SECRETS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
LAURENCE GARDNER INTERVIEW
by
Atasha Fyfe
I interviewed Laurence Gardner
in Glastonbury, November 2003.
Part 1 of the interview was published
in Avalon Magazine, Summer 2004.
LG –
Laurence Gardner
AF –
Atasha Fyfe
AF: What
projects are you currently involved with?
LG: I’ve
got very involved now in this Hollywood film project, based on my book Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark. The Ark is so fascinating that it has
prompted the film. It’s a modern story, a sci fi thriller. It centres on
parallel dimensions and so on, time-warping and things like that – all of which
have been subjected to scientific scrutiny to make sure they’re possible. And
now its been suggested that I write the novel to go with the film. It’s
unusual, because normally books that become films are novels, biographies,
human adventure stories, those sort of things. They’re not books like mine. I
mean essentially, it might be a popularised text book, but it is a text book.
AF: You
have already written a novel.
LG: I
wrote a novel some years ago, yes. It was more or less how my first other book
came about. (ie Bloodline of the Holy
Grail.) Because a few publishers came back and they said this is great, we
really like this – but why don’t you write this sort of stuff as
straightforward history. And that was how I got in to the process of doing what
I’m now doing.
But now I’m being led back and I must admit it’s very
attractive. I like the idea just for a change and it’s quite refreshing, although
it’s hard work. But to be able to just let my mind wander and to use my
creative imagination a bit would be good. Not having to underline and prove
everything that I say. So I think that’s where I’ll be for the next six or
eight months or so.
AF: And
you wrote music as well.
LG: I’ve
always been involved with music. But its sort of on and off really.
AF: Do
you play an instrument?
LG: I
play a few things, but not very well. In honesty, I’m not that accomplished.
I’m much more a composer than a performer. As a youngster back there in the
40’s, I always wanted to play the piano. The house that had the piano had been
bombed and we didn’t have one. It wasn’t until I was about 8 years old – I kept
going on and on about this piano that I wanted, and my aunt, bless her, decided
that a piano accordian was just as good, and bought me this piano accordian.
Well – clearly it’s a very different thing. It’s got keys this side and buttons
that side. So when eventually we got the piano, when I was about 12 or 13, I
was a wonderful right hand pianist! I didn’t know what to do with this hand. (Laughs and holds up his left hand) I
hadn’t a clue!
Then I got to the age of about 16 and bought a guitar. And
then as time progressed the piano got switched for an electronic keyboard which
could then become other things. So I’d got into a situation where I was able to
compose for most instruments.
In the sixties and seventies I did what many of us did in
those times – I belonged to my own group and we did our stuff. We used to do
quite a lot of testing – testbed songs – for albums. When other mainstream
groups or singers were putting albums together they’d want to test songs in the
market first. We were good for that, because we were everywhere. We were doing
pubs and clubs and concerts – everything from the Victoria Hall to local
hospitals. Whatever it was, we were doing it all. And so we could test these
things out on all sorts of audiences to see how they would gel. And at the same
time I was writing my own material.
And then it all went quiet and I suppose I didn’t do
anything much musically through the 80’s, except that I was writing a lot. And
1990 there I was at the Taunton Brewhouse Theatre putting on a stage musical
which I’d written and orchestrated and co-directed – and that was great. We got
wonderful reviews in everything from the Tiverton Gazette to The Guardian. And
in fact only a couple of weeks ago I was asked by the Arts Council down here if
we could revive it and use it as a sort of community arts piece, locally. And
so I agreed to that.
Then I got involved with the Royal Opera House. But that
came because of my book. Not necessarily because of the music. They wanted a
musical oratorio of Bloodline of the Holy
Grail. And I thought wowww, that’s something because this controversial
book is suddenly getting establishment recognition here. I linked up with this
one particular guy who happened to be over here at the time, who was the
Composer in Residence and one of the conductors for the Prague Symphony Orchestra.
So we worked together over a number of months and lo and behold in December
2000 we had this wonderful concert at Covent Garden. Now, we’re scoring it for
far bigger orchestras and choirs. It will go back on stage as full blown opera.
But in the meantime, we’re going to be recording the album, probably next
summer. We may do that in Prague.
AF: How
did you get into genealogical research?
LG: Art
got me into it really. Amid all of these
things I seem to have been doing, essentially I was an art conservator and
restorer, going back to the sixties. I was involved in other things as well. I
was a Lloyds underwriter, but that was really because of my art interests
I started off with National Gallery training by teachers at
their Scientific Department, which only opened up in the sixties. And so I
learnt restoration and conservation and that sort of thing. And gradually, as I
built my own business up, it was everything from pictures from the lady down
the road to Old Masters and getting paintings in from the London galleries.
Then for a few years in the late eighties I was Conservation Consultant to the
Fine Art Trade Guild.
It was that
environment that led me to the connections that people perceive me to have now
in these – I don’t know, one might call them – aristocratic circles. It was
because many of the great art collections are, of course, in stately homes and
palaces and noble houses. So, by dint of the job, I ended up in these places –
not as anybody special, simply as an art conservator. I would be called in to
find out why the damp was affecting these pictures and not those, and was there
a problem with this wall – that kind of thing. And it just struck me, as I was
getting the work in, I was working on lots of portraits. They have lots of portraits
up staircases in these places, but the families didn’t know who everybody was
or where they fitted in. You know – this was Fred from 1642, but that was all
they knew.
And so, just as a
matter of pure interest, as I worked on the individual paintings, I tried to
find out more about this or that character. Why he was important enough to have
his portrait painted, where he fits into the family, and whatever. I just began
to build up these sort of pictures. I’d take them back to the families and say
well here’s Fred, and here’s a few others because I notice you’ve got those as
well and here’s where they fit in. And then I discovered over a period of time
that other families could be linked in with these and there were intermarriages
and that sort of thing.
So that’s all it was really. It wasn’t because I was
trained to be a genealogist. It wasn’t even because I wanted to be a
genealogist. It was just something that I did as a matter of interest, as part
of what I was doing in terms of the artworks. I was just building up these
portrait histories. And then I started to be asked to do it. Could you look at
this box? – and could you look in that
box? – and this hasn’t been opened for ages, there’s some good stuff in there –
that sort of thing. And so suddenly I was a genealogist. And from 1992 I was
formally appointed as one by the Royal House of Stewart. So from then on I
gained various chivalric titles.
AF: Is
that where all that came from?
LG:
Yeah, because it got me involved with the European Council of Princes.
AF:
What’s the European Council of Princes?
LG: It’s
an organisation of 33 royal houses, founded in 1946. You’ll see that I’m listed
in my books as its Presidential Attaché. So I’m an attaché to its Presidency,
which is the Royal House of Stewart.
AF:
What’s the purpose of this organisation?
LG: It
was set up to prevent the future rise – like had happened – of extreme Fascist,
or even extreme Communist parties in the West. To try and keep the balance. It
wields no particular powers. It’s a voluntary body that operates within the
royal family structures – mainly the sons and daughters, and that’s why it has
the ‘Princes’ distinction.
AF: How
did you get to be Presidential Attaché?
LG: I
got appointed to them as the historiographer in the first place An historian
studies history and an historiographer writes history. So I got appointed as
their historiographer because I was digging up all sorts of past history that
they didn’t know about. On the basis of that, and then because of it, I was
given certain particular positions. And those positions historically carried
titles. And so I got the titles. It doesn’t make me in any way different – I
mean it doesn’t do for me what most people seem to think. It doesn’t make me
part of some elite establishment. It’s just the same as being called Director
of Operations of something here in Glastonbury. It’s just a title and it
happens to sound good. (Laughs)
That’s all.
AF: Are
there any activities associated with these titles?
LG: Oh,
with some there are the odd ceremonial things, when there are new investitures
maybe. But that’s really about it. Once a year you might have an investiture
meeting and a few new people are perhaps brought into a particular Order. And
we’ll all go up to Stirling Castle for the ceremony.
I can’t recall any time in what is now my 11 years of
involvement where I’ve actually been in a room where everybody’s been there at
the same time sitting as a council. That’s not the way it operates. You meet
with a few and then another few. They’re all doing their individual things and
just telling each other what they’re doing. It’s a bit like the Wessex Research
Group is now – in Frome and Sherbourne and Glastonbury and now Totnes. Well
actually when has there ever been the meeting where everybody’s been together?
There hasn’t been. But you’re kind of part of the same thing, and that’s the
way it works. Its very much like that.
AF: What
are the aims of this Council?
LG: The
aims are very straightforward actually. It acts as a sort of watchdog within
the European Union. If the Brussels Parliament issues a new dictate of some
sort, the Council of Princes studies the various national Constitutions to
ascertain whether the dictate is applicable, or whether there is some
constitutional clause that overrides it. Unlike Britain, which has a
parliamentary monarchy, the European monarchs are empowered by their individual
written Constitutions. In short, they are bound to the people, not to the
Governments. So if a particular monarch wants to make a stand of some sort,
they feel empowered to do so. Because not only will they have the people behind
them, but they’ll have the other royal houses with them.
Take, for example, the paedophile scandal in the 90s in
Belgium. Tremendous problems there with these paedophile rings, and it seemed
that all sorts of people in high positions were involved. The King announced
that he really wasn’t going to stand for this. He knew that there were high
level people in the judiciary and the police force involved in this. He knew
who they were, what they were up to, and he was going to do something about it.
So he just came out of his door one day with a placard and started walking
through the city. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered behind him. It was like
the Pied Piper. Anyway it all ended up that he totally defeated the ring. He
said many of our police and court officials belong in prison. And that’s
precisely where they ended up.
AF: (Showing him a list of various associations,
societies and orders that he belongs to) What about these – I mean these
are very interesting, all these associations.
LG:
Other people talk about them more than I do, to be honest. Right now much of
the work that I do with these organisations has to be put on the shelf for a
bit because I’m dashing backwards and forwards to America for this film.
They’re not at the forefront of what I’m trying to promote
about me and they never really were. Publishers like to cite them, but I don’t
need these things to make me a good researcher and a writer. They’re kind of
colourful but people can get the wrong impression. It started when my very
first publisher put in the book “he has privileged access to royal archives” or
something. What a load of tosh! It sounds terrific, but it made it seem
conspiratorial. It made it seem like some sort of secret society. And it was
never like that. Yes, I had a particular access, but by virtue of the fact that
I was working in the field of the arts. All people, by virtue of their jobs,
get access to something or other that’s related to what they do. But it’s not
necessarily privileged because once I’ve got the information, I put it in my
books. So it’s not secret. I pass it on to people.
AF: But
still, all these societies sound quite intriguing – can you tell us a bit about
them?
LG: OK,
I can give you a run down on that.
AF: What
about this one? (ie the Noble Order of
the Guard of St.Germain on the list).
LG: St
Germain – people are always writing to me, asking me about the Count of St
Germain. The St Germain title has nothing to do with a person or a saint –
although in the distant past it might have done.
It has to do with the Palace of St Germain in Paris. The
Palace of St Germain, which rivals Buckingham Palace, from the time of Mary
Queen of Scots was the Stewart Royal Court in Europe. It’s magnificent –
although it’s mainly offices and things like that now. I mean there’s not a
royal family living there these days.
The St Germain
distinction goes back a long way. When Robert the Bruce established the first
Rosicrucian order in 1317 he decided that the Chancellor of the Order would be
called Prince St Germain. That title became Count St Germain in the 18
century, and then became Chevalier St Germain in 1892. And that’s the
distinction that I now have.
AF: This
one looks interesting, what about this one? (ie
The Imperial Royal Dragon Court.)
LG: It
has an interesting history. It was established in 1408 by Emperor Szigmond of
Hungary. And it was a bit like the Council of Princes is now. At that time the
Turks were invading all through that part of Europe and the Balkans. The Order
was established to try and unify the countries against these Turkish invasions.
And so that was really how it began.
It was revived in the early-mid 90s, during that period when everything
was being looked at afresh. Glasnost, and Perestroika – a new look. Ever since
the Soviet bloc crumbled, even those that weren’t directly involved began to
look back at their historical traditions and perhaps try and revive what used
to be great about them. And so that’s been happening in Chekoslovakia, Hungary
and other places.
And it’s really an Order that now again comprises at its
head – I say at its head – its board level, if one can call it that – various
nobility of the Hungarian, Transylvanian, and Romanian countries. In fact, in Realm of the Ring
Lords I give a list of some of them. In essence, it’s operation is Hungarian,
and it’s sort of political – but political in a sort of a ‘trying to get more
democracy into things’ kind of way. It’s also to some extent charity based.
I was telling people about these Orders because I thought
their history was interesting. But I don’t know – there are those who keep
thinking that, because of it, I’m involved in some amazingly wonderful circles.
And it really isn’t quite like that. I mean they involve me with some very
interesting people. But if I were to tell you that one of the things that I got
involved in a few months ago was trying to reclaim a piece of land in the middle
of Chekoslovakia which had ended up belonging to Luxemburg in the 1700’s – it
can actually get that ordinary and administrative. There’s one interesting
project I’ve been involved in for some time, trying to set up a Bolshoi Ballet
connection in Scotland and linking up with the National Ballet over here. It’s
not glamorous work. It’s very earthy. It’s not what people often think – it’s
not about me riding around like Merlin on horseback. It’s not about secrets and
hidden knowledge and wisdoms. It’s really about people doing jobs. But the
titles of the organisations are what they are because they happen not to have
been founded in 1983, they were founded in 1564 or whatever. It’s that simple.
I showed him
Avalon Magazine Editor’s e-mail saying that he presents an interesting
dichotomy – that he’s clearly a serious academic and establishment figure,
while he also has a completely fresh and indeed revolutionary perspective.
He smiled at the
word “dichotomy” and began to talk about it.
LG: To
call me an establishment figure is really not correct. I mean, I’m never seen
to be anti-establishment because I’m not. But I am counter-establishment I
think. I like establishments – I just
don’t like the establishments that we have.
AF: Do
you think it could be changed?
LG: I
think the way to change it is very straightforward. Democracy is government BY
the people FOR the people But when have we ever had that? Well, the answer is
we haven’t. We’ve had government OF the people, never BY and FOR. Where does it go wrong? It seems
to go wrong subsequent to election processes. We elect these people to
represent us and then suddenly they’re representing the establishment that
they’ve become part of instead of us. It’s a question of getting those in
positions of elected influence to recognise that their responsibility is to be
servants of society, and not to lord it over society. They seem to get onto
that ladder of power and to actually forget who put them there and why. So
that’s the bit that bothers me.
AF: Why
do you think it turns out that way?
LG: It’s
to do with control. All government and all religion has always been to do with
control. I don’t see it as being totally insurmountable. But it is
insurmountable as long as we allow things to carry on the way that they’re
going.
AF: What
about the Princess Diana tapes that have come out?
LG:
There are in fact even more tapes in addition to those we’ve just heard about
– a thousand hours of her phone call
tapes that haven’t been heard yet. The National Security Agency, which is
American, has a satellite base in this country up at Menwith Hill in the north
country. And everything’s recorded there. I mean every phone call that you and
I make is recorded there. Everything is recorded that happens on these islands.
And it took them a long, long time after Diana’s death to pull hers out because
it’s not collated alphabetically or per person. It’s just all as it happens,
chronologically. Diana died in September
97, but it wasn’t until June 2002 that this came to light, and the NSA
announced they’d got all of her phone calls. What they say is they will release
them when there’s an inquest. There was an inquest scheduled for May this year.
But it was postponed because they want to know what’s in these tapes first.
Apparently, the NSA doesn’t have to comply, but if Al Fayed gets his way, the
evidence will be presented, like it or not. So I guess the inquest will
commence sometime soon.
AF: Does
the NSA really have a right to record everyone’s phone calls?
LG: I
don’t know who has the right to do anything like that, because it infringes
civil rights and liberties. But in this country there’s nothing we can do about
it any way because we don’t have a written Constitution that says it can’t be
done.
AF: I
see.
LG: We
really are in a situation where we have live with whatever happens. It’s the
reason why we have to abide by everything that gets dictated from the European
Parliament. We have no get out clauses – no written Constitution as other
countries have. That is precisely the reason now why the Federalists want a
European Constitution, so as to override all the other Constitutions and bring
everyone into line.
People and newsbroadcasters are always asking me about
Europe. And my feeling on it is actually that I don’t particularly like where
it’s going. I just see this imperial structure building up like a repeat of the
Holy Roman Empire. And I don’t like that at all. The original concept of
freedom of trade barriers and a European community, that’s great, I don’t mind
that. But I have very strong feelings insamuch as if we’re going to stay in we
must get a written Constitution. And if we’re not going to have a written
Constitution, then we should pull out. Either could work for us. But we can’t
carry on as we are. Its crazy. Mind you, if they bring in the European
Constitution - the “Euro Con” as it’s
being called - national sovereignties will be lost across the board, so for my
money we should get out now, while we still can.
But the Diana thing, coming back to that. I don’t have too
much of a problem with phone-line recordings by the NSA or whoever. I know that
every time I write an e-mail it’s logged and it’s out there, and it could be
got at if necessary at some time by somebody. But then I never say anything
that I wouldn’t say publicly in Trafalgar Square. However, there’s something
that niggles about the concept of being tagged. Always there’s a niggle there.
AF:
Yeah. Big Brother watching.
LG: Its
very much Big Brother. But you know, a big brother – can be authoritarian and
big brother can be someone undesirable. But on the other hand a big brother can
be comforting to have around – you know? A big brother of the right sort.
AF:
Depending.
LG:
That’s right. If you’ve got the right sort of big brother and you know he’s
acting as a protective guardian. But at the moment these things happen and
people seem to think the CIA is watching them individually. I hear a lot of
that, and it’s very easy to become paranoid when you don’t know what’s going
on.
I’ve often been asked if my phone’s tapped, and the short
answer is, I don’t know and I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter much to me
if somebody wants to sit there and listen to me chatting away with my friends (laughs) — if they’ve got nothing better
to do.
AF: What
would you like to see happen?
LG: I
just want it all to work. I don’t want to see great sweeping changes. I find it
odd that people will look at a situation and decide that because something
isn’t right, everything from the grass roots up needs to be changed. It
doesn’t.
In terms of the monarchy as an institution, I see it as a
very costly part of the tourist industry. But – I like the concept of monarchy.
I like the concept of a guardian for people that has an equivalent role to a
parliament. Unfortunately though, that’s not what we’ve got. Without a written
Constitution, what we have is a Parliamentary Monarchy that is answerable to
Parliament – not a Constitutional Monarchy which is answerable to the people,
as they have in some European countries. So one way or another I’d like their
role to be much more defined.
How we do it? I don’t know. We can only begin by making the
right moves in our local communities, and making the right noises nationally to
let those in control know that we are unimpressed. And that’s all I do
actually. I see myself as a sort of unelected representative (laughs) and I keep my fingers crossed
that some of the people like what I’m doing.
----------------------------------------
LAURENCE
GARDNER INTERVIEW Part 2
This section of the interview was published in
Nexus Magazine, July 2004 .
AF: Could you explain more about your researches into white powder
gold? You have said that it was used in Ancient Egypt. Is there any way it can
be used in the modern world?
LG: I’ve been talking about gold as an effective catalyst in cancer
treatment for a long time – and it is now happening. The World Gold Council is
confirming this in their literature, and the Securities & Exchange
Commission, Washington DC, is now publishing it in their bullion prospectus.
They also report on other aspects that I have written about in the past. Future
applications for gold, they say (reads from S&EC prospectus), “are in
pollution control, clean energy generation and fuel cell technology. In
addition, work is under way on the use of gold in cancer treatment".
AF: Are the research tests for this being done mostly in America?
LG: They’re being done all over. Scientific journals from Switzerland,
Germany, Italy, Spain, France, Singapore, Israel, Britain and America are all
commenting in this regard, with headlines such as “The Amazing Properties of
Monatomic Gold”. There are no limitations on this now. Singapore University are
making great progress with gold in cancer treatment, and Rice University,
Texas, have reported amazing success in their recent remedial trials with
nano-gold.
AF: You’ve said that monatomic elements can be used in connection
with space travel. Can you explain a bit more about that, and about how
research in that area is progressing?
LG: Monatomic Transition Group elements were classified some time ago
as “exotic matter” because they have a negative energy density and the ability
to manipulate space-time. Physicists now say that exotic matter is the key to
travelling enormous distances – seemingly faster than the speed of light, but
with an acceleration rate of zero. They are looking at the concept of moving
the space instead of the spacecraft. That is to say, contracting space-time in
front of the ship, with a commensurate expansion of the space-time behind it.
NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project is leading the research in this
regard.
We also have the aircraft industry investigating the concept of
anti-gravity flight. Monatomic elements are operative high-temperature
superconductors, and superconductors will levitate. They have a null magnetic
field and will repel external magnetic fields. The Center for Advanced Study in
Illinois has classified superconductivity as “the most remarkable physical
property in the universe”. So, as the UK Ministry of Defence has stated,
“Anti-gravity propulsion is now coming out of the closet”. In this arena, Boeing
are working on Project Grasp at their top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, and
British Aerospace have their parallel Project Greenglow. There is also a new
UK-US joint-venture called Project Falcon. Back in August, British Aerospace
and Boeing met at the Pentagon to talk about their plan for a 6,000 miles per
hour aircraft – that’s around five times the speed of the now redundant
Concorde.
AF: You have also mentioned the prospect of teleporting matter from
one place to another.
LG: Yes, nano physics and monatomic sciences are now leading us into
some astonishing new realms. NASA and the Ohio Aerospace Institute are talking
about teleportation as if it’s just around the corner. By the use of coupled
quantum systems, they’ll soon be able to teleport matter instead of moving it
physically. "By this means”, they say, “even people could be transported
by sending enough classical information." So, by the time we get round to
the kind of high-speed, anti-gravity aircraft they think they can produce, we
might not even need aircraft! In fact, they say that a digital cloning process
is also possible – meaning that we could actually be in more than one place at
the same time!
AF: And yet the ancient people knew about these things?
LG: They certainly knew about monatomic elements and superconductors,
even if they didn’t understand the science behind them. There were various
names and terms for these phenomena in different cultures. As for the
scientific aspects – maybe they didn’t know specifically that these magical
powders resonated with DNA, or that they were immune system enhancers, but they
undoubtedly knew of their healing and anti-ageing properties. They also told of
levitation, movement into parallel dimensions, communication with gods, and the
like. In so many instances, their descriptions were commensurate with modern
scientific discoveries; they just used
different terminology. They might not have known precisely what they were
dealing with, but they clearly knew about the substances in action.
AF: You said at a recent lecture that monatomics could improve memory
and learning abilities?
LG: Absolutely. In fact, some remarkable tests were conducted last
year by the Alphalearning Institute at the World Trade Centre in Lugano. They
are specialists in behavioural sciences and learning deficiencies such as
dyslexia and ADHD. Over a number of weeks, they gave measured doses of
monatomic supplements to ten volunteers
- males and females of varying ages. The results were quite staggering.
Their EEG brain scans showed a significant enhancement of alpha-waves, leading
to perfect hemispheric left and right brain synchronization. This facilitates
heightened learning ability, memory and creative skills, and a substantial
lowering of the stress factor. Their report stated that the results were both
immediate and cumulative, while being a significant aid in exam-type
situations, whether mental or physical.
AF: Was the Ark of the Covenant connected to the white powder of gold?
LG: Yes, it was all part of the same sequence in Exodus – the events
at Mount Sinai, when Moses burnt the golden calf and turned it into a powder
that he fed to the Israelites.
AF: Do we know where the Ark went?
LG: Well, from Sinai, it was eventually taken to Jerusalem and placed
in the Temple’s holy sanctuary.
AF: Some people say it was stolen by a son of Solomon and Sheba, and
taken to Ethiopia.
LG: That was a concept which arose in a 13 century book
called the Kebra Nagast (the Glory of
Kings). It was designed to cement a Judaic history for the new royal dynasty in
Ethiopia - but it was entirely fictional. It works quite well for the modern
Ethiopian tourist industry, who say they have the Ark locked away in a crude
1960s building at Aksum. But no one has ever seen it - not even the Patriarch
of the region. It’s just a story. What they actually have there is a manbara tabot – a casket that contains a
venerated altar slab. They carry this through the streets annually, beneath a
draped cloth.
AF: Where did the Ark go then?
LG: In biblical terms, it remained in Jerusalem for many generations
after King Solomon. It is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, to
the time of the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. The Ark was then hidden
by Hilkiah, the high priest, before the Temple was destroyed in around 586 BC.
At that time, the captain of the Temple Guard was Hilkiah’s son
Jeremiah, whom we generally think of as a prophet. Prior to the Babylonian
invasion, Hilkiah instructed Jeremiah and the Guard to hide the great treasures
of Jerusalem – the Ark, the Anointing Stone, etc. In the main, they were
secreted in tunnels beneath the Temple, except for the Stone which Jeremiah
subsequently carried westwards. In Ireland it became the anointing stone of the
Scots kings - the Stone of Destiny, transported by the kings to their new-found
Scotland in the 5 century.
Anyway, a record was kept of those items hidden beneath the
Temple. This record was retained within the Order of the Temple Guard, who were
in effect the original Knights Templars. Then, around 1,700 years later, the
Templars were reconstituted from French and Flemish knights after the First
Crusade. They established their base in the mosque which then stood on the old
Temple site, and excavated to bring up the treasures. They knew exactly what
they were looking for, and where to look.
Interestingly, they left their own relics for a future generation.
In 1894, from beneath the Temple of Jerusalem foundations, British military
engineers brought up 11 and 12 century Templar
swords, crosses, and various items from way down below the El Aqsa mosque. So
there is no doubt that the Templars were there. Their patron, Bernard de
Clairvaux, recorded their homecoming in 1127. They were protected en route, he said, by a military guard
to safeguard them from papal interference.
Once returned to France, the Templars became the most powerful
organization the world has ever known. They were both influential and wealthy,
establishing the Western banking system on the Islamic model. They were bankers
to just about every royal court in Europe and, in time, developed the concept
of insurance companies in Scotland. At the same time, they became the primary
ambassadors to the Middle East.
The biggest of all projects that the Templars undertook was the
building of the great Gothic cathedrals in France – the Notre Dame cathedrals. Even today, architects are in awe of the
extensive unsupported roof spans. Many still claim that in theory they are
impossible.
AF: How did they do it?
LG: Well, we know that cathedral stones are highly paramagnetic, and
that the Gothic arch design further aids the anti-gravity thrust of the
buildings. Certain granites, sandstones and other rock types are also high in
monatomic elemental content – and we know that these elements have levitative
qualities, especially if subjected to strong magnetism or frequencies, which
repel them. Bluestone granite, as at Stonehenge, is a good example of a stone
that can react in some opposition to gravitational thrust.
Stonehenge, Herod’s Temple, the Giza pyramids and the Gothic
cathedrals all fall into a category of: How did they do it? They all contain
gigantic blocks of enormous weight, carried to impossible heights and difficult
locations. Even modern cranes would find such constructions hard to replicate.
But none of this is impossible if one is dealing with stones that can be
triggered to react against gravity and earth magnetism – somehow pushing away
and thereby reducing their physical weight.
It has been noticed in Templar constructions, Chartres Cathedral
in particular, that people walk taller inside the buildings than they do
outside. They actually stand more erect - pushing upwards, so to speak - in the
confines of these magical edifices.
AF: Why did the Church oppose the Templars?
LG: If they were capable of such techniques; if they knew about
monatomic elements and gravity, and if they also had the Ark of the Covenant,
it’s hardly surprising that they became feared by the Pope and the European
monarchs. Their patron, St. Bernard, was a Cistercian abbot and, apart from the
cathedrals, loads of Cistercian abbeys were also constructed during the same
era. So there is no doubt that the Templar/Cistercian building methods were
fast, as well as awesome. It’s also apparent why the Catholic Church was so
resentful of the monks of Bernard’s Order, who eventually linked up with the
more ancient Celtic Church in Scotland.
They were in the final throes of building the cathedrals when the
Papal decree went out against them in 1307. They were kicked out of France and
the rest of Europe, and under papal edict were to be persecuted in all Catholic
countries. England was predominantly Catholic at that time, but Scotland wasn’t
– so many of the Templars went to Scotland under the protection of Robert the
Bruce. In 1317 he established a new Order as a cover for Templars when
travelling abroad. They were known as the Elder Brethren of the Rosy Cross. It
was the original Rosicrucian fraternity.
AF: I see from your website that you belong to the Knights Templar of
St. Anthony. What kind of role do the Templars play in our world now?
LG: The Knights Templar of St. Anthony is the oldest legitimate
historical order of Templars still in operation. It was founded for Mary Queen
of Scots when she came to Scotland after being Queen of France, and is still
under the protectorate of the Royal House of Stuart. In the reign of Mary’s
son, King James VI, they built King James’s Hospital in Edinburgh, and The
Royal Hospital at Leith. In essence, they were a socially orientated fraternity
with Scottish interests at heart. It’s much the same today really. The Order is
still concerned with Scottish traditions, culture, education and heritage.
AF: So when the Pope hounded the Templars out of France in 1307, did
they take the Ark of the Covenant with them to Scotland or somewhere?
LG: The last historical record of the Ark is at Chartres Cathedral,
where a relief inscription on an entrance pillar says, “The Ark of the Covenant
was yielded from here”. There is no record of it ever having left that place.
It was not buried there, taken from there, or sent anywhere from there. The
word used is “yielded” - which means “given up”, or “let go”. I have discussed
this aspect of the Ark’s history in Lost
Secrets of the Sacred Ark, and have presented an hypothesis. It seems
perhaps a little far-fetched but, knowing what we now know about
superconductors and monatomic elements, it is a feasible possibility.
AF: You think it was moved into another dimension?
LG: Yes, I think so. And when you look at the cathedral’s original
construction, the set-up could have been right for this. 17
century documents from the Académie Français and the Royal Society in London
relate that there was a great golden plate in the middle of the famous Chartres
labyrinth. Today there are just the cut brass studs which held it in place.
Also, there was a magical stone of some sort in the roof space above it. This
was lost in the debris of the roof fire in 1836, but was originally placed
there for some specific purpose by the Templars. If it were perhaps a stone of
monatomic iridium crystal or some other energetic superconductive device, it
could well have been triggered to the Transition Group metal below in order to
create a flux-tube portal between them.
We know that the Ark was a very powerful capacitor and, in
conjunction with monatomic elements (the manna placed in the Ark), it could
become a superconductor with its own Meissner Field. Hence, as detailed in the
Torah and Talmud, it would levitate above the ground. We also know from recent
experiments with monatomic elements that they can be heat-triggered to move out
of our space-time. Bringing these things all together, therefore, it is
possible that the Ark is still at Chartres, but simply not in our space-time.
Maybe “yielded” - for want of a better term - into another parallel dimension.
AF: Things can actually be sent into other dimensions?
LG: Yes – and brought back. Hal Puthoff, the director of the
Institute for Advance Studies in Austin, Texas, wrote in a report some years
back that when particles begin to resonate in two dimensions, they should lose
4/9ths of their weight (Physical Review A, Vol. 39, No. 5, March 1, 1989 –
Gravity as a Zero-point Fluctuation Force). Subsequent tests with monatomic
elements revealed that they too would lose 4/9ths of their weight during
thermo-gravimetric analysis. With increased heating, the weight would reduce to
absolute zero - at which point they disappeared altogether. On subsequent
cooling, however, they would return to a visible state. We know, therefore,
that it’s possible to transport matter into other dimensions. What we don’t
know is the key to unlocking the Ark - if indeed it is there to be unlocked.
Maybe it was triggered by a sound wave; maybe a light wave – but either way, we
would need to know the resonance frequency. As I said, it’s just a hypothesis,
but it is a possibility. In a way, it’s the sort of thing that NASA and others
are now working on with regard to the teleportation of matter, as we discussed
earlier. Interestingly, Royal Arch Freemasonry, or Royal Ark as it used to be,
is firmly centred on the traditional mystery of a sacred keystone and a golden
plate.
AF: Is Arch the same as Ark then?
LG: In a certain context, yes. The Greek word Ark, meaning ‘gathering box’, was Arc in English and Arche
in French. Archaeology was about a quest for the Ark. Storage places are called
Archives. Ancient mysteries are called Arcane. Ark-based construction, as used
by the Templars, became known as Architecture, from which we also get Arch,
Architrave, etc. Masonic lore was based on arcane architectural geometry, and
the term Royal Arch or Ark stemmed from this. In Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark, I’ve included a colour plate of
Templars in 1147, twenty years after they returned from Jerusalem. The
painting, from the Château de Versailles, depicts them with the Ark of the
Covenant at the Paris Chapter House.
AF: An idea that goes round a lot is that the world is really ruled
by secret societies. What do you think of that?
LG: I don’t really see that as being the case. There are societies,
fraternities and establishments which are secretive, and many of our prominent
leaders belong to them – but I don’t see the groups themselves as running
anything. They just provide venues of mutual interest at which to meet. For
example, one might say that numerous of our governors are Freemasons. By
implication, therefore, we are governed by Freemasons – but that does not mean
their individual or combined lodges control the world. They do not. I know many
politicians who are members of the British Library, and indeed often meet
there. But that does not mean we are ruled by a cabal of book readers. I have
been a Freemason and a British Library member, but I’ve never controlled
anyone.
AF: So, are you a Freemason?
LG: Not any more. For many
years I was affiliated to the City of London financial sector, and it was part
of the scene to belong to a City lodge. It was just the same as being expected
to fraternize in this or that wine bar. Business and trades people do much the
same at a provincial level, belonging to the local Rotary Club, Round Table or
whatever. They all provide venues for those with common interests - but these
associations do not run the world, even if some of their individual members
have a hand in that regard. If a Scout leader happens to run someone down in
his car, it doesn’t mean that the Scouts are training terrorists! It simply
doesn’t work that way.
Anyway, after some twenty years in Freemasonry, I resigned in 1984
– mainly because I got thoroughly bored with it all. I had expected to learn
such a lot, but actually learned nothing of much consequence, except how to
perform ceremonial ritual. I suppose if one wants somewhere to be every Monday
night and a group of people to be with, then it provides a suitably fraternal
environment. But, in the end, I found better things to do. All I really
discovered in terms of “secrets” was that their biggest secret is that they’ve
forgotten what their secrets are! Even the ritual maintains that the true
secrets of the Craft were lost long ago. What I never experienced was anything
covert in the way that one imagines a secret society. So, either it wasn’t
there, or it was very cleverly concealed from me for twenty years.
There are, however, secretive aspects of government that I really
don’t like. Elected politicians are supposed to represent, and report to, their
electorate – not to keep secrets from them. Take the Bilderberg Group, for
example. Industrialists, bankers and whoever are perfectly entitled to meet and
discuss things which they are not required to disclose publicly afterwards. We
all have such meetings in our daily lives, but don’t feel the need to broadcast
everything we’ve discussed with our colleagues. What I object to is that our
elected representatives do attend such meetings, but then consider their
electorate irrelevant - perhaps keeping secret certain information which they
should pass on. Maybe, they feel that insider knowledge gives them an edge for
their power base. But that really bothers me. Do they emerge in a position
whereby they’re working for themselves and their colleagues, and not
necessarily for us? I’m pretty sure that’s often the case. So, it’s a matter of
getting those in positions of elected influence to recognize that their
responsibility is to be servants of society and not to lord it over society.
AF: How do you think that could be managed?
LG: We keep hearing these politicians issuing statements such as:
“And when we came to power”. Power! Who gave them power? They represent us. We
appoint them. We pay their salaries. I think the whole political structure
needs to be reviewed. Throughout the so-called democratic world, we have
allowed a reversal of the way things are supposed to be. We ask for
guardianship, protection and economic management, but they give us laws,
restrictions and controls. They totally ignore national written constitutions,
which “belong” to the people, and whose terms and conditions they are supposed
to uphold. But whose fault is that? It is our fault. We have allowed it to
happen. What we have to understand is that the politicians will not change
unless we make them change. It’s our car, and they are our chauffeurs. What we
want is an adequate ride, not to be told how to sit. Nor do we want them
keeping secrets – like, we’re going to run out of gas at the next turn. But, as
I said, they won’t change voluntarily from a position that suits them. We have
to change them by making our demands fully apparent.
AF: What do you think of the Paul Burrell book about Princess Diana
that’s recently come out?
LG: I’ve read some of it. And I’ve read bits and pieces serialized in
the press. From what I can see, there doesn’t seem to be much that’s new or
unexpected. What is interesting is that it’s coming from a close to home,
in-house perspective, rather than from an outside biographer.
AF: Do you think Burrell is telling the truth?
LG: I have no reason to doubt it. I don’t see that he has any
particular underhand motive. I think perhaps, if he had been treated
differently by the establishment, he might have thought twice about some of the
content. But, under the circumstances, he clearly decided to publish anyway.
I’ve not seen anything particularly offensive against the Royal Family in his
work. In fact it’s taken the edge off things to some extent. Many people were
looking quite harshly at Prince Philip, for example, whereas, according to
Burrell, Philip’s relationship with Diana wasn’t that bad. What I do like about
Burrell’s book is that it has, once again, prevented the Princess from being
conveniently airbrushed from the historical scene, as many would prefer.
AF: So that’s the Burrell book. How would you describe your own
writing motivations?
LG: I feel that, because of what I research and write, I have a
particular responsibility to the readers of my work. This means that, when I
discover interesting or important things, I feel obliged to pass on the
information. So that’s my primary consideration. Apart from the fact that I
enjoy my work, I have the advantage of being a totally free agent. I am not
running for any office, nor bound to any master – so the only people I need to
please are my readers.
AF: Where do you do all your research? Is it all publicly available?
LG: There’s very little that isn’t publicly available. And if it
isn’t, I make it publicly available by writing it. The main problem is not lack
of accessibility, but of how easily accessible some things might be. I might
find something that’s available in some monastery in Tibet – so it’s publicly
available, but how accessible is that for you? Researching and writing is what
I do, just like other people are lawyers, carpenters or whatever. So, I just
get stuck in and work at it, following the leads like a detective of sorts,
trying to discover who done it, and to whom.
Right now I am currently involved with the making of a Hollywood
movie based on Lost Secrets of the Sacred
Ark. We are casting now, and should begin shooting in the summer, so that
will be pretty time consuming this year. It has also been suggested that I
should write a novel to parallel the film. So that’s another possiblity if I
have the time.
AF: What kind of film is it?
LG: The Hollywood Reporter
has classified it as a “sci-fi adventure”, which just about sums it up. It’s an
action thriller, based essentially in modern Los Angeles, but embodies many
scientific aspects from Lost Secrets
– time warping, parallel dimensions and
the like. The story hinges on a mystery about the Shroud of Turin.
AF: I read an interesting book called The Second Messiah, which says that the image on the Shroud of
Turin is really of Jacques de Molay.
LG: That’s a book by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas – one of a
number of suggestions about the Shroud. Others reckon it might be Leonardo da
Vinci. Various ideas have been put forward over the years, but the traditional
view is that the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus. The weave of the cloth
and the type of material are certainly old enough, and pollen has been found
embedded which is undoubtedly Syrian. At present, no one really knows the true
origin of the Shroud, and even scientists argue about various aspects of its
analysis. For our film purposes, however, we are concerned only with the DNA
analysis of the blood embedded in the cloth, and with the blood group. These
have been specifically identified, and the DNA tests were done in the 1990s at
the University of Texas. The information is actually held on file by the San
Diego DNA crime lab, so it ties in rather well with our screenplay.
AF: What other writing plans do you have?
LG: Each book in my Grail series has been designed to answer the most
asked questions that arose from the previous one. So I’ll be continuing on the
same basis. I’ve been travelling a lot during past months, but am planning to
write the next book this year. In previous editions, I have dealt with
Grail-related religion, history, mythology and science. The next book will look
more closely at philosophies such as the Grail Code and Kabbalah. Also, a lot
has happened on various scientific fronts since I wrote Lost Secrets, so I’ll be including some updates in this regard, and
very possibly getting back into some of the Sacred Geometry that I introduced
in the first edition of Bloodline of the
Holy Grail.
***************************
Between this interview and his sad passing in August 2010, Laurence
published three more books: The Magdalene Legacy, The
Shadow of Solomon and The Grail Enigma. His last book, Origin
of God, was published at the end of 2010.
Temple Magazine published both sections of this interview in Issue 14, May 2011, which was dedicated to the memory of Laurence Gardner.
www.thetemplebooklet.co.uk
www.thetemplepublications.com
Click here for my free newsletter:
