The role of the Pirate/Phrygians in the colonization of America is hinted at in The Devil Colony, James Rollins’ seventh Sigma Force novel, in which Native Americans, Mormons, and other characters call the Manasseh “exiled Israelites”, “pale Indians”, “white Indians”, and the “14th colony”. Chapter 24 describes symbols of America’s Founding Fathers included in the Great Seal of the United States to memorialize the Manasseh, e.g., an olive branch and sheaf of arrows.

This olive branch and the sheaf of arrows is symbolic of the role of the first Manasseh and his Pirate Samballat in-laws. To marry into your enemy’s family is the olive branch, then to use that marriage to bring down your enemy is the sheaf of arrows.

I’ve cross-referenced American ‘history’ with a few other histories and it is a fact that many of the pirates acted the part of Indians, and then changed costume and played the part of ‘Puritan’ and ‘Founding Father’, and then returned to England to put on the costume of an English Lord. This is how the great fraud of the usurpation of America and the establishment of the Freemasonic ‘Corporation of the United States’ was pulled off. During the mid-1600’s, while the illegitimate children of European Kings were forming secret alliances and employing themselves in piracy on the high seas, they established the use of a red ‘flag’ as a symbol of secret cooperation. The red flag is reported by several observers in early America. Was it a red Phrygian cap on a pole or was it a red flag, and is there any difference between the two?
In America, the Pirates established their havens along the Eastern seaboard. The havens were places to sell stolen goods and to use captured slaves as workers and prostitutes. When that game played out, they used their stolen riches to purchase English Titles and become ‘Lords’. After becoming Lords, they were able to infiltrate the monarchies and gain valuable commissions for the building and maintenance of forts in America. It became very lucrative to them to pretend to fight wars, wherein each phony fort was destroyed and had to be built again and each time it was all nothing but a show. The monarchs paid for these phony forts and the pirates, now Lords, received payment to build them. The hastily and poorly built excuse for a ‘fort’ would then be ‘surrendered’ to or ‘captured’ by the ‘enemy’, and burnt. After each ‘surrender’ of each American and Canadian fort, the con-men of both sides of the ‘war’ got together and had a big party to celebrate their victory over the duped ‘masses’ and to divvy up the loot.
The most notorious of these phony wars occurred at Fort William Henry in 1756, which was a stage-set of a phony fort to begin with, a staged war and a huge cast of Indian and French unwitting extras who had been duped into participating. When they realized they’d been duped, the ‘Massacre at Fort William Henry’ occurred. This ‘massacre’, despite all the propaganda lies which surround it, was a situation where the phony war was discovered and the well-deserved slaughter of the Pirates in various costumes commenced. The angriest group of all were the Iriquois Indians who had formerly been allied with the Pirates who were disguised as ‘colonists’. The Iriquois had enough of being used as cannon fodder by the Pirates who were known to them as ‘Englishmen’. After the surrender of Fort William Henry under the Red Flag/Phrygian Cap system, the military officers of both sides held their usual victory party which became a source of anger to all the men who had been wounded during this bit of chicanery.
The incident at Fort William Henry is a long story in itself, but suffice it to say that after the surrender, the various spies and double agents of the English became known to all involved in one single night. After the outing of the spies, the Iriquois, instead of being allied with the Englishmen Pirates, now sang a song about wanting to ‘eat the English’. Suddenly the Catholics had more Indian allies against the Pirates than they really needed or wanted, and no one could prevent those angry Indians from seeking their own justice after they’d been betrayed by the Pirate/Protestant/Founding Fathers/Englishmen. To think in terms of modern European Nation States when considering early American and Canadian history is wrong. In reality, the groups in question were either Catholic or Protestant and these can be found in all nations including the Indians, but Catholics were the established majority by far at that time. Protestants were mainly limited to Pirate communities and the Iriquois. The Mohawks were themselves Pirates dressed as Indians. There is no way to understand early American and Canadian history without understanding this fully. If you read in any history book that the English were fighting the French, just throw that book away.

Have you ever noticed the Phrygian cap on the emblems of several Nations and States of America? It’s the little red elve’s cap on a pole. Here are just a two samples, but there are many, many more:

Great Seal of Iowa with Phrygian Cap.

Great Seal of Nicaragua with Phrygian Pirate’s Cap

Ancient Roots of Piracy

The Red Phrygian [Samarian] Cap was supposedly worn by Roman slaves and so it carries with it many associations and it came to be worn by both pirates and anyone else who values freedom. The Red Phrygian Cap signifies democracy over monarchy, independent atheism over service to God, and it all sounds pretty good but what it really means is something else. It’s all a very tricky business to convince people to get rid of their own protectors by promising them ‘freedom’.  The trick is that, once you’ve voluntarily given up your own protection, you become fair game for the pirates to capture and sell into slavery.
“Pirate” has its roots in the word “Phrygia”, and the journey to those roots is a very long one. One thing is certain, Phrygians have wanted to eliminate Catholics ever since Catholics existed, because piracy and Catholicism are natural enemies.

The original place called Phrygia is also called Samaria in the Bible, which is now Turkey and Syria, more or less. Samaria is a name related etymologically to Samballat, and Samuel the prophet in the bible both of whom lived in Samaria/Phrygia.

This is important because in the Old Testament, the prophet Samuel gave the first crown of the Israelites to Saul, God’s anointed and chosen King from the tribe of Benjamin. But before that, God informed the people that only God should be king, other wise they would find themselves enslaved by the very person they had crowned.

Then Samuel, after crowning Saul, accused Saul of not worshipping correctly, and so set the stage for the genocide of King Saul and his family and the take-over by David who was not God’s chosen and who wasn’t even an Israelite. In fact, if you read carefully the words in the Old Testament that describe David’s actions, it’s obvious that he is a double agent working for the Philistines who were enemies of Israel.

Even the Philistines didn’t trust him, because who knew better than they what a lying, treacherous, two-faced hypocrite David was. They would not have him in their real army, but they used him when they could, mainly as a puppet King because he had married the daughter of Saul.

No one trusted David because David was a Pirate, a highway robber, a spy and the original mafia who demanded protection money from the people after the death of Saul. With the removal of the true monarch, the people no longer had a protector, and so they were easy prey for pirates. Propaganda is the art of making a Pirate look like a Saint, so we get a taste of ancient propaganda techniques when we read about King David in the Bible.

Since Phrygia is a name and place whose roots go back to Samuel and David and Saul in the Old Testament, then why is a Phrygian cap on the Great Seals of modern nations and states? If the Phrygian cap was worn by slaves, then naturally a slave owner would value the Phrygian cap and a slave would hate it. Yet we are told that it means freedom from slavery and so was used as a symbol for democracy.

At this point in time, everyone knows that democracy does not really bring freedom at all, it’s just a bigger and worse kind of slavery for the slaves, and a bigger and better kind of slavery for the owners. And so the slave’s cap stays, and that’s the big joke on believers in Democracy. Wherever you see the Phrygian cap you know you are dealing with piracy and trickery under the guise of democracy. That’s the secret.

One of the most notorious events of the French Revolution was when King Louis XIV appeared in public wearing a Phrygian Cap. The French revolutionaries wore these caps. Much has been written about how all the revolutions were and still are tricks of the Freemasons to remove the customs and rights of the people and to replace it all with slavery and dictatorship. Back in the early 1700’s the Freemasons declared their intention of eliminating Catholic monarchies and Catholic religion, and so the wearing of the Phrygian cap by the King of France was a shocking thing for the people.
Maybe King Louis XVI never even wore it in truth, but someone passed the rumor that he did and someone drew a picture of it and published it and spread it around so it might as well have actually happened. Such is the art of Propaganda. The king of France was still guilty of weakness, one way or the other, and he was already illegitimate as a ruler to begin with.

He wasn’t a practicing Catholic, yet he sat on a Catholic throne and his government was completely controlled by anti-Catholic Phrygians. His throne rested on the assassinations and confiscation of lands of many true Catholics. The Ultra-Catholic Guise family and their followers were already migrating away from France, had been since the early 1600’s. This is how they became transformed into the group known as the Acadians in America.

So whenever the crown of God’s anointed is replaced by the Phrygian cap, you can be sure that the Freemasons are involved behind the scenes, and that the tricky plan is enslavement of the many by the few, under the promise of liberty.

We know from scripture that ‘King’ David was a man who behaved like a pirate 100% of the time, though he expected to be forgiven afterwards. With the death of King Saul, David certainly plunged a dagger into the heart of God’s kingdom to destroy it. The Saulic tribes left the Holy Land at the time of the emergence of David.
We live in an age where King David is worshipped and his tribe is supported with huge sums of confiscated American cash and lives. The Davidites are allowed to literally destroy the planet without so much as a word of reproof by anyone in position of power. Saul is not even mentioned, and no one knows what the Salic flag or the Salic tribes are all about, even though it was the calling card of Christendom, and everyone knew it was the St. Andrew’s cross. St. Andrew was the Patron Saint of Constantinople, the capitol city of the Roman Empire for almost 2000 years. The last time we used a Salic flag it was called the ‘Confederate Flag’, and it is now outlawed. Any reminder of Catholicism is very bothersome to the Davidic people.

After the crowning of David as King by the Prophet Samuel, the emigration of the Sallic tribes began and the remainder of the people in Jerusalem were not Israelite. It appears that we no longer hear of the Sallic Tribes in the Bible, but in fact they return in the form of Darius/Cyrus the Great to rebuke the followers of David, and to destroy the pagan Temple that Solomon built, and to enslave the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were not Israelite at that time. It’s just that in the Bible, Cyrus the Great is not identified clearly as an Israelite or a Benjamite. It takes some investigation to figure it out.

Meanwhile, the usurpers under David engaged in quite a bit of infighting, but the main event had been the marriage of Samballat’s daughter, a pagan, to Manasseh one of the tribes of Joseph. This was necessary for the appearance of legitimacy, and it was a betrayal of the true Israelites by Manasseh.

Josephus records the marriage of Manasseh and Samballat’s daughter from Nehemiah 13:28 as actually having taken place and causing the founding of the rival Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim. Josephus (“Antiquities xi. 7, § 2.) places Samballat in Persian history during the reign of Darius III (336-331). Samballat had successors, Samballat II and Samballat III.

In the Elephantine papyri, the ‘Jews’ of Elephantine asked for the help of Samballat’s sons in rebuilding the ‘Jewish’ temple at Elephantine, which had been damaged or destroyed. Elephantine is on the Nile River.

Josephus describes the Samaritan temple as based on a copy of the Jerusalem temple, however, no one is certain where the ‘Jerusalem’ of the Old Testament was located. Since very old maps show that the Jordan and the Nile were once the same river, with a sharp bend toward the south, it could be that Jerusalem was on the Nile river. Josephus also relates that many Israelites moved to Samaria, causing much bewilderment in ‘Jerusalem’. This could describe a migration from Egypt northward into Samaria.
Without the imprimatur of Manasseh, Samballat’s new temple would not have been accepted by the people who still had a notion of legitimacy when it came to rulers. Modern man has completely lost this concept. But Manasseh did not have the right to build a rival temple, or to marry his daughter to someone outside the tribe. In the old testament, Jacob the Patriarch had foretold that Mannaseh, though the oldest of Joseph’s sons, would not receive the blessings of the first born. Jacob, with his foresight, chose the second born, Ephraim, as the recipient of the privileges of the first born.

The privilege of the first born son includes the right and responsibility of rulership. From Manassah we get the word ‘menace’, and this description holds true for Manasseh throughout history, due to his early alliance with Samballat, who is the Patriarch of the Pirates.

In the Elephantine papyri Samballat is said to have had two sons, Delaiah bar Samballat and Shelemiah bar Samballat. The people of Elephantine on the Nile River asked for the help of Samballat’s sons in rebuilding their temple, which had been destroyed by rioters. This could be the very same rebuilding of the ‘Temple at Jerusalem’ which we imagine happened in Palestine, but in reality we know not where any of the biblical events actually occurred, or what kind of geographical changes might have happened since then to throw us off.
Manasseh (/mə.ˈnæs.ə/;[1] Hebrew: מְנַשֵּׁה‎ “Mnaše”) is an Ancient Hebrew language name for men meaning “causing to forget”.[2] People with the given name Manasseh or Menashe include:
• Manasseh (tribal patriarch), a son of Joseph, grandson of Jacob, according to the Torah
• Menasseh or Manasseh was the name of two Khazar rulers of the Bulanids [The Kings Bulan of the Bulanids, perhaps ancestors of Ann Bolyn and Queen Elizabeth I, were Kings of Khazaria/Jews]:
• Manasseh I, mid to late 9th century CE
• Manasseh II, late 9th century CE
• Manasseh of Judah, a king of the Judah
• Manasseh (High Priest of Israel), the ancestor of a priest named Jonathan, mentioned in the Book of Judges as being the son of Gershom, son of Manasseh
• Manasseh, a Jewish-born priest who married a Samaritan and withdrew from Jerusalem to Mount Gerizim/Gershom.

The Phrygians always try to make their Pagan religion appear to be the established non-pagan religion. One of the first Protestant kings of England, William of Nassau, was a pirate who had a name derived from Manasseh. Protestants, beginning with Queen Elizabeth, copied almost all the outward forms of the Catholic religion that they sought to destroy. Under the Protestants, or any Phrygian influence, the substance of the religious rites and incantations change, very gradually, by degrees to the point of actual pagan human sacrifice, cannibalism, sexual impurity or atrocities of one form or another.

The usurpation of the outward forms of an older true religion or any institution, when creating a pirate version, is typical of Phrygian behavior.

Abu l-Fath, who in the 14th century wrote a major work of Samaritan history, comments on Samaritan origins as follows:
We are told that “Eli offered a sacrifice on the altar, but without salt, as if he were inattentive. When the Great High Priest Ozzi learned of this, and found the sacrifice was not accepted, he thoroughly disowned him; and it is said that he rebuked him.”
In regard to Manasseh, “Thereupon he and the group that sympathized with him, rose in revolt and at once he and his followers and his beasts set off for Shiloh. Thus Israel split in factions. He sent to their leaders saying to them, Anyone who would like to see wonderful things, let him come to me. Then he assembled a large group around him in Shiloh, and built a Temple for himself there; he constructed a place like the Temple. He built an altar, omitting no detail—it all corresponded to the original, piece by piece.”
Abu l-Fath’s comments on Samaritan origins are a reminder that tricky power grabs from the inside are nothing new. Abu l-Fath describes the situation as follows:
A terrible civil war broke out between Eli son of Yafni, of the line of Ithamar.  Eli son of Yafni resolved to usurp the High Priesthood from the descendants of Pincus/Phineas.

This desire to usurp the priesthood is a consistent theme that began with the story of Cain and Abel, continues with the selling of Joseph into slavery, the crucifixion of Jesus by Herod, the repression of Catholicism in America and the take-over of the Vatican by Free Masonic Jews.
The family of Zachariah, descended from Aaron, held the privilege of the High Priesthood, of which, much later, John the Baptist, Jesus and Mary were members. We are told by al-Fath that Eli “used to offer sacrifices on an altar of stones”, which infers to us that the sacrifice was not human. The bronze altar on wheels, which King David used, is indicative of human sacrifice, since Pagans used the sculpture of an animal as a metal barbecue pit on wheels for cooking human babies. So perhaps Eli’s sacrifice wasn’t pleasing to the Phrygians because it wasn’t human. Either way, God demands neither a house nor a sacrifice of creatures, he asks of us only the sacrifice of our pride and selfishness. Therefore both of these two religions were false.

“Manaseh was 50 years old, endowed with wealth and in charge of the treasury of the children of Israel.”

When Ozzi disowned Eli, and Eli sailed away to Shiloh, he grabbed the Temple for himself. But who is the Great High Priest Ozzi, if not one of the Samballat? He betrayed Manasseh/Eli, after Manasseh had given the new religion legitimacy by letting his daughter marry Samballat, just as Herod betrayed Simeon after Simeon allowed his daughter to marry Herod [Josephus], and just as David betrayed Saul.
This helps us to understand the symbolism of the olive branch and the arrows.
After Ozzi betrayed Eli/Manasseh, “Thereupon Manasseh and the group that sympathized with him, rose in revolt and at once he and his followers and his beasts set off for Shiloh.” All we are told by Al-Fath is that “Mannasah sent to their leaders saying to them, ‘Anyone who would like to see wonderful things, let him come to me’. Then he assembled a large group around him in Shiloh, and built a Temple for himself there; he constructed a place like the Temple. He built an altar, omitting no detail—it all corresponded to the original, piece by piece.”

So the Children of Israel, or at least people posing as the Children of Isreal, split into three factions. It is most likely that the legitimate Israelites evacuated long before and we’re seeing the remaining two pretenders fighting each other. The legitimate rulers have simply gone someplace else, and in fact archeologists have confirmed this by having located an entire section of Benjamite territory in Palestine where anciently the homes were simply abandoned while in perfect condition. One thing we know about the Phrygians is that, rather than establish their own religion, they infiltrate and corrupt religions and governments that are already established.

The Samaritans as an ethnic and religious community distinct from pure Israelites appears to have occurred during the several hundred years time before and after the Assyrian conquest of the ‘Kingdom of Israel’ in approximately 721 BCE. The records of Sargon II of Assyria indicate that he deported 27,290 inhabitants of the former kingdom, but this does not mean to say that they were Israelites. We are only told that they were inhabitants of the Israelite cities, and many bible scriptures and prophecies concur with this important detail.
I can only conclude that Sargon allowed the true Israelites to return, and he exiled the posers.

Samaritans claim to be Israelite descendants through Manasseh. This may be true, though not necessarily of pure blood, just as the Edomite Pharisees claimed to be descendants of Abraham through Judah. Jesus called them sons of Satan and told them that God can make descendants of Abraham out of rocks if he wanted to, but these inhabitants of Jerusalem were the children of snakes. Their pure Israelite blood had been corrupted, but mostly it was their actions that were corrupt. The main body of the Northern Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and Benjamin survived the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) by the Assyrians in 722 BCE simply because they were no longer inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jerusalem had been taken over by the Philistine followers of David.

In this text, Sargon II explains that he defeated several tribes and sent them to live in Samaria:
“The Tamudi, Ibadidi, Marsimani and Hayappa, who live in distant Arabia, in the desert, who knew neither overseer nor commander, who never brought tribute to any king–with the help of Ashshur my lord, I defeated them. I deported the rest of them. I settled them in Samaria/Samerina.“ (Sargon II Inscriptions, COS 2.118A, p. 293)
Zertal dates the Assyrian onslaught at 721 BC to 647 BC and discusses three waves of imported settlers. He shows that Mesopotamian pottery in Samaritan territory cluster around the lands of Menasheh and that the type of pottery found was produced around 689 BC.

The Samaritans who had not been exiled claimed that their version of the Pentateuch was the original and that the ‘Jews’, the Tamudi, the Ibadidi, the Marsimani and Hayappa, had a falsified text produced by Ezra.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under “Samaritans”) summarizes both past and the present views on the Samaritans’ origins. It says:
The Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century AD they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this was the ‘schism’ par excellence. (“Samaritans” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, op. cit., col. 727.)

“Furthermore, to this day some of the Samaritans claim descent from the tribe of Joseph, which includes Benjamin, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.” (J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology And Literature, 1907, op. cit., p. 32.)
The Dead Sea scroll 4Q372 hopes that the northern tribes will return to the land of Joseph, referring to the legitimate tribe who had left. The current dwellers in the north are referred to as fools, an enemy people. It goes on to say that the dwellers in Samaria mocked Jerusalem and built a temple on a high place to provoke Israel.
These current dwellers in the north would have to be the Arabian tribes mentioned by Sargon, “The Tamudi, Ibadidi, Marsimani and Hayappa, who live in distant Arabia, in the desert, who knew neither overseer nor commander, who never brought tribute to any king”. These are the Phrygians who became known henceforth as Samarians. The people called Jews are the tribe of Judah descended from the pagan Tamar. They are both pretending to be Israelites, long after the true Israelites had expanded into other regions.

Both Jewish and Samaritan religious leaders taught that it was wrong to have any contact with the opposite group. During the New Testament period, Josephus reports numerous violent confrontations between Jews and Samaritans throughout the first half of the first century.

According to 2 Chronicles 36:22–23, the Persian emperor, Cyrus the Great (reigned 559–530 BCE), permitted the return of the exiles to their homeland and permitted the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem (Zion). The true Israelites had already left after the death of Saul, and had become Persian, so it appears that these were the exiles being sent back to Jerusalem by Cyrus, not the Davidic Jews. The prophet Isaiah identified the Persian King Cyrus as “the Lord’s Messiah” (Mashiach; see Isaiah 45:1). The word “Messiah” refers to an anointed one, such as a king or priest. Therefore, Cyrus/Sargon himself was therefore the Israelite, who had tried to clear Jerusalem of non-Israelite usurpers, and who destroyed the pagan temple of the usurpers.

It’s important to understand that a Jew and an Israelite are not the same thing, and that an inhabitant of Jerusalem is not the same thing as an Israelite.
King Sargon wrote:
“The inhabitants of Samaria/Samerina, who agreed not to do service and not to bring tribute and who did battle, I fought against them with the power of the great gods, my lords. I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted. I formed a unit with 200 of chariots for my royal force. I settled the rest of them in the midst of Assyria. I repopulated Samaria/Samerina more than before. I brought into it people from countries conquered by my hands. I appointed my eunuch as governor over them. And I counted them as Assyrians.” (Nimrud Prisms, COS 2.118D, pp. 295-296)

The king of the Assyrians then brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avah, Emath, and Sepharvaim to place in Samaria, which came to be called Phrygia by the second century A.D. The names identify these incoming tribes as Benjamites, and the Awa are Levites.
The “Cuthim” sent by Sargon, were from Kutha or Cush in Ethiopia or Yemen in Mesopotamia. This is the group which is known to be a tribe of white people who pioneered the domestication of water buffalo for the clearance of lions from marshy areas.

These are the Benjamites from ancient days of the Saulic emigration. Thus they would have been the true Israelites, while the exiled and defeated ‘Jews’ were the posers. So as groups migrate and return, in the confusion they find themselves being called by the very names of their enemies, just as Jews today love to call Jesus a Jew, even as they take pride in having killed him. This is why it is necessary to look at the substance, the culture and content of a tribe in order to truly identify, what Jesus called ‘their fruits’.

The Talmud accounts for a people called “Cuthim” on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival back in Jerusalem by the hands of the Assyrians. Meanwhile the inhabitants of Jerusalem were being sent away. According to 2 Kings and Josephus, that the people who lived in the land of Israel were removed by the king of the Assyrians (Sargon II) to Halah, to Gozan on the Khabur River and to the towns of the Medes.  These are all places to the East, Iraq and Afghanistan probably.

We are told that when the then-sparsely populated areas became infested with dangerous wild beasts, the returned exiles appealed to the king of Assyria for Israelite priests to instruct them on how to worship the “God of that country.” Thus it appears that the King of Assyria was an Israelite himself, otherwise why would he have Israelite priests? This is why Sargon sent Levites with the Benjamites and Ephraimites.  They were all returning to their land with the help of the Israelite King.

The Jewish Davidic ‘inhabitants of Israel’, on the other hand, were sent away to far Arabia. There they “created a syncretistic religion, in which tribal groups worshiped the Hebrew God as they had been taught by Hebrews, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been taken.”

Into this mess was Jesus born, and within 200 years after his birth, almost the entire region of Phrygia and Samaria, not to mention Macedonia, Gaul and the British Isles, was Christian.
Samaria is what we call Syria and Turkey today.

After the death of the Anointed King Jesus:

In the Christian gospel of the ‘Good Samaritan’, the Pagan Priest and the Levite both ignored a person who had been robbed on the highway, because the person in need wasn’t of their tribe. But the Samaritan helped the man regardless of which sect he was. This was one of the most important lessons that Jesus gave us, which has led us to the point where we no longer see people in terms of tribes.

The Aramaic word used for Samaritans at the time is derived from the word for “Guardians/Keepers/Watchers”. This word etymology has been supported by a number of Christian Church fathers and in some Ancient Jewish Talmudic Bible Interpretations. The term ‘watcher’ also can mean ‘spy’, and the word can refer to secret assassins as well as guardians, something akin to a bodyguard.

These are all root names that will be repeated many times in the next 2000 years, forming the root etymology of Pirate related-activity such as Brigandage, Slavery, Spying, and the creation of a religion which we know of as the religion of Mythras, from whom we get the word Myth. A myth is a lie that has been around for a long time. The religion that most people practice today is a religion of myths and lies, whether people realize it or not, and that includes belief in Evolution, Democracy and Humanism. It is the search for truth that is the basis of every war, because not all religions are the same. One religion stands for lies, slavery, impurity, murder and theft, and the other religions stands for truth, duty to God, love and fidelity. It’s certainly a worthy fight. To call for peace is sometimes nothing more than a call to surrender to your deadliest enemies.

Around 88 B.C., Mythradates and the Mythraists revolted and killed off the Roman generals and Treasurers who had occupied Ephesus in Phrygia for centuries, retaking the city. The Essene Hebrew sect of the Christians and the Visigoth Christians, combined to take Ephesus again in 262 A.D. destroying the Temple there another time, and reducing it by holocaust to an ash-heap once again.
The story of Christianity is the story of the Roman Empire at this point, which starts to become centered in Constantinople and Phrygia around the time of Bishop Albericus.

The inscription on the Tomb of Albericus describes the stages of St. Paul’s third missionary journey through the heart of Phrygia, “namely: Issus, Tarsus, Derbe, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, and Apamea Cibotus.” Phrygia at that time was fully Christianized, according to Albericus, but it was also the source of a constant flow of arguments, obstacles and sectarian agent provocateurs against the Christian Church. The trouble always seems to emanate from a remote mountainous area, which the Phrygians seem to prefer. Later we find them in the mountains of Transylvania, then they move into Bavaria and much later we find them in the mountains of America and Canada. They were called Montanists at the time of St. Paciens, and the name was still used at the time of the French Revolution to describe people who valued ‘liberty’ above all else. ‘Liberty’ is a tricky word that can be used to justify any outrageous behavior, as we well know today.

Albericus Marcellus, was Bishop and author of a work against the Montanists c. 193 A.D., preserved in part by Eusebius. Two of the sects originating from Phrygia were the Montanists and the Novations, mentioned by St. Paciens in his second century letter to Simpronian [Sambroniam] in which he explained the name of the Catholic Church. It has long been the Phrygian dream to infiltrate the Catholic Church or to usurp the name. But Catholic is a word that means specifically not a schism or sect.

The Phrygians, at the time of Albericus, attempted to brand Piracy as a religion and to convert or confuse Christians in order to use them in their deadly rituals. The war was over control of the Temples and the lucrative income attached to them, and the only way to control the Temple is to win the hearts and minds of the people. The Phrygians wanted to do this as much as the Christians did, and this was the source of conflict during the first days of Christianity when each Temple was controlled by a Priest. The switch over to Christianity required the conversion of the Temple Priests, but mainly the Pontifex Rex who resided in the Roman Capitol city, first at Rome and then at Constantinople. The Phrygians promised stolen loot, while the Christians promised truth and light.

Besides making a living from robbery and using their daughters as prostitutes [reported by Greek mercenaries in the Zenophon], what were the Phrygians doing that made Kings such as Sargon and later the Roman Catholics oppose them?

The answer lies in the catacombs.
The reason the Christians had to hide their dead in catacombs underground had much to do with the grotesque rituals that were practiced by the Phrygians. Piecing all the clues together, I can only conclude that they were either practicing necrophilia or cannibalism or both. So it’s not so much that Christianity was against the law in early Rome, but that the other religion had no bounds whatsoever.
St. Saturninus/Sernin Feast Day Nov. 29
“St. Sernin was the first bishop of Toulouse, whither he went during the consulate of Decius and Gratus in the year 250 A.D. He had a Christian church in Toulouse, and on the way to his church, after he’d been taunted for some time…
“One day they seized him and on his unshakeable refusal to sacrifice to the idols they condemned him be tied by the feet to a bull which dragged him about the town until the rope broke. Two Christian women piously gathered up the remains and buried them in a deep ditch, that they might not be profaned by the pagans.”
1914 Catholic Encyclopedia
So the Christians had to keep dead bodies away from the Phrygians. Go figure. Now that they are in charge again, is it any wonder that every two weeks a new zombie movie is made, yet public prayer is against the law?

What do historians have to say about the Phrygians of the ancient past?
Inscriptions found at Gordium make clear that Phrygians spoke a language clearly not that of their neighbors. One of the Homeric Hymns describes the Phrygian language as not the same language of Troy.
According to ancient tradition of Greek historians, the Phrygians migrated to Anatolia [Present day Turkey area]. Herodotus says the Phrygians were called Bryges [brigands]. He and other Greek writers also recorded legends about King Midas, source of Mythras, the religion of the Phrygians.
Phrygian continued to be spoken until sixth century AD.
The Phrygian arrival explains the downfall of the Hittite and Greek Empires at the end of the high Bronze Age in Anatolia, at the beginning of the 12th century BC.

Where did the Phrygians receive this form of ‘worship’?
Were the Phrygians responsible for the destruction of the ancient Greek Empire, which was one of the most total and complete destructions of any civilization known to modern man? A wave of raiders, who correspond precisely to the description of the Phrygians, moved west from Anatolia and the Greeks left, for awhile, around 1500 B.C.

The ancient Phrygian migration is accepted by scholars as a factual element of the Iliad. The Phrygians were established on the Sakarya River before the Trojan War, which places them within the Hittite Empire which occcupied the same territory that was later called Phrygia. Greek legends about the founding of Phrygia’s main city Gordium by Gordias and of Ancyra [in Turkey still] by Midas, suggest that Gordium and Ancyra were active before the Trojan War. Further evidence for a Phrygian migration is the similarity of their name and culture to the Bryges in Europe, from which we get the word Brigantine, another word for pirate. Gordium was destroyed in 800 B.C.
Josephus reports that they had been called Togarmah by the ancient Hebrews, which has in turn been identified as the Tegarama of Hittite texts and Til-Garimmu of Assyrian records. We can see the word ‘thug’ and ‘Troy’, when Josephus called Togarmah “the Thrugrammeans, and this word came to be pronounced ‘Phrygian’ by the Greeks.”

Scholars of the Hittites believe Tegarama was in eastern Anatolia – some locate it at Gurun – far to the east of Phrygia. It remains possible that they originated in Tartarus/Otartan, the mountain called ‘Do not go there’ in the far Northern Urals of Russia. Also related to the Togarmah is the name Montgomery in England. Of the tribe of the Gomorah, a word from which we get ‘gambling’, is the Knight who killed King Henry II of France which initiated the end of the Catholic Monarchy in Europe. But that is still far into the future from Gordias.
Gordias corresponds to the Biblical Gog, and is also the place where Alexander the Great had to untie the Gordian knot that held the oxen, in order to rule Asia.  We don’t know details, we only know that Alexander the Great is given credit for putting the Gorgians behind the iron wall in Tartarus and thus freeing the world from their menace. We are also told in the hadith of the Muslims that they escaped from behind this wall during the life of Muhammad, or roughly around the year 650 AD.
St. Abercius Marcellus, Feast Day Oct 22
This epitaph was written by St. Abercius in the year 250 AD.

“The citizen of a chosen city, this I made living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this taught me [that the] book is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me to contemplate majesty, and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled; there also I saw a people bearing a shining mark. And I saw the land of Syria and all cities Nisibis when I passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I had Paul. . . . Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands from a fountain and this it ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread. These things I, Abercius, having been a witness told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer, let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold.”
St. Abercius is portrayed in one painting ‘Smashing Roman gods With Rod Given Him By The Angels’.
The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us about the tomb of Abercius:

“The inscription bears witness of no slight value to the importance of the Church of Rome in the second century. A mere glance at the text allows us to note the spread of Christianity, whose members Abercius meets with everywhere; (3) The receiving of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist, (4) under the species of Bread and Wine.
This may be Abercius Marcellus, author of a work against the Montanists, some fragments of which have been preserved by Eusebius. As the treatise in question was written about the year 193, the epitaph may be assigned to the last years of the second, or to the beginning of the third, century. The writer was bishop of a town, the name of which is wrongly given in the Life, since he belongs to Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris, and not to Hierapolis in Phrygia Pacatiensis. The proof of this fact given by Duchesne is all that could be wished for.
The text of the inscription itself is of the greatest possible importance in connection with the symbolism of the early Church. The poem of sixteen verses which forms the epitaph shows plainly that the language used is one not understood by all; ‘Let the brother who shall understand this pray for Abercius’. The bishop’s journey to Rome is merely mentioned, but on his way home he gives us the principal stages of his itinerary. He passed along the Syrian coast and, possibly, came to Antioch, thence to Nisibis, after-having traversed the whole of Syria, while his return to Hieropolis may have been by way of Edessa. The allusion to St. Paul the Apostle, which a gap in the text renders indecipherable, may originally have told how the traveller followed on his way back to his country the stages of St. Paul’s third missionary journey, namely: Issus, Tarsus, Derbe, Iconium, Antioch in Pisidia, and Apamea Cibotus, which would bring him into the heart of Phrygia.”
Was Albericus one and the same person as St. Paul, or was he a companion of Paul and was the calendar changed? I wonder, but this much is certain: under the Roman Pontifex system, the Pontifex Rex had the power to change the calendar, and he was known to do just that, if there were good reason to do so. Therefore, the missing 100 years or so of records after Christ’s death could be explained by a calendar that was adjusted.  It is known that the calendar was changed several times for different reasons by Roman Pontiffs and the total of changes could easily have added up to the missing first years of Christendom. It is these missing years that the anti-Christians use to condemn Christianity in various ways, claiming that it ‘changed’.

In reality, the merging of Christianity with the Roman Empire, immediately after the death of Jesus, is obvious.