Scott Wolter: Priory of Sion Is Real, Jesus Was King of the Venus People, and the Crusades Were a Conspiracy
I didn’t really want to talk more about the Holy Bloodline “mystery,” but some of what Scott Wolter said on his blog yesterday is so revealing that I can’t really let it pass unnoticed.
It has been clear for decades that the so-called Priory of Sion is a hoax invented by a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard for the purpose of justifying his claims to royal descent from the deposed Merovingian rulers of the Frankish kingdom in the days before Pepin the Short. The Priory was founded on June 25, 1956 (as confirmed by a record in the French Journal Officiel for July 20, 1956), and four years later Plantard concocted a fictitious history for his group, tying it to the real Abbey of Our Lady of Mount Zion. Plantard supported his fraud with forgeries, including the Dossiers Secrets d’Henri Lobineau (1967) and the Généalogie des Rois Mérovingiens (1964), both of which were easily proven to be hoaxes once their inconsistencies and errors were exposed. For example, the Dossiers contained a letter from the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers supposedly written in 1966, but featuring the letterhead and address for the organization used before 1948.
Henry Lincoln mistook these for genuine documents and included them in a BBC documentary in the 1970s, and recycled them again for Holy Blood, Holy Grail in 1982.
So what does Wolter say about this? “The ‘Priory of Sion’ another hoax? I think not. It’s awful convenient to claim ‘hoax’ to muddy the water they don’t want to drink.”
He goes on to say that he now “prefers” to refer to the Holy Bloodline as the “Venus families,” and that these families originated in Akhenaten’s Egypt and remained in power until “things went haywire with Rome’s siege of Jerusalem.” I suppose that means that earlier invaders of the city, the like the Babylonians, were somehow in league with the Venus families. Is this because they worshiped Ishtar, the goddess associated with Venus? But how, I wonder, does any of this work if Julius Caesar and his heirs also claimed descent from Venus?
Wolter also reveals that he is taken with the twentieth century “Christ myth” school of analysis, though he prefers to apply it to a real historical figure rather than a completely fictitious creation. He discusses how he sees the Resurrection as a solar myth (Son = Sun, he says) of the winter solstice (which, of course, is why it was fixed as the spring festival in which “Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us”) and the Apostles as representing the twelve constellations of the zodiac. He denies that St. John existed and instead claims that Mary Magdalene was the true Apostle, whom the Church suppressed by inventing John.
But how can I possibly do better than to share this gem about Wolter’s overarching theory that the whole of the Crusades were an elaborate ruse in service of a conspiracy designed around goddess worship!
There is no doubt the Templars had spies within the Church since the very founding of the Cistercian and Templar orders was a coup d'etat by the Venus Families from the very beginning. The leadership, starting with the most visible figure, Bernard de Clairvaux, initiated the Crusades under the guise of fighting for Christendom, but the outward motivation was a ruse from the start. Most of the foot-soldier Templar knights were fighting for God and Chruch (sic), but the leadership was secretly inspired by the Goddess.
Monotheistic dualism? One god with two personalities? And what, pray tell, did King Jesus and Queen Mary rule? Here Wolter is alluding to his acceptance of Ralph Ellis’s King Jesus in chapter 10 of Akhenaten to the Founding Fathers. I dealt with these assertions in my review of Akhenaten, in which I explained how Wolter uses only secondary sources and isn’t familiar with the Biblical texts he claims to explicate by identifying Jesus as the legitimate heir of Akhenaten’s bloodline. You can read it here. What’s confusing is that Wolter claims in his book that the bloodline is matrilineal, so this raises the question of why any man would be considered the True Heir at all, or how those following matrilineal descent would pick and choose among various children to create legitimate lines of descent since such claims are most closely associated with patriarchal descent and the need to secure the transfer of titles and property. The European system of descent—the one that underscores all this royal ridiculousness—is based on patrilineal descent, primogeniture, and the Salic Law. After 2,000 years, nearly everyone would be related to someone from a “bloodline” family, so how do we distinguish which paths of matrilineal descent are acceptable absent primogeniture?
But, really, Jesus was the King of the Venus People, while at the same time Augustus, also styled the “son of (a) god,” claimed descent from the goddess Venus and served as Roman Emperor? This is quite confusing. Is there only one true Heir of Venus?
I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter, The Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist, for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.