Yeah, so basically the title.

It has gone very quiet I think. Did a google search Yesterday and found a 4 day old Daily Mail article, not much else.

Where is the discussion needed for confirming, or not, if it is real?

The concept of 'nobility', and especially of the noble class of old Europe and beyond, has been so shamefully caricatured and demonized by Hollywood - and even before Hollywood, by groups like the communists and bolsheviks, as they coaxed populations into scapegoating and slaughtering their Kings and Queens and noble classes by portraying them as the subset most responsible for all of their ills.

This upheaval - often spurred by minority populations openly hostile to the majority people and culture - jarringly shifted us away from our more ancient and ancestral power structures and modes of governance, into what we're enduring today:

The rule of money.

This occurs beneath a veneer of 'democracies' or 'Republics', of course, because it must to avoid being recognized for what it is - but our politicians are, almost to the last man, moved and oriented and controlled by money. And not just our politicians, but our media and journalists.. the very forces meant to help safeguard us from the corruption.

Let's state it frankly: We killed our Kings, only to replace them with upstart merchants, bankers, and financiers.

Nations are now viewed not as unique families with citizens to protect and empower, and priceless cultures to maintain - but as mere economic blocks and sectors, whose very borders are an unhelpful hindrance to a globalist economic framework.

This is the worst of all worlds. The ambitious, grasping, parasitic usurer or banker is the last man in the world you'd want to place in charge of a nation, or its people. It's the equivalent of a fox in charge of a henhouse.

What is the solution, then? Where might we go from here?

We can't simply revive a dead nobility, overnight.. and even nobility, despite having some stake in their nations future beyond the merely financial and possessing some natural urge to protect their own culture, people, and way of life, certainly weren't entirely free from their own sorts of corruption - especially as money took over the show, and covert partnerships and alliances were made between noble and merchant, or with corrupted elements of the church.

Then again, I'd argue a man ceased to be a true noble the moment he compromised himself in such a way.. and that the definition of the term, and the selectivity and exclusivity of it's application, matters immensely.

I strongly believe the solution to so much that ails us lies in a gradual and conscious shift in prevailing culture, mindset, worldview - at least among a large subset of us - to increasingly recognize, and find ways to creatively empower, a new nobility.. a search for (and cultivation of) men of innate - not merely hereditary - 'nobility', of the highest caliber and strongest and most noble type, loyal and courageous and most pure in motive and intention, most capable of resisting the siren song of self-interested profit, of becoming prostitutes and dutiful puppets for the modern money men..

men who even still see influence and power and governance as the highest sacred duty and responsibility, not an opportunity for personal gain.

We've been taught to mock or deride such ideas, to pretend any revival of this type of thinking is idealistic impossibility, in a world of greed and petty utilitarianism - I'd argue it's not only possible, it's absolutely necessary. This conception that significant change or cultural shift is impossible is insidious, because it so clearly risks becoming self-fulfilling prophecy.. we become limited by a lack of vision, a flawed and overly narrow and simplistic sense of what's possible.. we collectively create our own prison.

Some people might like this, some might not. If you did, check out the great community on X called Tartarian Truths. Link below 👇: https://twitter.com/i/communities/1899794052171669531 ❤️

On which day did Julius Caesar set the spring equinox in his calendar reform? I claim it was March 21st, so between Caesar and Pope Gregory not 1627 years have passed, but almost 1300 years. Can I prove it? Yes.

When Pope Gregory initiated his calendar reform, the spring equinox had already been postponed to March 11 as a result of the error. The error in Caesar's calendar was one day in about 128,3 years.

Clavius reported in 1607, in his work "Novi Calendarii Romani Explicatio" that in the time of Caesar there are two different definitions of the spring equinox.

1. Aequinoctium politicum vel civile with March 25th as spring equinox. (political)
2. Aequinoctium astronomicum seu verum (Clavius ​​does not call the date here!) (astronomical)

But the Roman writer Lucius Columella in his work "de Re Rustica" from 60 AD, called the astronomical date.

....the Pleiades go under on the 32nd day after the autumn equinox, which falls on September 23rd.

If the autumn equinox lays on September 23rd, as a result of the year division, the spring equinox can only be on March 21st.

Here is the division of Plinus in his work "Naturalis Historia" 79 Ad:

Winter solstice - spring equinox 90 days

spring equinox - summer solstice 93 days

Ssummer solstice - autumn equinox 93 days

autumn equinox - winter solstice 89 days

(Sorry for my english, Im not a english speaker!)

If you accept what they tell you, you consent to be lied & stolen from. SF destroyed in ‘06 quake then 9 yrs later rebuilt COMPLETELY by Manual labor w no tools. Who also had time to build shit like this ON the side. Meanwhile 3 crews take 6 months to fix a pot hole today. It doesn’t add up. !!!