a satanist. Sounds familiar? Thinking about Rennes-le-Château and Bérénger Saunière? Mmm... That indeed was a hoax, copy/pasted from the all too real Holy Blood of Bruges History...

Full story here: The Holy Blood of Bruges, a New Jerusalem



posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Bloodlines are said to preserve Satanic power.


Said by whom? Where do you come up with this stuff?


People came into political power during the Renaissance because they had Satanic bloodlines


So what is a "satanic bloodline", and how do you distinguish it from, say, a "Jesus bloodline' or "Krishna bloodline"?



David Icke extends this further, saying that certain bloodlines actually harbor reptilian DNA.


But what do sane people think?



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


While Masonic Light's comment about David Icke may not have been as diplomatic as possible, I would hardly say he was trolling. The questions he posed to you are valid in terms of extending this discussion, which the OP began, I assume, with the intent of actually understanding the "bloodline conspiracy" phenomenon a bit better, and in that case, specificity helps.

Sources regarding the Satanic nature of bloodlines (is it all bloodlines, or just the mighty ones? or just some of those?) would be welcome. Particularly how these bloodlines came to power in the European renaissance. Some explanation of how Satan is related to anyone, either in the past or today, would be germane to this thread topic. Not all of us have read Icke.

I think this is an interesting discussion to have, and since we're all adults here, we should all of us apply some cool-headed reasoning to it. Even if we disagree, we can be civil and help one another understand why it is we believe what we do.

/edit for clarity

[edit on 4/23/09 by articulus]



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by articulus
 


He was being accusatory instead of contributing to the discussion.

He could have typed what I said into a search engine and posted a few links and ex's in his own right.



posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


As far as I know, it's customary, when making a point on these boards, to provide some insight as to why you've said what you've said. An easy way of doing this is providing a link to some relevant information, or to expand upon your ideas. It's not the responsibility of others to figure out what you're talking about themselves.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Agreed.

I'm not aware of any records ANYWHERE outlining that Satan ever reproduced (what a bizarre concept), so how could there ever be "Satanic bloodlines"?

OR

If you are simply inferring that "Satanically-inclined" people carried their bloodline through into their children, are you also suggesting that these (one would assume) innnocent children are also "Satanic" by virtue of their ancestors' spiritual beliefs? Equally bizarre...



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Bloodlines have always fascinated me. It could be that it is alluring to meet someone with the same blood or name of a past icon and this is what gives that certain bloodline the power, politically and economically, that they receive today, in a world where monarchs hold little or no power.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Roark
 


What I meant is that certain families have, among other things, a tradition of Satanic practices. There are also family histories of sexual trauma, etc.

It may be bizarre to you, but lots of concepts from the past seem bizarre nowadays.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roark
Agreed.

I'm not aware of any records ANYWHERE outlining that Satan ever reproduced (what a bizarre concept), so how could there ever be "Satanic bloodlines"?

OR

If you are simply inferring that "Satanically-inclined" people carried their bloodline through into their children, are you also suggesting that these (one would assume) innnocent children are also "Satanic" by virtue of their ancestors' spiritual beliefs? Equally bizarre...





I'm guessing that the "satanic bloodlines" in question are probably offspring of the Fallen Angels/Watchers. The same line that God purged the earth of with the Great Flood. Legend has it that some of these angel/human offspring known as the "Nephilim" were able to cliimb to the top of trees and survive the Great Flood in that way.






[edit on 24-4-2009 by Privy_Princess]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
First time I heard of the Bloodlines was from Fritz Springmeier. You can get a summary of the bloodlines here.

I wouldn't say a majority of conspiracy theorists agree with the "Satanic Bloodline" theory. It seems to be a mostly Christian fundamentalists phenomena. - They seem quite apt at finding Satanists.


It's a common saying that fortunes usually don't last much past the 3rd generation. (Although families such as the Rothschilds and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha have done quite well.)


...most of the major powers are governed by democracies...


Make that representative democracies. I doubt, our governments would get away with the crap they've been pulling if the people did actually rule.


[edit on 24/4/09 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The issue with bloodlines becomes mch more apparent when you study the CFR, Trilateral commision, the Bilderbergers, etc.

These organizations supply the people that end up in postitions of power. Then you see that the people that these groups supply are nearly ALL related, it gets a little more clear.

Then when you realize that nearly every president we have had over the last 50 years has been a member of these groups, and has commmon lineage, it becomes even more clear that hereditary rule is alive and well, it is just hidden.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


Christian vs. non-Christian conflict is very significant.

Most of the greatest empires in recent history were founded on Christianity and Christian law.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I love how so many people assume that anything that doesn't fit into their narrow view of what is "Christian" suddenly becomes "Satanic." Include in that definition "anything they don't understand." Because they aren't privy to the private discussions of world leaders, Tri Lateral Commission, CFR, Bildebergers, etc....that must mean these people have a devious plot to control the world. Oh, and they MUST be Satanic.


Truly ridiculous...



posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 


You've never heard of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carroll Quigley, The Northwood Documents, the Iron Mountain report or the Plan for a New American Century. You've also never heard of JFK or Harry Truman.

You also didn't hear about Barack Obama's plan to reduce the population.

The difference between me and you is your premise that proof must not exist.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join