I recently found this book online , and I must say it is the only one I've seen so far that puts a true picture on the fall of the saxons and the aftermath it created.

The Normans had the MSM at the time of the Conquest:

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed mocked the virtuous efforts ... of the friends of independence.

BOOK IV.: FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS. 1066—1070. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]
 
...
Similar instances of daring vengeance, of which the historians cite but a few, must certainly have taken place in many districts; but however numerous they may have been, they could not save England.

An immense force, regularly governed, and regularly distributed, mocked the virtuous but impotent efforts of the friends of independence.

The patriots themselves, with their great chiefs, whose names alone called forth many men, lost all courage, and again capitulated. Waltheof, Gospatrik, Morkar, and Edwin, made their peace with the conqueror

Hastings - 1066 Before the Battle - Fight or Surrender

BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]  

the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt

One of them spoke: “We ought,” said he, “to fight, whatever the danger may be; for it is not here the question of receiving a new lord, as if our king were dead; the matter in hand is very different.

The duke of Normandy has given our lands to his barons, his knights, and all his people, most of whom have already rendered him homage for them; they will all have their donations carried into effect if the duke becomes our king, and

he will be bound to give them our goods, our wives, and our daughters, for all is promised them beforehand.

They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, to take from us the country of our ancestors; and what shall we do, or where shall we go, when we have no longer any country?”

And hereupon the English unanimously took an oath to make neither peace, truce, nor treaty, with the invader, and to drive out the Normans or die in the attempt.”


At the Battle of Hastings, Wace records that the housecarls of the Saxon army cried "Olicrosse!" and "Godamite!" ("Holy Cross" and "God Almighty", respectively), while the fyrd  cried "Ut! Ut! Ut!" ("Out! Out! Out!").

[ In Anglo-Saxon times, defences were based upon the fyrd. It was a militia called up from the districts threatened with attack. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions ]

The Landing - Exotic Weapons- Budget Unlimited



BOOK III.: FROM THE INSURRECTION OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE AGAINST THE NORMAN FAVOURITES OF KING EDWARD, TO THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS. 1048—1066. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]  

The vessel in which William sailed was in the van, bearing at its mast-head the banner sent by the pope, and a cross on its own flag. Its sails were of different colours, and on them in various places were painted the three lions, the arms of Normandy; at the prow was the carved figure of a child, bearing a bow bent, with the arrow ready to quit the string. ... This vessel, a better sailer than the rest, outstripped them during the day, and at night left them far behind.

Four hundred ships with large sails, and more than a thousand transport vessels, made for the open sea, amid the sound of trumpets and a shout of joy, sent forth from sixty thousand mouths as from one

D-Day June 6, 1944 - Number of ships used in the NORMANDY Invasion: MORE THAN 5,000 ships
...
The troops of William thus landed, without resistance, at Pevensey near Hastings, the 28th of September 1066, three days after the victory of Harold over the Norwegians.

The archers landed first; they wore short coats, and their hair was shaved off;

then came the cavalry, wearing coats of mail and helmets of polished steel, of a nearly conical form, armed with long and strong lances, and straight double-edged swords.

These were followed by the workmen of the army, pioneers, carpenters, and smiths, who brought on shore, piece by piece,
three wooden castles, ready prepared beforehand.

The duke was the last to land; at the moment his foot touched the sand, he slipped and fell on his face.

A murmur arose, and voices exclaimed: “God preserve us! this is a bad sign.” But William, rising, said immediately: “Lords, what is’t you say? What, are you amazed?

I have taken seizin of this land with my hands, and, by the splendour of God, all that it contains is ours.”

The repartee prevented the effect of the evil presage.

The army took the road towards Hastings, and near that place marked out a camp, and raised two of the wooden castles as receptacles for provisions.

Bodies of troops overran the neighbouring country, pillaging and burning houses.

The English fled from their dwellings, hiding their goods and cattle, and hastened in crowds to the churches and churchyards, which they deemed the surest asylum against enemies, who were Christians like themselves. But, in their thirst for booty, the Normans paid little heed to the sanctity of places, and respected no asylum.

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/timber-castles.htm

The first of the pre-built Norman Wooden Castles was erected at Pevensey Bay in 1066.

Pevensey castle was built on high ground on the site of an old Roman Fort. Information from Norman chroniclers state that a total of three pre-built wooden castles were brought from Normandy on the invasion fleet of Duke William of Normandy, which consisted of nearly 3000 vessels.
The famous Bayeux Tapestry illustrates the process of building Norman Pre-Built Timber Castles.

The aims of building the Timber Norman Castles
The pre-built timber Norman castles were perfect for the strategy of William the conqueror.
But the Normans needed more timber castles and they needed them quickly.

The conquest of England by the Normans needed castles to:

Provide a safe base where men, provisions and horses could be housed

The Psychological effect - these timber Norman castles were constructed to overawe and frighten the indigenous population

The timber Norman Castles provided a site from which the Normans could govern the surrounding district

Timber Norman Castles and Feudalism
...the Normans were rewarded with English lands and they needed a strong power base to hold off the rebellious English. Well constructed Norman timber castles provided them with this. They used local timber and forced local labour to build their timber Motte and Bailey castles.  
The Normans kept their new land.

Are you Free in the King's er.. "National" forests?  Do curses come true?

BOOK VII.: FROM THE DEATH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, TO THE LAST GENERAL CONSPIRACY OF THE ENGLISH AGAINST THE NORMANS. 1087—1137. - Augustin Thierry, History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes, and its Consequences, in England, Scotland, Ireland, & on the Continent, vol. 1 [1856]


Historians less laconic have transmitted to us some details of the sorrows and torments that the conquered nation suffered.

Wherever the king passed in his journeys through England, the country was ravaged by his people.3 When they could not themselves use all the provisions or goods that they found in the houses of the English, they made the owner himself carry them to the neighbouring market, and sell them for their profit; at other times they burned them for amusement, or if it were wine or other beverage, washed the feet of their horses with it.

“The ill treatment to which they subjected the heads of families, their outrages upon the women and girls,” adds the contemporary historian, “one would blush to relate; accordingly, at the first rumour of the king’s approach, all fled from their abodes, and retired, with whatever they could carry, to the depths of the forest or other desert places.”4

Fifty Saxons who, by some happy chance or perhaps by a little political cowardice, had managed to retain a remnant of their property, were accused, falsely or justly, of having hunted in the royal forests, and of having killed, taken, and eaten deer; such were the terms of the criminal charge brought against them.

They denied the charge, and the Norman judges inflicted on them the ordeal by fire, which the ancient English laws only sanctioned when demanded by the accused. “On the appointed day,” says an eye-witness, “all underwent the sentence, without any mercy; it was piteous to behold; but God, in preserving their hands from burning, showed clearly their innocence, and the wickedness of their persecutors.”

When it was reported to king William that after three days the hands of the accused were unscathed: “What of that,” said he; “God is no judge of these things; these matters concern me, and it is I who ought to judge them.”1 The historian does not relate what the new sentence was, or what the fate of the unhappy English, whom now no pious fraud could save.

The Saxons, persecuted by William Rufus for transgressing the laws of the chase, far more rigorously than they had been even by his father, had no other way of revenging themselves than by calling him, in derision, keeper of the forests, and wild beast-herd, and spreading sinister rumours as to these forests, into which no man of English race could enter armed without risking his life.

They said that the devil, under terrible forms, appeared there to the Normans, and told them of the terrible fate that he reserved for the king and his counsellors.2 This popular superstition obtained authority by the singular chance which rendered hunting in the forest of England, and especially in the New Forest, fatal to the race of the Conqueror.

In the year 1081, Richard, eldest son of William the Bastard, had mortally wounded himself there; in the month of May of the year 1100, Richard, son of duke Robert, and nephew of William Rufus, was killed there by an arrow carelessly shot;3 and, singular circumstance, this king himself also met with the same death there in the July of the same year.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ordeal
Trial by ordeal was used to decide the guilt or innocence of a suspected criminal by invoking divine justice. There were several forms of ordeal in Anglo-Saxon and Norman England. In one the accused held a red hot iron or put his hand in a flame. If the wound healed, the accused was deemed innocent.

http://www.berkshirehistory.com/legends/emma_wargrave02.html
Royal Ordeal by Fire
Queen Emma & her Berkshire Manors (wife first of King Aethelred the Unready, and afterwards of Canute the Great...the mother, therefore, not only of Harthacnut, but also of Edward the Confessor)

Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury, persuades the King that Emma, forty-eight years after her first marriage, fifteen years after the death of her second husband, Canute, had been guilty of too close an intimacy with Aelfwine, Bishop of Winchester
...
On the morrow, the King with his attendant courtiers assemble; the nine ploughshares are made red-hot, and placed upon the pavement in the Church. Emma now enters, and after making a long invocation, which commences, "Oh God, who didst save Susannah from the malice of the wicked elders, save me," treads with her bare feet upon the glowing metal: but she senses nothing. She has touched it, yet enquires of the Bishops who lead her by the hand, "When shall we come to the ploughshares?" They show her she has already passed over them. Upon examination, her feet are found to be uninjured - "See the Miracle". The King is now thoroughly convinced of her innocence, and repenting his cruelty, casts himself at his mother's feet, exclaiming, "Mother, I have sinned before heaven and before you," receives stripes both from the Bishop and his mother, restores all their confiscated property, and banishes the Archbishop.

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Trial_by_ordeal
Ordeal of fire
In one instance, the accused would walk nine paces with a red-hot iron bar held in both hands. Depending on the custom of the time, innocence would be shown by a complete lack of injury from the ordeal or the wounds would be bound and regularly examined for healing or festering. An English version had nine red-hot ploughshares placed on the floor; the accused was blindfolded and if they successfully crossed the floor without injury they were judged innocent.

It is impossible to say how many projects of national deliverance, well or ill conceived, were formed and destroyed at this period.  History scarcely deigns to mention some two or three of the men who preferred war to servitude ;
the same power which defeated their efforts, effaced the memory of them...

Eugenic's - Agenda 21 - Local Financial Bankruptcy - Lick the Conqueror's boots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Harrying of the North

The Harrying (or Harrowing) of the North was a series of campaigns waged by William the Conqueror[1] in the winter of 1069–1070 to subjugate Northern England, and is part of the Norman conquest of England. It effectively ended the quasi-independence of the region through large-scale destruction that resulted in the relative "pacification" of the local population and the replacement of local Anglo-Danish lords with Normans.

The death toll is believed to be over 100,000, with substantial social, cultural, and economic damage.[2][3]

Because of the scorched earth policy, much of the land was laid waste and depopulated, a fact to which Domesday Book, written almost two decades later, readily attests.

BOOK IV.
FROM THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS TO THE TAKING OF CHESTER, THE LAST CITY CONQUERED BY THE NORMANS.  1066—1070.  

William, pursuing the wreck of the free Saxon forces, advanced to the foot of the great Roman wall, the remains of which still extend east and west from the mouth of the Tyne to the Solway Firth.

He then returned to York, whither he had brought from Winchester the gold crown, the gilt sceptre, the mantle lined with fur, and all the other insignia of English royalty; these he displayed with great pomp during the feasts of the Nativity, as if to challenge those who some months before had fought for king Edgar and their country.1

There no longer remained any one capable of accepting the challenge; a last assembly of patriots on the banks of the Tyne had been dispersed;2 and such, in the northern provinces, was the end of resistance:
the end of liberty, according to the English; of rebellion, according to the Normans.3

Upon both banks of the Humber, the cavalry of the foreign king, his counts, his bailiffs,4 could for the future freely travel on the roads and through the towns.

Famine, the faithful companion of conquest, followed their steps; in the year 1067 it had already desolated the counties which had been invaded; in 1070 it extended over all England, manifesting itself in its utmost horrors in the newly conquered districts.

The inhabitants of Yorkshire and of the territory further north, after feeding on the flesh of the dead horses left by the Norman army on their way, ate human flesh.5

More than an hundred thousand persons, of all ages, perished of famine in this district.6

“It was a frightful spectacle,” says an old annalist, “to behold, in the roads and streets, at the doors of houses, human bodies devoured by the worms, for none remained to scatter a little earth over them, all being destroyed by famine or the sword. This distress was felt only by the natives; the foreign soldier lived in plenty;

for him, in the heart of his fortresses, there were vast stores of provisions, and more was sent him from abroad, in return for the gold wrung from the English.

Moreover, famine aided him entirely to quell the conquered; often, for the remains of the repast of a groom in the Norman army,

the Saxon, once illustrious among his countrymen, in order to sustain his miserable life, came to sell himself and his whole family to perpetual slavery.1

The act of sale was registered upon the blank page of some missal, where may still be found, half effaced, and serving as a theme for the sagacity of the antiquaries, these monuments of the wretchedness of a bygone period.

The territory on both sides of the Humber, devastated as it lay, was partitioned out among the conquerors with the same order which had regulated the division of the southern countries. Several allotments were drawn out of the houses, or rather the ruins of York; for in the two sieges which this city had suffered, it was so devastated that, several centuries afterwards, the foundations of the ancient suburbs were still seen in the open country, more than a mile distant.2 King William appropriated the greater number of the houses which remained standing;3 the Norman chiefs shared the rest, with the churches, shops, and even the butchers’ stalls, which they then let out.4 William de Warenne had twenty-eight villages in Yorkshire alone, and William de Percy more than eighty manors.5

Most of these domains, in the list drawn up fifteen years after, had for their description these simple words: waste-land.6   [ Detroit ]


A property which, in the time of king Edward, had produced sixty pounds rent, produced less than five in the hands of its foreign possessor, and upon a domain in which two Englishmen of rank had lived at their ease, there were found after the conquest only two wretched serfs, scarce able to render their Norman lord a tenth of the revenue of the ancient free cultivators.7

Vast districts of land, north of York, were the portion of the Breton Allan, whom the Normans called Alain, and whom his countrymen in their Celtic tongue surnamed Fergan, that is, the Red.

This Alain constructed a strong castle and works of defence, near his principal manor, called Ghilling, on a steep hill which was nearly surrounded on every side by the rapid river Swale. This fortress, says an old narrative, was designed to protect him and his men from the attacks of the disinherited English.1 Like most of the other captains of the conquering army, he gave a French name to the castle which became his dwelling, calling it Richemont, from its raised situation, commanding the surrounding country.2

....

After the Conquest - 1196 - In the time of Robin Hood - there was a Saxon man - William Longbeard

William Fitz Osbert or William with the long beard (died 1196) was a citizen of London who took up the role of the advocate of the poor in a popular uprising in the spring of 1196



the Execution of the Saxon, William Longbeard
...
There were Saxon families who, by an hereditary vow, had bound themselves, from father to son, to wear the beard long, as a memory of the old country and a token of disdain for the customs introduced by the conquest.3 But these families could do nothing, and the sons of the conquerors, not fearing them, allowed them to display in peace the mark of their descent, and the futile pride of a time which could never return.


In the year 1196, when king Richard was occupied in warring against the king of France, and his officers were levying money for the expenses of his campaigns and the payment of the balance of his ransom, the city of London was called upon to pay an extraordinary tax.4

The king’s chancellor addressed the demand to the chiefs of the city, who, by a singular association of the two languages spoken in England, were called mayor and aldermen.5 These convoked, in the Guild-hall, or husting, as it was designated in the Saxon tongue, the principal citizens to deliberate, not as to granting the subsidy, but simply as to the proportions in which it should be paid by the citizens.6 In this assembly, composed for the most part of native English, there was a certain number of men of Norman, Angevin, or French race, whose ancestors, settling in England at the time of the conquest, had devoted themselves to commerce or trade. Either by reason of their foreign descent or of their riches, the citizens of this class formed in London a sort of ruling party; they governed the deliberations of the council, and often silenced the English, whom the habit of being oppressed rendered timid and circumspect.

But there was, at this time, in the class of natives, a man of very different character, a genuine old Saxon patriot, who let his beard grow, that he might in no way resemble the sons of the foreigners.1

His name was William, and he enjoyed great consideration in the city, on account of his zeal in defending, by every legal means, those of his fellow citizens who underwent injustice.2

The child of parents, whose industry and economy had secured him an independence, he had retired from business, and passed all his time in the study of jurisprudence.3 No Norman clerk surpassed him in the art of pleading in the French tongue, before a court of justice, and when he spoke English, his eloquence was vigorous and popular. He devoted his knowledge of the law and his power of language to save the poorer citizens from the embarrassments in which legal chicanery had involved them, and to protect them from the vexations of the rich, the most frequent of which was the unequal partition of the taxes.4 Sometimes the mayor and aldermen altogether exempted from the payment of taxes those who were best able to pay them, sometimes they called upon every citizen to contribute the same amount, without any regard to the difference of means, so that the heaviest burden fell upon the poor.5 These had often remonstrated, and William had pleaded their cause with more ardour than success.6

His efforts had rendered him dear to the citizens of lower condition, who named him the poor man’s advocate;7 on the other hand,
the Normans and their party surnamed him, ironically, the man with thebeard, and accused him of leading the multitude astray, by giving them a measureless desire for liberty and happiness.1

This singular personage, the last representative of the hostility of the two races which the conquest had united on the same soil, appeared in his accustomed character at the common council of 1196.

As mostly their habit, the leading citizens were for a distribution of the common charges that should throw only the smallest portion on themselves;

William Longbeard alone, or almost alone,2 opposed them, and the dispute growing warm, they overwhelmed him with abuse, and accused him of rebellion and of treason to the king.

“The traitors to the king,” answered the Englishman, “are they who defraud his exchequer, by exempting themselves from paying what they owe him, and I myself will denounce them to him.”3 He passed the sea, went to Richard’s camp, and kneeling before him and raising his right hand, demanded from him peace and protection for the poor people of London. Richard listened to his plaint, said that he would do it right, and when the petitioner departed, thought no more of the matter, too much occupied with his great political affairs to descend to the details of a dispute between simple citizens.
...
Hubert Gaultier, archbishop of Canterbury and grand justiciary of England, enraged that a Saxon should dare to denounce to the king men of Norman race, and apprehending a recurrence of the circumstance, ordered by edict every citizen of London to remain in the city, under penalty of being imprisoned as traitor to the king and kingdom.5

Several merchants who, despite the orders of the grand justiciary, went to Stamford fair, were arrested and imprisoned.6

These acts of violence caused a great fermentation in the city; and the poorer citizens, by an instinct natural to man in all times, formed an association for their mutual defence. William with the Long Beard was the soul and chief of this secret society, in which, say the contemporary historians, fifty-two thousand persons were engaged.1

They collected such arms as citizens, half serfs, could procure in the middle ages, iron-headed staves, axes, and iron crow-bars, wherewith to attack the fortified houses of the Normans, if they came to blows.

Urged by a natural desire to intercommunicate their sentiments and encourage each other, the poor of London assembled from time to time and held meetings in the open air, in the squares, and the market-places. At these tumultuous meetings William was the spokesman, and received applause which, perhaps, he was too fond of receiving, and which thus made him neglect the moment to act and to strike a decisive blow for the interests of those whom he sought to render formidable to their oppressors.

A fragment of one of these harangues is given by a contemporary chronicler, who declares that he had it from the mouth of a person who was present. The speech, though its purpose was entirely political, turned, like the sermons of our days, upon a text from scripture, and this text was:

“With joy shall ye draw water of the wells of salvation.” William applied these words to himself: “It is I,” he said, “who am the saviour of the poor; you, poor, who have felt how heavy is the hand of the rich, draw now from my well of water a salutary doctrine; and draw thence joyfully, because the hour of your relief is at hand. I shall separate the waters from the waters, that is to say, the men from the men; I will separate the people, humble and of good faith, from the proud and faithless; I will separate the elect from the reprobate, as light from darkness.”

 Under this vague and mystic phraseology, the imagination of the hearers doubtless discerned sentiments and desires of a more precise nature; but the popular enthusiasm was not promptly turned to account; and the advocate of the poor allowed himself to be forestalled by the high Norman functionaries, who, assembling in parliament at London the bishops, earls, and barons, of the surrounding counties, cited the orator of the people to appear before this assembly.3

William obeyed the summons, escorted by a great multitude who followed him, calling him the saviour and king of the poor.

...
Notwithstanding the influence given them by the anxiety which prevailed in London as to the fate of the hostages, the justiciaries dared not publicly arrest the man whose destruction was contemplated in all these proceedings. They resolved to watch a moment when William should be from home alone, or with but few companions; two rich citizens, probably of Norman race, and one of whom was named Geoffroy, undertook this duty.4

Followed by armed men, they watched for several days all the movements of the Man with the Long-Beard; and one day, as he was quietly walking with nine friends, the two citizens approached him with an air of indifference, and, suddenly, Geoffroy laid hands on him, and gave the signal for the men-at-arms to advance.5 William’s only weapon of defence was one of those long knives which, at that period, were worn in the belt; he drew it, and with one blow laid Geoffroy at his feet.

The soldiers came up at the same moment, armed, from head to foot, in dagger-proof mail; but William and his nine companions, by dint of courage and address, got clear of them, and took refuge in the nearest church, dedicated to the Virgin, and called by the Normans the church of Saint-Mary de l’Arche.1

They closed and barricadoed the doors. Their armed pursuers endeavoured unavailingly to force an entrance; the grand justiciary, on learning the news, sent couriers to the adjacent castles for more troops, not relying, at this critical juncture, on the garrison of the Tower of London alone.

The report of these events caused great fermentation in the town: the people were sensible to the danger of a man who had so generously taken up their defence;3 but in general they exhibited more of sorrow than of anger. The sight of the soldiers marching into the city, and occupying the streets and market-places, and above all the conviction that, on the first outbreak, the hostages would be put to death, kept the citizens in their shops.4 It was in vain that the refugees awaited assistance, and that a few determined men exhorted their fellow citizens to march in arms to Saint Mary’s church. The masses remained motionless as if struck with stupor.5

Meanwhile, William and his friends prepared, as best they might, to sustain a siege in the tower, whither they had retired; repeatedly summoned to come forth, they pertinaciously refused to do so; and the archbishop of Canterbury, in order to force them from their post, had a quantity of wood collected, and set fire to the church.6

The heat and the smoke which soon filled the tower, compelled the besieged to descend, half suffocated.7 They were all taken, and as they were being led away bound, the son of the Geoffroy whom William had killed, approached him, and with a knife ripped open his stomach.8

Wounded as he was, they tied him to a horse’s tail, and dragged him thus through the streets to the Tower, where he appeared before the archbishop, and, without any sort of trial, received sentence of death.

The same horse dragged him in the same manner to the place of execution.1 He was hanged with his nine companions; “and thus,” says an old historian, “perished William Longbeard, for having embraced the defence of the poor and of truth, if the cause makes the martyr, none may more justly than he be called a martyr.”2

This opinion was not that of one man only, but of all the people of London; who, though they had not had the energy to save their defender, at least wept for him after his death, and regarded as assassins the judges who had condemned him.

The gibbet on which he had been hanged was carried away in the night as a relic, and those who could not procure any part of the wood, collected pieces of the earth in which it had stood. So many came for this earth, that in a short time a large pit was formed on the place of execution.

People went there not only from the vicinity, but from all parts of the island, and no native Englishman failed to fulfil this patriotic pilgrimage when his affairs called him to London.3
...
Here should properly terminate the narrative of the national struggle which followed the conquest of England by the Normans; for the execution of William Longbeard is the last fact which the original authors positively connect with the conquest. That there were, at subsequent periods, other events impressed with the same character, and that William was not the last of the Saxons, are indubitable propositions, but the inexactitude of the chronicles, and the loss of ancient documents, leave us without any proofs on this subject, and reduce us, all at once, to inductions and conjectures.

The main task of the conscientious narrator, therefore, ends at this point; and there only remains for him to present, in a summary form, the ulterior destiny of the persons whom he has brought upon the stage, so that the reader may not remain in suspense.

And by the word personages, it is neither Richard, king of England, nor Philip, king of France, nor John, earl of Mortain, that is to be understood; but the great masses of men and the various populations who have simultaneously or successively figured in the preceding pages.

For the essential object of this history is to contemplate the destiny of peoples, and not that of certain celebrated men; to relate the adventures of social, and not those of individual life. Human sympathy may attach itself to entire populations, as to beings endowed with sentiment, whose existence, longer than our own, is filled with the same alternations of sorrow and of joy, of hope and of despair.

Considered in this light, the history of the past assumes somewhat of the interest which is felt in the present; for the collective beings of whom it treats have not ceased to live and to feel; they are the same who still suffer or hope under our own eyes. This is its most attractive feature; this it is that sweetens severe and arid study; that, in a word, would confer some value upon this work, if the author had succeeded in communicating to his readers those emotions which he himself experienced while seeking in old books names now obscure and misfortunes now forgotten.

One of the issues I have not covered due to the sensitive nature of the subject, is the introduction of
[ Think - Formation of the Federal Reserve ]

Jewish money lenders (Lombards) into England with the Conquest.

There is a very good reason the Lombard Jews came to England along with the William the Conqueror, He owed them a great deal of money. You see William borrowed tremendous sums from the Lombards for the invasion, leaving nothing to chance, failure was not an option. He made great proimises to everyone and anyone who would come fight with him (and I assume paid many up front ) . We've gone over all the ships and all the arms and the special weapons developed , these were not free.

So here is some documentation ...

569 -   Saxons accompanied the Lombards into Italy
772-804 - Saxon Wars - Saxons are conquered by Charlemagne in a long series of annual campaigns

927 - "Rolo"  Robert I - First Duke of Normandy under Charlemagne. - Rollo is great-great-great-grandfather of William the Conqueror. - ancestor of the present-day British royal family, as well as an ancestor of all current European monarchs - 'As Rollo's death drew near, he went mad and had a hundred Christian prisoners beheaded in front of him in honour of the gods whom he had worshipped


Detail of the Gundestrup cauldron. Scene of human sacrifice while armed men make ready for war. The ritual sacrifice is presumably associated with the God Teutatis.

1053 - Battle of Civitate: Normans Defeat Papal-Lombard Army, Capture the Pope  
1066 - Normans receive the blessings of the Lombard Pope Alexander II for the conquest of England.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/apology.htm

Apology for the Jews

By Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel— Manoel Dias Soeiro (1604–November 20, 1657), also known as Menasheh ben Yossef ben Yisrael and the Hebrew acronym, MB"Y. A Portuguese rabbi, kabbalist, scholar, writer, diplomat, printer and publisher, founder of the first Hebrew printing press (Emeth Meerets Titsma`h) in Amsterdam in 1626.

Introduction and Background

There is no evidence of Jews residing in England before the Norman Conquest.

William the Conqueror was financed by Jews expelled from Spain, and having secured the benevolent neutrality of Holy Roman emperor Henry IV and with solemn approval by Pope Alexander II, he invaded England in 1066 (Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p. 609).

He brought 2,600 Jews into England with him from Rouen (William of Malmesbury: Gesta Regum Anglorum, The History of the English Kings, p. 500). They were at first treated with special favour and allowed to amass considerable wealth, "They brought to England their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it . . ." (Footnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings (1960) p. 94).

They established the Exchequer and subsequently converted into a class of "royal usurers" so abhorrent to the English that in 1290 Edward I expelled them all, over 16,000 Jews, principally owing to the problem of usury. (See the trilogy of historian Sir Arthur Bryant, JCR-UK - Jewish Communities of the U.K., and jewishencyclopedia.com).

http://www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Ludovici/The_Jews_in_England_part3.html
The Jews,  and the Jews in England

by  Cobbett (Anthony Ludovici) Boswell Publishing Company, 1938
III.  History of the Jews in England

...

There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that William I was responsible for the influx of a large crowd of Jews into England. They came from Rouen, and the fact that he no doubt granted them extraordinary privileges, which were more or less extended to them by every monarch of the Norman and Plantagenet lines up to the time of Edward I, is most significant.

It indicates the explanation of a phenomenon otherwise inexplicable -- namely, that the crowned head of the land could have held under his protecting wing for over two centuries a community of foreigners who exploited the people often quite intolerably, and who never pretended to have another qualification for their sojourn in the country than precisely this function of exploiting the people.
...

Although we cannot discover many details about the Jews under William I, except that they were plentiful, that they helped to fill the royal treasury and diverted much of the odium that would otherwise have fallen on the king and his chief officers, we are justified in inferring from the conduct of the subsequent monarchs towards the Jews, and their functions in the state, that what the Jews did and how they were treated in the 12th and 13th centuries more or less followed the precedents first established by the Conqueror.

What, then, was the function of the Jews and what was their relationship to the sovereign?

There is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the Jews of the late eleventh century in England were chiefly occupied with moneylending, and probably generally fulfilling the function of middlemen capitalists, some centuries before capitalism became a reality in the land. In addition to lending out money at interest, they therefore probably bought and sold as wholesalers, and it is also not unlikely that they may even have cornered markets in certain commodities.

They had the coin, they had the financial knowledge and experience, they were alone in the field (because the laws of the Church forbade usury to Christians), they had the protection of the most powerful in the realm, and, above all, they enjoyed extraordinary privileges.

None, however, but an invading and victorious dynasty, feeling itself still a stranger in the land and conscious of no traditional ties to its inhabitants, could ever have dropped such a cloud of harpies upon the country without considering that it was violating a duty and a trust.

And what were the privileges granted by the Norman and early Plantagenet monarchs to the Jews, and probably originally suggested by the Conqueror’s own treatment of them?

They were, by law, permitted to charge a very high rate of interest for their loans. Twopence per £1 per week -- i.e., 40 per cent to 50 per cent per annum -- was quite common. [5] And Abrahams tells us that "loans were freely contracted which accumulated at 50 per cent". [6]

They were allowed to claim redress if molested, hold lands in pledge until redeemed, probably excused all customs, tolls, etc., [7] and permitted to buy anything except Church property. They had the right to be tried by their peers and, what was most extraordinary, a Jew’s oath was held to be valid against that of twelve Christians.

In return for these exceptional privileges, the king levied a tax on all their transactions, sometimes resorted to direct demands on money from them, and, in addition, often accepted money from their debtors, in order to use his influence on the latter’s behalf. [8] Thus he derived a double profit from the activities of the Jews.
...

http://www.britainexpress.com/History/medieval/expulson-jews.htm

The Edict of Expulsion  Enacted 1290
...
In the years following the Conquest of 1066 the Jews were an important part of Norman English society. The nobility of England were constantly in need of money, and as a result, they borrowed heavily from Jewish moneylenders. William the Conqueror recognized the importance of the Jewish moneylenders to Norman society, and offered them special protection under law.

Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the king, not subjects of their local feudal lord. Because of this special status, however, English kings saw the Jewish moneylenders as a convenient source of funds. The king could levy taxes against Jews without needing the prior approval of Parliament. So when a king needed money - as they often did - he could simply levy a special tax on the Jews. This system would work as long as the Jews were allowed to accumulate money, but that was about to change.


[ By the time of the edict of 1290 - The English Kings no longer felt they "Owed" the Lombard Jews anything and moved to kick them out...  But note that the Jews in England were the King's property and no one else was to harm them but him. ]

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/sephard.htm

http://www.wingtv.net/secretempire1.html


Sephardim
These quotes taken from The Secret Empire by Cushman Cunningham illustrate how the Sephardim have intermarried with the Canaanites, Philistines and Perizzites. This book provides a thorough, easy to read overview of the hidden hand behind the major events of the past two thousand years.
...

Several centuries later the Jewish banking system secretly financed (and helped to organize several major events which changed the direction of world history). They organized and financed the Moorish invasion of Spain in AD 711, which destroyed the Visigothic Empire, and this reshuffled the power alignments of all of western Europe. It also made the Mediterranean for a time an Islamic lake, and ignited forces which led to the Renaissance and the supremacy of Lombard bankers in northern Italy.

The Sephardic Jewish bankers also financed (and thus made possible) the invasion of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror.

More:

http://dunhamwilcox.net/me/me_bio_phinney.htm
 It is said that the Lombard family trace back to the time of William the Conqueror and by history of undoubted creditability to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy, who finally dispersed, settling in Germany, France and elsewhere.

Rudolph de Lambert (French spelling), of Normany, France, went to England with William the Conqueror as his knight of arms, and from his son Hugh all of the name of England and America are said to be descended.

Genealogical and personal memoirs relating to the families of ..., Volume 2
...
The Lambert family can LAMBERT trace its descent from high antiquity and can go back with all the certainty of written records to the time of William the Conqueror, in the eleventh century, and by history of undoubted credibility to the kingdom of the Lombards in Italy.

That such was the origin of the family cannot be doubted, for were there no proofs of it in the records of heraldry, the name itself would indicate such to be the fact (according to the ancient orthography), as it was formerly spelled Lombard. This spelling some branches of the family still retain.

The earliest accounts of the Lombards indicate that they were a roving clan from Scandinavia (Norway), that they settled and lived for a time in Vindili (in Germany), until attracted by the fine plains of Modena they quit their mountain fastnesses and took possession of and founded one of the most powerful states in Italy.

The significance of the name Lombard in their language was "long beard," as history informs us that the members of this clan parted their hair and suffered it to grow to whatever length it might attain; and from this circumstance the ancient state in which they established themselves took its name.

When William the Conqueror invaded England he took with him Rodolph de Lambert, as his armor bearer or knight at arms. His name appears to indicate that his family was from Lombardy, as the "de" signifies "from" or "of."

It appears by English heraldry that Rodolph de Lambert had a family in Normandy, previous to his going into England: "Of this ancient family of Norman French extraction, one branch settled in Bologna in Italy, and has always been considered one of the most illustrious in that place.
...

http://www.statuscapital.co.za/about-status-capital/history-of-collateral-pledging
History of Collateral Pledging
...
In England the pawnshop came in with William the Conqueror, with an Italian name, Lombard.
...
Symbol of pawn brokers.



The pawnbroker's symbol is three spheres suspended from a bar.

The three sphere symbol is attributed to the Medici Family of Florence, Italy, owing to its symbolic meaning of Lombard. This refers to the Italian province of Lombardy, where pawn shop banking originated under the name of Lombard banking.

The three golden spheres were originally the symbol which medieval Lombard merchants hung in front of their houses, and not the arms of the Medici family. It has been conjectured that the golden spheres were originally three flat yellow effigies of bezants, or gold coins, laid heraldically upon a sable field, but that they were converted into spheres to better attract attention.

Most European towns called the pawn shop the "Lombard". The House of Lombard was a banking family in medieval London, England.

see: The Hidden History of Money and Feudal Order Usury Secrets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards


Lombard domination at its greatest extent under Aistulf and Desiderius, ca. 750–785.


Italy around the turn of the millennium, showing the Lombard states in the south on the eve of the arrival of the Normans

http://chefwalter.blog.com/2011/06/25/history-of-italian-jews/
History of Italian Jews
...
During the first Dark Ages there were flourishing communities of Jews in Rome, Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Messina, Agrigento, and in Sardinia.
 
When Italy came into the possession of the Lombard’s, Jews lived in peace in the territories under their rule. Even after the Lombard’s embraced Catholicism Jews were not persecuted. Pope Gregory I treated them with much consideration.

Under succeeding popes the condition of the Jews did not grow worse; and the same was the case in the several smaller states into which Italy was divided.
 
Under Norman rule the Jews of southern Italy and of Sicily enjoyed a great freedom.
 
When Benjamin of Tudela visited the country between 1160 and 1165 he found large communities “old of centuries” on his route. First he visited Genoa, Pisa and Lucca. From other sources we know that at that time Jews lived also in other towns of the North (Aquileia, Ferrara, Mantua, and Padua).

| - - - -

http://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/pre-1290/background.htm
...
Exchequer of the Jews – (Also know as Scaccarium Judaeorum), a branch of the Royal Exchequer in England from about 1194 to 1290, set up to supervise the affairs of the Jews, and presided over by Royal Wardens (or Justices) of the Jews specially appointed.  

The establishment of the Exchequer was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in 1194.  Initially, its principal function was to act as the central authority supervising the system of archae that had been instituted throughout the kingdom, but it developed into something an institution far more important than originally planned, evolving certain judicial functions.  Initially, the Wardens of the Jews (who were Christians) worked in collaboration with a Jewish representation.  From about 1199, the was no Jewish representative, and the office of Arch-Presbyter (or Presbyter Judaeorum) emerged.

Archa (plural Archae)– An official chest, provided with three locks and seals, in which a counterpart of all deeds and contracts involving Jews was to be deposited in order to preserve the records.  

The introduction of archae was part of the reorganization of English Jewry ordered by King Richard I in light of the massacres of Jews that took place in 1189-1190 at, and shortly following, his coronation, and which had resulted in a heavy lose of Crown revenue partly as a result of Jewish financial records being destroyed by the murderous mob (in order to conceal evidence of debts due to the Jews).  

The archae were intended to safeguard the royal rights in case of future disorder.  All Jewish possessions and credits were to be registered and certain cities were designated to serve as the centres for all future Jewish business operations and the registration of Jewish financial transactions, each such city having an archa.  

In each centre, a bureau was set up consisting of two reputable Jews and two Christian clerks, under the supervision of a representative of the newly established central authority that became known as the Exchequer of the Jews.

...
Finally, on July 18, 1290 (which corresponded in the Jewish calendar to 9th of Av, the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples as well as other tragedies that befell the Jewish nation), all Jews were ordered to leave the kingdom before All Saints Day (November 1) of that year.  They could carry with them their movable property.  

Their homes were generally escheated to the Crown and the debts owed to the Jews became collectable by Edward (principal only), which amounted to nine thousand pounds.

 Most of the Jews made their way to France (only to be expelled in 1306), but about ten per cent went to Flanders.

( Notice this coincides with the end of the Templars in 1308  )

THANKS!!!

BRILLIANT!!!

I've made this same argument for years, and have long realized the centralized English state organized by Alfred the Great to reconquer England from the heathen horde (these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjbytaH1oW8  (can you imagine sweet and innocent little English kids having to grow up listening to this crap?)) made England easy pickings for Billy the Bastard, whose statist thinking was crafted after that of Big Chucky (this jerk:


Charlemagne by Albrecht Dürer

), whose invasion of the German land of Lower Saxony (which the English called "Old Saxony")  in AD773 invited retaliation from the English in the form of an invasion of the Frankish heartland, to which Big Chucky responded by burning down the Scola Anglorum (School of the English) in Rome, which he was visiting at the time.

More later, as I intend to get into the ancient roots of the Second Amendment, and it's  a lot of work.

bump - Aj mentioned "Harrying the north"  and scorched earth policy - today

1069-70 - Harrying of the North - subjugation of Northern England (Yorkshire) - death toll over 100,000 - scorched earth policy

Plus King William "Salted the Earth"

http://www.helium.com/items/2245200-the-aftermath-of-the-norman-conquest-of-england-and-its-effect-on-the-english-language
...
His cruelest campaign was the Harrying of the North.  In order to pacify the region, William laid waste to the land, and salted the earth so that no crops would grow, and it is estimated that 100,000 people died of starvation as a consequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth

Salting the earth, or sowing with salt, is the ritual of spreading salt on conquered cities to symbolize a curse on its re-inhabitation.[1][2]

It originated as a practice in the ancient Near East and became a well-established folkloric motif in the Middle Ages

When Pope Boniface VIII destroyed Palestrina in 1299, he ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa", and also salted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestrina
...
In 1297 the Sciarrillo di Colonna family, who had owned Praeneste (by then called Palestrina) from the eleventh century as a fief, revolted from the pope. In the following year the town was taken by Papal forces, razed to the ground and salted by order of Pope Boniface VIII.

see:  http://one-evil.org/people/people_13c_Boniface_VIII.htm

Of open depravity associated with cannibalism, sex and murder: (1294 – 1303 CE) That Pope Boniface VIII did open St Peters Church to regular acts of sexual orgies, ritualistic murder of children and cannibalism in the celebration of High Mass of Satanism of Christianity

In 1066 - King William creates the various "Rapes" in sussex: Think of the U.S. "Regions" today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_(county_subdivision)

At the time of the Norman Conquest there were four rapes: Arundel, Lewes, Pevensey and Hastings.

The rape of Arundel consisted of the entire area of Sussex west of the River Adur, corresponding to the boundaries of both the western division of the church in Sussex (the forerunner to the archdeaconry of Chichester)[6][7]

and the boundaries of the traditional western area of the Sussex dialect.[6]

By the time of the Domesday Book, William the Conqueror had created the rape of Bramber as an afterthought out of parts of the Arundel and Lewes rapes, so that the Adur estuary could be better defended.

A rape was a traditional sub-division of the county of Sussex in England. Their origin is unknown, but they appear to predate the Norman Conquest.[1]

Each rape was split into several hundreds.

The rapes may derive from the system of fortifications devised by Alfred the Great in the late ninth century to defeat the Vikings.[2]

Alternatively, King Alfred's system may in turn have its roots in an earlier age. If so, the Sussex Rapes, like the Kentish Lathes, go back to the dawn of English history when their main function would have been to provide food-rents and military manpower to the king
...
Under the Normans each traditional rape was now centred on a castle

Sir Henry Ellis's observation that the rapes "were military districts for the supply of the castles which existed in each" applied to the Anglo-Norman period[17]

Each rape had a single sheriff and ran as a strip, north-south, from the Surrey/Kent border to the English Channel. The castles of Arundel, Bramber and Lewes were sited on positions overlooking the rivers Arun, Adur and Ouse respectively, while those at Chichester, Hastings and Pevensey overlooked the coast. This formation was a creation of William I of England, presumably designed to protect routes to Normandy.

Prior to the Normans and the Bastard William , there was the Bastard Julius Caesar and his NWO Roman Empire...

This led to the subjugation of the Gauls for 500 years.
Think of Stalin/Mao - 50 years and a generation in the USSR and Eastern Europe is enslaved and subjected to a yoke of tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
The only known fact is that each man in Caesar's legions received a Gaul as a slave, which means at least 40,000 prisoners,

http://allthingsd.com/20091223/project-alesia-news-corp-s-roman-battle-cry-does-that-cast-googlers-as-the-gauls/





Taking place in September 52 BC in what is now France, the Siege of Alesia (also referred to as the Battle of Alesia) pitted Rome’s famed leader, Julius Caesar, against the Gallic tribes under the unified command of Vercingétorix of Averni.

More important–besides being cited as one of the best uses of siege warfare and “circumvallation” (see more about this below)–the battle of Alesia is considered a turning point in the bitter wars conducted by the Roman Republic to tame the Gauls, who had finally united as a single force in opposition to the Roman invasion.

The hard-fought win–in a battle where the Roman army was outnumbered five-to-one, outside a hilltop fort in Alesia–is often credited with reinvigorating Rome’s power over Gaul. After the loss, Gaul became a province of the Roman empire and was pretty much subdued for the next 500 years.

Alesia is often cited as one of Caesar’s greatest military victories and the fallout from it later led to his ascension to ultimate power in Rome (which was soon followed by his infamous assassination).

AJ mention the Norman Conquest today...

Again tech. advantage to subdue the population or army:

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi312.htm
The stirrup was made a weapon of war in 8th-century France. It created mounted combat by fixing a rider firmly on his horse. By 1066, horse cavalry was a way of life in Europe, but it hadn't made a dent in isolated England. For years Saxons turned back Viking raids with swords, spears, battle-axes, and stone missiles. They first faced armored cavalry on a hill near Hastings when William the Conqueror claimed the English crown.
...

http://www.dibonsmith.com/stirrup.pdf
The Stirrup as a Revolutionary Device
...
The stirrup. And the moment of the adoption of the stirrup can be traced through
archaeology: “... that date may be placed in the first part of the eighth century, that is, in
the time of Charles Martel.” 7

Professor White argued that Charles Martel quickly saw the military advantages of a
heavily armoured horseman, equipped with lance and shield. Before the introduction of
the stirrup this iron-clad chevalier would have been useless, for the unwieldy nature of
the heavy armour would have prevented the knight frommanoeuvring his steed, and once
struck, the rider would be easily toppled, rendering him helpless.

The stirrup provided the fulcrum, the pivot point of all the charging weight of man and horse, to be delivered through the point of a horizontally poised spear. Thus man, horse and lance became one
unit, one extremely efficient weapon, and the stirrup made it all possible.

Charles Martel turned his new weapon on the enemies of his Frankish kingdom, and
later William would bring the stirrup to Hastings, with great success.

Thus, Professor White attributed great feats of accomplishment to the mail-clad
knight on his stirrupped war horse, making him eventually ‘master of Europe’.

Here is a good description of what is happening (NWO-Feudalism):

http://www.searchformecca.com/downloads/easternoroldworl02browuoft.pdf
THE EASTERN, OR OLD WORLD: EMBRACING ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY
HENRY HOWARD BROWNELL, A. M.
VOL. II. 1857
...

140 -

It may be remarked that the Norman conquest had made it little difference in the laws of England, or in the constitution of courts.

The principal changes were the transfer of nearly all landed estates to the new comers;
the enlargement of the feudal system;
the change in the church government; and
the separation of the spiritual from the civil jurisdiction.

The feudal system, the origin of which has been variously deduced from the Roman and Celtic customs, was of a complicated a extended nature ; but, in general, the effect was to render all land holders dependent upon the higher classes, and make them liable service in war, and various duties in time of peace.

The great barons holding lands of the king, received the feudal homage of the knights, and they, in their turn, of the yeomen and others who held under them.
...

Example Ted Turner - NWO Feudal Baron:

Land Value Taxation: Rebuttals to Common Objections

http://www.tedturner.com/ranches.asp


With approximately two million acres of personal and ranch land, Ted Turner is the second largest individual landholder in North America

2,000,000 acre = 3125 mi²

Yes 3000 square miles of land.... and his pal Malone has another 3000 sq miles in tow....

http://www.landreport.com/americas-100-largest-landowners/
No. 1 John Malone 2,200,000 acres

John Malone, the 70-year-old chairman of Liberty Media, is famously reticent when it comes to discussing his business life. There is, however, one subject that makes the Denver businessman open up: his personal land holdings.

Recently, he’s had a lot more to talk about. In 2011, Malone became the largest private landowner in the U.S., wresting the top spot on The Land Report 100 from his friend and longtime business partner, Ted Turner.

...

THE FULL LIST: AMERICA’S TOP 100 LANDOWNERS 2011
 1.John Malone
 2.Ted Turner
 3.Archie Aldis Emmerson
 4.Brad Kelley
 5.Irving Family
 6.Singleton Family
 7.King Ranch Heirs
 8.Pingree Heirs
 9.Reed Family
 10.Stan Kroenke
 11.Ford Family
...

Bowing to the feudal rulers:

Ted Turner says "I think it's good US troops are killing themselves?"


Also Elite zip codes:

Coming Apart - Super Elite Zip Codes

...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/west-side-v-east-side-manhattan-zip-codes-top-contributors-obama-and-romney
West Side v. East Side: Manhattan Zip Codes Top Contributors to Obama and Romney
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 3, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - There is a distinct geographical location that exceeds all others for the money its residents have contributed to the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is Manhattan.
 
Five of the Top Ten zip codes contributing cash to the reelection campaign of incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama are in Manhattan, according to calculations made by OpenSecrets.org. So, too, are five of the Top Ten zip codes contributing to Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
...
Three of the top four zip codes contributing to Obama—10023, 10024 and 10025—are stacked one above the other on the West Side of Central Park.  The fourth—10011—is in the Chelsea district further downtown.
 
The five Manhattan zip codes among Romney’s top contributors—10022,10065,10021,10028,10128—start below Central Park at East 49th Street and then run up the East Side of the park to East 96th Street.
 
The other five zip codes in Romney’s Top Ten include two in Greenwich, Conn., one in New Canaan, Conn., one in Houston, Texas and one in Palm Beach, Fla.

______________________________Contributions
 
Obama’s Top Zip Codes
 
10024 New York..................................$1,391,238
10023 New York..................................$1,204,751
10011 New York..................................$1,202,087
10025 New York..................................$1,072,037
60614 Chicago....................................$1,045,589
20008 Washington, D.C.......................$1,032,636
20016 Washington, D.C..........................$978,729
20815 Chevy Chase, Md.........................$966,292
02138 Cambridge, Mass..........................$920,650
10021 New York.....................................$868,542
 
Romney’s Top Zip Codes
 
10021 New York..................................$1,248,194
06830 Greenwich, Conn.......................$1,189,788       (Illuminati land)
06840 New Canaan, Conn....................$1,080,698       (Illuminati land)
77024 Houston, Tex...............................$976,431
33480 Palm Beach, Fla............................$967,901
10065 New York, N.Y..............................$940,261
06831 Greenwich, Conn..........................$922,632       (Illuminati land)
10128 New York.....................................$917,457
10022 New York.....................................$904,295
10028 New York.....................................$879,777

| - - - - -

A once Loyal Old guard noble Elites are eventually replaced by NWO elites:

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/NormanConquest/a/The-Consequences-Of-The-Norman-Conquest.htm
The Consequences of the Norman Conquest
By Robert Wilde
...
• Anglo-Saxon elites, the largest landholders in England, were replaced by Franco-Normans.

Those Anglo-Saxons nobles who had survived the battles of 1066 had the chance to serve William and retain power and land, but many rebelled over contentious issues, and soon William had turned away from compromise to importing loyal men from the continent.

By William’s death, the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy was all but replaced. In the Domesday book of 1086, there are only four large English landowners. However, there may only have been around 25,000 Franco-Normans out of a population of two million when William died.
...
Royal forests, with their own laws, were created
...
Higher taxes: most monarchs are criticised for heavy taxes, and William I was no exception. But he had to raise funds for the occupation and pacification of England.

Prior to the Conquest in 1040 - The Danes ruled Angl-land - But now Emma's (a Norman princess ) Danish son now ruled:
...

History of the conquest of England by the Normans [tr. by C.C. Hamilton].

On the death of Harald, the Anglo-Saxons, who still had not sufficient courage to choose a king of their own race, concurred with the Danes in electing the son of Emma and Canute. 1-1

The first public act of Hardicanute, after his accession, was to command the disinterment of the body of Harald, and that, after cutting off the head, his body should be thrown into the Thames.

It was found by some Danish fishermen, who buried it a second time at London, in the cemetery reserved for those of their nation; who wished to be distinguished from the English even in their sepulchres.14 After this act of revenge and barbarity committed towards a dead brother,

Hardicanute, the new king, made a display of fraternal regret and affliction, by instituting a solemn judicial inquiry into the death of Alfred. Himself being a Dane, no one of the Danish race was summoned by his order to appear before the court; the Anglo-Saxons alone were charged with a crime which could have been profitable only to there masters(A.D. 1040.)

Godwin, whose power and whose designs were an object of fear and suspicion, was the first to be arraigned ; he appeared, and, according to the usages of the Anglo-Saxon laws, was accompanied by a great number of his kinsmen, friends, and witnesses in the cause, who, like himself, swore that he had taken no part, directly or indirectly, in the death of the son of Ethelred. This legal proof did not suffice with a king of foreign birth, and to render it valid it was necessary for the English chief to accompany it with rich presents, the detail of which, if not fabulous, would incline us to believe that the Saxon was assisted by many of his countrymen in purchasing the relinquishment of this prosecution, instituted in bad faith.

Godwin gave the Danish king a ship adorned with gilt metal, and carrying eighty soldiers with gilded helmets, who bore a gilt ax on the left shoulder, a javelin in the right hand, and on each arm a gold bracelet weighing six ounces.1 A Saxon bishop, named Leofwin, who was likewise accused of having abetted the son of Ulfnoth in his alleged treachery, purchased in like manner his acquittal by a recourse to present*.8
 
In general Hardicanute showed, with respect to the vanquished people, less of cruelty than of avarice: his avidity surpassed even that of the piratical adventurers who were his forefathers.

He oppressed England with tributes and his tax gatherers more than once fell victims to the hatred and despair which they excited.

The citizens of Worcester killed two of them who were exercising their odious functions. So soon as the report of this murder was carried to the Danish authorities, two chiefs of that nation, Leofrik and Siward, the former of whom commanded in Murcia and the other in Northumbria, united their forces, and marched against the rebellious city, having orders to destroy it by fire and sword.

The inhabitants left their houses in a body, and fled to one of the islands formed by the Severn, where they entrenched themselves, and resisted until they wearied the assailants, who left them at liberty to return, without further molestation, to their habitations that had been set on fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Atheling

Alfred Atheling or Aetheling was the son of Aethelred II and his second wife Emma of Normandy. He was a brother of Edward the Confessor. King Canute became their stepfather when he married Aethelred's widow. He and his brother were caught in the power struggles at the start and end of Canute's reign.
 
After Aethelred's death in 1016, Edward and Alfred went into exile in Normandy in the court of Duke Robert of Normandy, and there is some evidence of a plot by Duke Robert to invade England on their behalf.[1] In 1036 or 1037, following Canute's death, he came to England to visit his mother. He was arrested. His followers were sent away and some of them killed. He was then blinded, and taken to Ely, where he soon died

| - - --
Sweyn Forkbeard - (Old Norse: Sveinn Tjúguskegg; d. 3 February 1014) was king of Denmark and England, as well as parts of Norway. His name appears as Swegen in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.[1] He was the son of King Harald Bluetooth of Denmark. He was the father of Cnut the Great.
...
After a long effort at conquest, and shortly before his death, in 1013 he became the first of the Danish Kings of England.

His son Cnut and grandsons Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut ruled England for 26 years. After Harthacnut's death, the English throne reverted to the House of Wessex.

Sweyn's descendants through his daughter Estrid continue to rule Denmark to this day.

One of his descendants, Margaret of Denmark, married James III of Scotland, introducing Sweyn's bloodline into the Scottish Royal blood line. After James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne in 1603, Sweyn's ancestry was introduced into the English royal bloodline as well.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/god-given-unalienable-rights-individual-sovereignty/
God-given “unalienable Rights” = Individual Sovereignty

 recently received the following email:

Hi Alfred,

I was just reading your post on the difference between “unalienable” and “inalienable”. I found it quite interesting.

I was also reading an article about President Obama omitting “Creator” when quoting the Declaration ( http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237349 ) when I noticed that he repeatedly uses “inalienable”. The omission of the one word and the incorrect usage of the other in numerous instances can only be intentional. He’s very consistent about it. I was curious about your thoughts on this.

Matt

| - - - -

In the context of American history, the terms “Creator” and “unalienable Rights” appear first and most famously in our “Declaration of Independence” of July 4th, A.D. 1776. There, in its second sentence, the Declaration offers the single most radical statement of truth in at least 2,000 years of Western political thought:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Prior to our Declaration, the nations of the western world were governed by monarchies where only one man—the king—was deemed to be sovereign. The king was sovereign because he, and he alone, was deemed to have been directly endowed by the God of the Bible (the earthly king’s “Creator”) with the “divine right of kings”. That endowment of God-given rights did not attach as a result of an election or human appointment. That endowment attached as the result of a “coronation ceremony” that took place in the highest church within the nation.

The king would wear a crown of gold and jewels which was intended to symbolize the glittering “corona” seen around the heads of the Christ and saints in medieval paintings. The crown didn’t simply represent the king’s secular or political authority; it represented his spiritual authority. Because the king, and only the king, got his rights directly from God, the king had a special spiritual status (sovereignty) that no other man living in that kingdom could match.

We can see some confirmation of these observations in the rules of chess and the design of classic chess pieces. In the classic chess piece design, the king alone has a cross on the top of his crown. That cross symbolizes that the king is directly “endowed by his Creator” with the “divine right of kings” and is therefore sovereign.

Under the rules of chess, you can “kill” (remove from the chess board of “life”) all of the other pieces. If an opponent lands on a pawn, knight, bishop, rook or queen, that piece is effectively “killed” and removed from the board. But the opponent can never “kill” the king. You can checkmate the king by putting him in circumstances where he is both threatened with “death” and unable to move to another, safer location. You can even accidentally put the king in a circumstance where he is not “in check” (being directly threatened) but can’t move without moving into “check” (death).

The king, and king alone, had the “divine right of kings”—which included an unalienable Right to Life. You could capture a chess king, but you could never, never, lawfully “kill” him.

The king in a monarchy enjoyed the “divine right of kings” because the source of his rights was “divine”; i.e., the God of the Bible. He was sovereign because he alone received his rights directly from God.

All else were subjects because they did not receive their rights directly from their Creator/God.

Get that?

I cannot overemphasize the significance of God-given rights. Those who have rights given them directly by God are sovereigns. Those who do not have such rights are subjects.

So far as I am currently able to understand, the attribute of God-given rights goes to the very heart of our spiritual struggle with tyranny in general and our current government, in particular. This attribute explains why President Obama refuses to mention our “Creator” or “unalienable Rights”. It explains why modern government has twisted the “separation of church and state” from a concept designed to protect the church from the “state” to a principle designed to protect the “state” from the church.

Obama and our current government do not serve the God of the Bible, but they truly “fear” Him in that they don’t want the American people to regain their memory of this nation’s spiritual foundation. That spiritual—not political, spiritual—foundation is found in that second sentence of the “Declaration of Independence” which, again, declares:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It may seem odd to some that I’m repeating myself; that I’m again offering the text of the second sentence of the Declaration. But I might reproduce that sentence a third time in this article—or maybe four or five times. Why? Because once you really grasp the spiritual significance of that single, 35-word sentence, you will have taken the first, concrete step towards regaining your Liberty and reducing the size and power of our current government.

You might not think so just yet but, in truth, you can’t get enough of the Declaration’s second sentence. It’s that important.

Why?

Because the “divine right of kings” found in monarchies and bestowed on just one man or woman per nation, corresponds to the “unalienable Rights” with which, under our Declaration, “all men” are “endowed by their Creator”. The God-given, “unalienable Rights” elevated you and me from the status of subjects to the status of sovereigns.

As subjects (without rights from our Father YHWH Elohiym), we must obey any and every rule, regulation, law and arbitrary decree of government.

As sovereigns (endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights), the government has only those limited powers over us which we (as individual sovereigns) granted to the government in our state and federal constitutions. Otherwise, government can’t lay a glove on us—unless we have injured or damaged another sovereign and that sovereign invokes both the powers of our servants (the government) and a jury of our peers (co-sovereigns) to decide what punishment, if any, should be imposed upon the defendant-sovereign.

There is no Liberty without the unalienable Rights. There are no unalienable Rights except through the God of the Bible. Ergo, there is no Liberty without God.

If you’re a satanist or an atheist, you’re screwed. You have no hope of Liberty. You will necessarily be a subject all of your life. By your choice to eschew the “unalienable Rights” given by the God of the Bible, you will have chosen to abandon any hope of ever being free. You will be a life-long subject in a secular world where might (not God) makes right.

There is no other political or spiritual ground for claiming your unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (freedom of religion)–except the God of the Bible. If you’re unable or unwilling to claim the unalienable Rights granted by the God of the Bible, you’ll will live your life as a slave. If your choice of faith denies the God of the Bible, you will live your life as a slave.

The “land of the free” cannot exist without the God of the Bible.

Which is exactly why President Obama and others of his ilk insist on trying to eradicate the people’s memory of the spiritual foundation for this country by not expressly referencing our “Creator” or “unalienable Rights”.

What is that spiritual foundation?

Again, for the third time (I’m shameless), that spiritual foundation includes the second sentence of the Declaration:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But that spiritual foundation also includes the correlative third sentence of the Declaration:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Read the first half of that third sentence (“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, . . . .”). What’s it mean?

It means that the primary purpose of government as envisioned by our Founders was to “secure” to each and every man, woman and even unborn child, their God-given, unalienable Rights. Even if we were too ignorant, lazy or incapacitated to know what our God-given, unalienable Rights were, our government was supposed to nevertheless “secure” those rights.

For example, under the Declaration it’s clear that our God-given, unalienable Rights attach as an attribute of a creation—not as an attribute of our “birth” (as found in the 14th Amendment).

There is passage in the book of Jeremiah where our Father YHWH Elohiym declares that He knew Jeremiah long before Jeremiah was even in his mother’s womb.

Implication? We were created by our Creator long before we were conceived by the joinder of a sperm and ovum in our mother’s womb. Thus, our unalienable Rights may have attached to us before we were even “conceived” in this life.

But even if our creation did not precede our conception, our creation is certainly no later than our conception. Thus, under the Declaration, even the unborn have the God-given, unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Under the Declaration, abortion is an abomination, a criminal act committed against an (unborn) sovereign.

On the other hand, under the 14th Amendment of A.D. 1868 (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”), our civil rights do not attach until we are “born”.

Result? It’s legal to abort the unborn because they are not deemed to have yet received their civil (secular/political) right to life.

Under the Declaration of A.D. 1776, our unalienable Right to Life attaches as an attribute of our creation and therefore abortion would be illegal. I.e, because the government’s primary duty is to “secure” the unalienable Rights to all, the government would have to prevent abortion even though the unborn was too ignorant and weak to claim its own right to life.

Similarly, under the two principles of the Declaration (1—we receive our most important rights from God; and 2—government’s primary duty is to secure those God-given rights), our government is obligated to secure our God-given rights even if we are too dumb, lazy, ignorant or apathetic to secure them for ourselves. This obligation probably underlies the term “land of the free” in that our government was obligated to secure our rights even if we didn’t know how to do it ourselves.

Today, the situation is much reversed. Government will not secure any of our rights unless we are 1) sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable and forceful to compel government to do so; or 2) sufficiently wealthy to afford to hire a very high quality lawyer.

Today, if you want any rights you must fight for them. Insofar as our nation has forgotten our foundation principle (that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights), we have become subject to the principle of might makes right. In today’s system, if you’re strong enough, smart enough, rich enough or corrupt enough, you can “have it all”. If you’re not that strong, smart, rich or corrupt, you’ll be a subject/victim or, at best, a victim-in-waiting.

The persistent omissions by President Obama that Matt described in his email tell me that references to our “Creator” and our “unalienable Rights” strike fear into the gov-co’s heart. These persistent omissions confirm an observation I’ve understood with increasing clarity for at least 15 years: at bottom, our struggle for liberty and against tyranny is not a secular or political conflict—it is a manifestation of a spiritual war that’s been ongoing for several thousands of years.

President Obama is no dummy. If ordinary men fail to mention the “Creator” or “unalienable Rights,” we might dismiss those failures as a consequence of laziness, ignorance, or low intellect. However, Obama’s persistent refusal to recognize the “Creator” and/or “unalienable Rights” tells me that he understands the spiritual war and isn’t about to remind people of their God-given, unalienable Rights.

Obama surely recognizes the spiritual war and is working for the the “other side”. (What a damnable fool, hmm?) That is, he wants to strip this country of its spiritual foundation. He is arguably a Muslim, an atheist, or perhaps even a satanist. But, whatever he is, he is certainly not cut from the Protestant faith that laid this country’s foundations.

I have to admit that while I disagree with Obama on most things, I admire his intellectual integrity in this matter. He might be an atheist or a satanist or whatever, but he will not (so far) lie about the people’s relationship to the God of the Bible. I.e., it would be easy for him to refer to our “Creator” or our “unalienable Rights” at appropriate times—and thereby avoid public controversy, while—in the background—he was secretly working to remove those spiritual concepts and values from our nation’s foundation.

Curiously, President Obama instead appears too honest to expressly refer to our “Creator” and/or our God-given, “unalienable Rights” even while he’s working to hide or destroy those concepts. (Perhaps demons, empowered to lie about almost everything, still can’t lie about our Father YHWH Elohiym, hmm?)

In any case, Obama’s persistent refusal to reference our “Creator” and/or “unalienable Rights” confirms 1) my growing awareness over the past 15 years of ongoing spiritual warfare; and 2) the need to learn and rely on the weapons of spiritual warfare in our struggle against our government’s growing tyranny. I therefore want to do whatever I can to understand and properly claim my God-given, “unalienable Rights”.

For the moment, I believe the key to claiming and enforcing our God-given, unalienable Rights may be the 9th Amendment which declares:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the the people.”

There can be no denial that the unalienable Rights declared in our Declaration in A.D. 1776 were recognized by the government when the Bill of Rights was ratified in A.D. 1791.

For more insight, read the relevant sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States of A.D. 1875 (see, Statutes at Large, 43rd Congress, 1st Session, Volume 18, Part 1 A.D. 1873 starting with “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=16) and read/copy the following 56 pages.

Note the name: “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”—not “THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES”. The organic law of the “United States” (federal government) is The Constitution of the United States. However, that Constitution (plus three other documents) comprise The Organic Law of The United States of America.

Implication? The “United States” is merely a component or agency of The United States of America.

The 56 pages of Statutes at Large are evidence that The Organic Law of The United States of America includes four documents: 1) “Declaration of Independence” (A.D. 1776); 2) Articles of Confederation (A.D. 1781); 3) Northwest Ordinance (A.D. 1787); and 4) The Constitution of the United States (ratified by the People in A.D. 1789).

There is no indication in these 56 pages that any one of the first three documents were repealed by the last document (the Constitution). The “Declaration of Independence” is every bit as much the LAW today as is the Constitution.

Thus, properly argued and supported by evidence, I have a constitutionally-secured right to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the Declaration.

Therefore, I conclude that my remedy against much of the tyranny of this government will depend on my ability to prove that:

1) I am a man made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28;

2) That the Declaration of Independence is part of The Organic Law of The United States of America;

3) I am therefore declared by law (the “Declaration“) to be endowed by my Creator with “certain unalienable Rights”;

4) I am one of the “people” of one of the States of the Union;

5) The 9th Amendment to the Constitution compels the federal government to recognize my God-given, unalienable Rights; and then,

6) Under the 9th Amendment, the courts/government are obligated to recognize and perhaps even “secure” my God-given, unalienable Rights.
I am convinced that the God-given, unalienable Rights are the spiritual/political foundation for the people of The United States of America to be recognized as individual sovereigns. Therefore, if—under the 9th Amendment—I can compel gov-co to recognize any of my “unalienable Rights,” I may be able to compel gov-co to recognize me as an individual sovereign.

That recognition as “sovereign” is the “holy grail” of the legal reform movement. IF you can cause the gov-co to recognize you as an individual sovereign, you will have achieved real Liberty and as high a political stature as is available to any living man.

Written at arm’s length without the United States, by

Alfred Adask