SH Archive Napoleonic Oddities

[DanFromMN]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: DanfromMN
Date: 2020-05-08 23:22:53
Reaction Score: 0

I dont fuvking know.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Red Bird
Date: 2020-05-09 00:46:45
Reaction Score: 1

I suspect it is to do with being direct descendants of noah.

sounds like we could be getting into phillip k dick territory here and westworld when the head writer was too lazy to make different templates for westworld and japan world.

Ok. I just received and started read Dick’ Exegesis, based on the thread here. Im not sure I want a 2374 download.
Maybe mine is 1802.
I’m not sure yet if it’s too woo for me, as I did the 70’s already, and you know what they say.

 

[dreamtime]

This is an interesting post by Timeshifter on sh.org:

English academic and theologian Richard Whately wiki wrote a paper/ book in 1852 called 'Historical doubts to Napoleon Bonaparte' which you can read free here​

​

In this paper, he destroyes the narrative of Napoleon, claiming for someone to have acheived the feats attributed to him, there must have been many 'Napoleons'​

"With respect to the character of Buonaparte, the dissonance is, if possible, still greater. According to some, he was a wise, humane, magnanimous hero; others paint him as a monster of cruelty, meanness, and perfidy: some, even of those who are most inveterate against him, speak very highly of his political and military ability: others place him on the very verge of insanity. But allowing that all this may be the colouring" "of party-prejudice, (which surely is allowing a great deal,) there is one point to which such a solution will hardly apply: if there be anything that can be clearly ascertained in history, one would think it must be the personal courage of a military man; yet here we are as much at a loss as ever; at the very same times, and on the same occasions, he is described by different writers as a man of undaunted intrepidity, and as an absolute poltroon. What, then, are we to believe? If we are disposed to credit all that is told us, we must believe in the existence not only of one, but of two or three Buonapartes; if we admit nothing but what is well authenticated, we shall be compelled to doubt of the existence of any.[9] It appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in ALL the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points."​

of course, other mainstream historians ridule Whately, but his text makes more sense than the official narrative.​

​

As with most of these 'historical charactors' the 'proofs' you find in academia, are mostly written in the 20th century.​

​

My guess, the Napoleon stories were old stories re - hashed, and used as a cover for someone, or somethign else.​

 

[trismegistus]

This is an interesting post by Timeshifter on sh.org:

English academic and theologian Richard Whately wiki wrote a paper/ book in 1852 called 'Historical doubts to Napoleon Bonaparte' which you can read free here​

​

In this paper, he destroyes the narrative of Napoleon, claiming for someone to have acheived the feats attributed to him, there must have been many 'Napoleons'​

of course, other mainstream historians ridule Whately, but his text makes more sense than the official narrative.​

​

As with most of these 'historical charactors' the 'proofs' you find in academia, are mostly written in the 20th century.​

​

My guess, the Napoleon stories were old stories re - hashed, and used as a cover for someone, or somethign else.​

There is a mainstream explanation to this work being produced - that it was a theological exercise created by Whately as a response to the existence (or non-existence) of Jesus Christ as a real human being. Essentially it is a satire (it was written while Napoleon was still “alive”) according to those who discuss it in modern times. The modern interpretation is that it is supposed to be satirically absurd, though I’m not sure I’ve found corroboration from the author confirming his motivations for writing it.

That said - I have read the piece and I find his “absurd satirical” takes actually quite compelling.

 

[dreamtime]

There is a mainstream explanation to this work being produced - that it was a theological exercise created by Whately as a response to the existence (or non-existence) of Jesus Christ as a real human being. Essentially it is a satire (it was written while Napoleon was still “alive”) according to those who discuss it in modern times. The modern interpretation is that it is supposed to be satirically absurd, though I’m not sure I’ve found corroboration from the author confirming his motivations for writing it.

That said - I have read the piece and I find his “absurd satirical” takes actually quite compelling.

Looks like you are right Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte

That said - I have read the piece and I find his “absurd satirical” takes actually quite compelling.

Hm.. would you lean towards satire or serious? Regarding his intention.

I get the impression it was intendend as purely satirical, but of course he probably used some valic points and exaggerated them. But if his intention was satirical, the book can not be used as a rliable source for anything.

 

[Just]

I dont buy Napoleon one bit.

Here. Bonus Lincoln and Kennedy synchronicity....

Is this for real?

"Napoleon was born in 1760; Hitler was born in 1889 (a difference of 129 years)
The French Revolution occurred in 1789; the German Revolution occurred in 1918 (a difference of 129 years)
Napoleon came to power in 1804; Hitler came to power in 1933 (a difference of 129 years)
Napoleon took Austria in 1809; Hitler took Austria in 1938 (a difference of 129 years)
Napoleon attacked Russia in 1812; Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 (a difference of 129 years)
Napoleon's Waterloo was in 1815; Hitler's D-Day was in 1944 (a difference of 129 years)
Napoleon lost the war in 1816; Hitler lost the war in 1945 (a difference of 129 years)
When the revolutions started when then were 29.
Both came to power when they were 44.
Both attacked Russia when they were 52.
Their critical defeats came when the were 55.
Both lost the war when they were 56.
UN F**king REAL!

The are a number of eerie parallels between the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy ...
The last name of Lincoln's secretary was Kennedy; the last name of Kennedy's secretary was Lincoln.
Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre; Kennedy was shot in a Ford-built limousine called a Lincoln.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre and fled to a warehouse. Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and fled to a theatre.
John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's murderer, was born 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald, Kennedy's murderer, was born 1939.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846; John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860; John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960.
Both presidents were shot in the back of the head, on the Friday before a major holiday, while seated beside their wives, neither of whom were injured.
Both were in the presence of another couple, and in each case that man was also wounded by the assassin.
After both assassinations there were claims that the fatal shot must have come from a different direction.
Both were succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson: Andrew born in 1808 and Lyndon in 1908, both of whom had 13 letters in their names.
Both assassins have fifteen letters in their names.
Both assassins were in their turn assassinated by shooters who used a Colt revolver and fired only one, fatal shot.
One year before Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, his brother, Edwin Booth, saved Lincoln's son after he had fallen in front of an oncoming train.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria led directly to World War I. The car the archduke was shot in had the license plate number "AIII118." World War I officially ended on Armistice Day: November 11, 1918 (11/11/18)."

I do not believe in coincidences but I believe in lies.
Oswald did not kill Kennedy. Oswald did not kill Officer Tippit.
The 6.5 Italian rifle POS could not perform in such a manner. The FBI tried numerous test firings on that rifle, it failed miserably.

With my upbringing in a WWII combat veteran enclave and my access to the weapons used : that Italian rifle might have been the worst manufactured and the bullet was crap. The weapon in question was openly available in monthly magazines for as little as $7.99 plus tax. Others were also but at higher prices.

Try asking the ghost of President H.W. Bush what happened. He was at the time a CIA agent standing close to the doorway of the book depository when the shots were fired. He was standing in a very strategic spot, if you learn why it will totally bum you out.

Unfortunately I was not alive when Lincoln was killed. But if you knew the open military secret of who killed Kennedy you would slap yourself silly.

"All the world is a stage, And all the men and women merely players," The whole quote is more reveling. One should read it.

Please tell us the story of who killed JFK. I read something on another site where Jackie was blamed. All those men desperate to see him gone and they blame the wife!

 

[Clown Of God]

Yeah I too would like to know...

 

[Daniel]

Please tell us the story of who killed JFK. I read something on another site where Jackie was blamed. All those men desperate to see him gone and they blame the wife!

There's also a line of belief that JFK was never killed at all. But that the entire "assassination" was a staged psyop to instill fear and paranoia into the public, and allow for more restrictive laws and loss of freedoms.

 

[Clown Of God]

So who got shot in the car?
A lookalike?

 

[Daniel]

So who got shot in the car?
A lookalike?

The information is here..

http://mileswmathis.com/barindex2.pdf

I will say that I do NOT agree 100%with everything Mathis says. But he makes a good case for this being not what it seems at all.

And neither was Jackie..

View: https://twitter.com/bevvie112/status/1236313619836649475

 

[nepherthea]

There's also a line of belief that JFK was never killed at all. But that the entire "assassination" was a staged psyop to instill fear and paranoia into the public, and allow for more restrictive laws and loss of freedoms.

I never thought of this possibility, but now that you mention it, it could very well be. Many others have faked their own deaths, so why not JFK?

 

[sekito]

Does Napoleon really existed?

Richard Whately gave good reasons to doubt Napoleon's feats and his existence in "Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte", (clear text available at: Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte - Wikisource, the free online library)

Some strong points include:

- For the British government the idea of a threatening Napoleon-figure served as a politically potent instrument for raising taxes, obtaining funds, and getting its proposals smoothly through Parliament.​

- Factual discrepancies in the stories of Napoleon's exploits: Some say that Napoleon led the charge over the bridge of Lodi in person, others said this was done by Augereau. The charge of the French cavalry at Waterloo is likewise described in contradictory ways. Here even the different accounts of the hour of the battle disagree by as much as four hours. The battle of Borodino is paradoxically claimed as a victory by both sides etc.​

And yet the rebuke to Whately, was not against his arguments, but his motive of writing the pamphlet! It is claimed that Whately meant it as a "satire", to a supposedly popular book "Historic Doubts Relative to Jesus of Nazareth" - one which I can find no record of its existence.

Quoting one such argument following this line of criticism:

Archbishop Whately is very ponderous and imitates the subject of his criticism to such an extent that one may read many passages and whole pages without being able to detect the slightest trace of the author's irony. In fact, many of his arguments are not travesties at all, but are literally true. - "The Napoleon Myth" by Henry Ridgely Evans

Miles Mathis's points are also similar to this line of thought (Although Mathis's focus was on Napoleon's genealogy, if Napoleon existed).
Some of his points include:

- Napoleon's rise through a coup d'état would have left him wary of an insurgency, thus his extended campaigns makes no rational sense​

- Freance was somehow able to maintain(increase) her population during war times according to the statistics​

- The battle of Tarvis and the battle in Marengo meant Napoleon's army needed to cross the Alps in spring, but the passes were not open until June​

- Napoleon sailed 50,000 men across Mediterranean, but somehow was able to keep it secret from the British Navy; and was again able to avoid the Sultan's forces and march to Syria; both of which are difficult to believe​

And then, "Did Napoleon Ever Exist? / Grand Erratum" by Jean Baptiste Pérès
(link: The Napoleon myth. Containing a reprint of "The grand erratum," by Jean Baptiste Pérès, and an introd. by Dr. Paul Carus : Evans, Henry Ridgely, 1861- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive),
puts forth the idea of Napoleon being a sun myth.
(I believe the readers of the forum are familiar with the idea that Jesus Christ = Julius Caesar = Jupiter/Sun argument; so this is not an extraordinary idea)

Pérès pointed out the many similarities between Napoleon Bonaparte and the god Appolo:

- Napoleon = Na(the veritable) Appolion, Bonaparte = Bona parte = Good half (i.e. the bright Sun, in contrast to dark night)​

- Napoleon's mother Latitia = Appolo's mother Leto (Joy)​

- Napoleon born in Corsica = Appolo born in Crete, both islands in the Mediterranean​

- Napoleon had 3 sisters and 4 brothers = Appolo has 3 sisters and 4 brothers​

- Napoleon returned from Egypt (the East) to rule over France for 12 years(1804-1815) = the Sun rises from the East and shines for 12 hours​

The rebuke for Pérès, like Whately, was that Pérès meant it as a satire, with no evidence to backup the claim of it being satirical.

Following Fomenko, we can also compare Napoleon I with Napoleon III, and we see many similarities:
The Two Lives of Napoleon Bonaparte: Photoshopped History | The Unexpected Cosmology

​

- King Louis XVI ruled for 18 years and was overthrown by the French revolution; King Louis Philippe I ruled for 18 years and was overthrown by the French revolution​

- the French constitution was signed in 1815, the same year Napoleon was finally defeated; the Constitution of the French Empire was signed in 1870, the same year Napoleon III was finally defeated​

- in 1855, 33 years after the death of Napoleon I, the Russian Empire​

and the Empire of Japan signed their first treaty; in 1905, 32 years after the death of Napoleon III, Russia and Japan signed the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese war​

- in 1870, 66 years after Napoleon I became emperor, Germany defeated France in the Franco-Prussian war; in 1918, 66 years after Napoleon became emperor, Germany defeated France in WWI​

and on and on

Although I am not aware of Fomenko having done any analysis on Napoleon, I think he would agree that there is a high probability that Napoleon is a phantom copy of Napoleon III - which means Napoleon Bonaparte did not and cannot exist.

 

[trismegistus]

And yet the rebuke to Whately, was not against his arguments, but his motive of writing the pamphlet! It is claimed that Whately meant it as a "satire", to a supposedly popular book "Historic Doubts Relative to Jesus of Nazareth" - one which I can find no record of its existence.

I have brought this up earlier in this thread - that Whately's work is intended to be a satirical reply to Hume's work. However, to your credit - I also can't find a transcript anywhere of Hume's work on Jesus. The only thing I found in my search is something that lends more credence to Napoleon being a mythical character (perhaps not entirely manufactured, but at minimum heavily propagandized/mythologized).

The Napoleon Myth

Interestingly enough, this particular author has also written extensively on Theosophy, Freemasonry, Magic, and Egypt. It is unclear if Evans is a card-carrying Freemason, but some of his work would imply that he has in-depth knowledge of Egyptian Freemasonic rites. Interesting connection, considering what the character Napoleon and his Masons were up to in Egypt 100 years previous.

Henry R. Evans - Wikipedia

 

[sekito]

Since you mentioned Evans’ book, which I have read, we are told that Napoleon (if he existed) was very supertitious and replaced the Catholic cross with the Star/pentagram. The pentagram, like the hexagon or the Star of David are both Freemasonry/Jewish symbols with pretty much the same meaning. I think that was meant to serve as a clue for the initiated.

I have brought this up earlier in this thread - that Whately's work is intended to be a satirical reply to Hume's work. However, to your credit - I also can't find a transcript anywhere of Hume's work on Jesus. The only thing I found in my search is something that lends more credence to Napoleon being a mythical character (perhaps not entirely manufactured, but at minimum heavily propagandized/mythologized).

The Napoleon Myth

Interestingly enough, this particular author has also written extensively on Theosophy, Freemasonry, Magic, and Egypt. It is unclear if Evans is a card-carrying Freemason, but some of his work would imply that he has in-depth knowledge of Egyptian Freemasonic rites. Interesting connection, considering what the character Napoleon and his Masons were up to in Egypt 100 years previous.

Henry R. Evans - Wikipedia

 

[Daniel]

I thought I had posted this on this thread, but it turns out I hadn't.
Pfister did a comparison of "Napoleon I" and "Napoleon III" years ago.
https://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm
(In German)
If true, it means that our Chronology may have only been constructed in the 19th century...

 

[RadiumSoda]

Say what you want about his religion and/or it's leaders, but for someone of a Bishop's position to claim such a "conspiracy" as this, and go against the Narrative, might be the last thing you would expect, and he deserves credit for that. But more than that, he seemed to know what was really important, and you might not expect that either.


Long story short:
Napoleon had 3 sisters, Apollo had 3 sisters.
Napoleon had 2 wives, Apollo had 2 wives (Earth and Moon).
Napoleon was in power about 12 years, Apollo the Sun is in the sky for about 12 hours.
The Sun god Apollo gets weaker as you travel north, and so did Napoleon.

And like I said, the rest is worth hearing, because he listened to his conscience:

"Therefore our attitude is not to be constantly pointing out the error, looking for the defects, seeking what is black, but rather take hold what is good. That's what St. Paul did for example. When he was in Athens, he was talking to these people who were worshipping false gods, and he got hold of one statue that had the name 'unknown God' in it, and he said 'that's the God that I preached to'."

"...They think they have to destroy everything. Start with what is GOOD.
Remember that what is True in them, comes from God. What is erroneous, comes from us."

[at 14:00]
"And another difference between [Christ] and all other world religions, is the fact that they all gave a Method, a Formula, a Doctrine, the Law, and they said, 'Follow this Method, obey these Rules, and you will live.'"

"Our Lord did not. He said, "I AM the Truth. Truth was identified with this person, because he was God. You cannot fall in love with the theorem of geometry. Virtue begins to be lovable only when it is incarnated in a person, and that was why he was the savior of all men. And he said, 'If I be drawn up, I will draw all men to myself', and so when he came to die, stripped himself of every individuating note, in order that he might belong to all men."

"So all other religions are 'Sunshine Religions'. They're all right for happy prosperous days, but he brought the only religion in the world that began with defeat. With an ignominious failure, and therefore adversity, and he came out of it by resurrection, because he was God. And that is why is the only one that can ever give hope in Trial, for as someone has put it, 'We have a God who STUMBLED to his throne'."