DR: Would you like to see a monarch who was also kind of a spiritual leader, like a Priest-King? Do you think that there should be a separation between the two, or would that be good to you.
Boyd: I think that would be good to me. I think thatís what original tribal leaders were. They were kind of the Chieftain of the tribe, but they were also spiritual leaders. I think separation of church and state makes sense as long as the church is just some superstitious thing run like a bureaucracy.
DR: So if there was a fledgling monarchist movement would you throw your support behind it?
Boyd: Are you kidding? Iíd like to see a return to the Byzantine Empire. The problem, of course, is that there donít seem to be many men around these days who possess the qualities of a Louis XIV, or a Constantine. I quite like Prince Charles. Whenever he cares enough about something to make a public pronouncement, itís invariably something thatís one of my pet peeves as well, like bad architecture or the trashing of the English language. He gave an incredible speech about architecture in which he singled out a particular building as being especially loathsome, and the last time I was in London, the place was being demolished. Now that I admire.
DR: What if you found out you were heir to a title? Would you like that?
Boyd: The only title that I would conceivably be entitled to would be that of "Lord." If Iím not mistaken, all male heirs that can prove descent from persons known to be a bastard son of a British monarch are automatically entitled to be called Lord. I might consider accepting that title, if I lived in Britain, just because in the context of British tradition it still really signifies something, and I could hang out at the House of Lords. But thereís no House of Lords in Denver, Colorado
DR: Letís go over your Angevin heritage. Can you tell us how you found out about that and what exactly it means to you?
Boyd: Well, basically I got invited to this place that was once a plantation, the ancestral home of the Rices, and an uncle of mine gave me all this genealogical material. And I got home and I was looking at it, and it said the Riceís of the United States came from a Prince of South Wales called Griffith Rhys, and that the Rice family in the United States could claim Plantagenet descent from this guy. And evidently he was a bastard son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, he married a Plantagenet, and his mother was a Plantagenet. So I recognized that name and that got me interested in researching the Plantagenets. I researched them, and all the books about them traced the Plantagenets back to the Angevins of France, and Geoffrey Plantagenet came from a guy named Fulk the Black. He ran the Saracens out of Jerusalem, he was King of Jerusalem, and he was one of the first members of the Knights Templar, although he was only a titular member. And he married a woman named Melusine She was the daughter of Godfroi de Bouillon, who was one of the founders of the Knights Templar, and one of the founders of the Priory of Sion. I read everything I could find out about these guys, and then I was thinking, Why does this sound familiar? And then one day I thought, This sounds like some of those people that were in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and, yíknow, I read that book I think the year it came out. So I went and I dug up my copy of it, and I started looking at it, and the book was just full of Angevins, and it had all sorts of stories about all of these people. And then taking clues from that I researched the Angevins, and found out that they had been really good friends with the de Medicis, Leonardo, Columbus and Nostradamus. The list of who they knew, or patronized, reads like a Whoís Who of the Renaissance. And I appear to be related either directly or indirectly to about a third of the former Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion.
DR: Do you like the fact that you might be related to Jesus?
Boyd: Yeah, well, I mean, it seems perfectly poetic to me that Iím like, a Satanist but I have the blood of Christ in my veins. It seems to me the perfect poetic metaphor for Abraxas.
DR: Is that what the "Sangraal" song is about on your latest CD?
Boyd: Yeah, itís about the Merovingian dynasty, in an abstract way, about the bloodline and the underground stream.
DR: What interests you about the Merovingian dynasty?
Boyd: Well, the whole thing is just fascinating, because when you study that, youíre studying the whole history of Europe and Western Civilization, which casts everything you know about that in a totally different light.
DR: Do you think this underground movement to bring the members of the bloodline back to their thrones has any power or any chance of being successful?
Boyd: I donít know. I have thought of that. It seems like on the one hand they are the most patient people on the face of the Earth if theyíve just waited such a long time and done everything so slowly and incrementally. I think they wouldíve had more chance of doing something maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or some earlier time. Because now it seems like they are faced with this whole globalist network of vested interests that wouldnít allow that to happen. I donít know what it would take for it to happen, if it would take the public finding out about it and being totally in favor of it to such an extent that no vested interest could oppose it. Because reading between the lines it seems like at one time they were working in conjunction with the forces of the United States who were probably in favor of them doing something like that, to create a union with the United States of Europe. But now the United States of Europe is a reality. Itís obviously not in the favor of those guys who run financing and stuff to have it run by any kind of a monarch, whatever their pedigree. Because it has to fit in to a larger picture, and if you had one whole continent ruled by some spiritual monarch, and the rest of the world is ruled by capitalist democracy, it wouldnít fit into the one-word government that seems to be emerging..
DR: What do you think about their claim to possess secrets about humanityís past, or God, or the Ark of the Covenant. They have a lot of claims like that. Do you buy into that.
Boyd: Yeah, I buy into that, because I think thereís been a whole secret history of the world where things have gone on that we still donít know about. It doesnít seem unreasonable to me, because when you look at these things like the Knights Templar, no matter how much you study it, it doesnít seem to make sense. Thereís just no sense of internal logic to it. Theyíre supposed to be the Knights of Christ, and yet they had statues of Baphomet in their temple. And they were supposed to be these good Christians, but they were supposed to be devil-worshippers too. How do you reconcile that, unless thereís some secret doctrine that explains such paradoxes? I have a good reason to think there is.
DR: Why do you think Hitler was interested in the Holy Grail?
Boyd: Wasnít Himmler more interested in the Holy Grail? I know that a lot of what exists about the Holy grail now, historical documents and so forth were all collected by Himmler, because he was fascinated by it. A friend of mine in Switzerland was just saying he saw a special about the Knights Templar and the Holy Grail and all that, and then at the end of it, it listed where a lot of the information came from and it was all from the archives of Heinrich Himmler. Because he saved a bunch of this stuff that had been scattered to the four winds. He had troops of people that just worked seven days a week going around and collecting this stuff. But Hitlerís interest in it I think came from his interest in the whole Parzival thing and his fascination with Wagner.
DR: Are you into that stuff? Do you like Wagner?
Boyd: Oh yeah. I like just the mysticism of it. I like the music, just the whole myth of the blood, and warrior values. I must admit that I never found Parzival or Lohengrin his most interesting works. Iíve seen The Ring Cycle, and when you actually see that performed on stage itís like a mystical experience, because it has so many layers of meaning at once that you could base a whole religion on it. I mean, itís based in myth, so itís an opera based on religion, but it is like a religious event that happens. Itís powerful enough that it can move you to tears at points. There arenít many things that exist these days on the level of art or music that can touch you that profoundly.
DR: You were telling me before about experiences with genetic memory that youíve had. About your son saying something...
Boyd: Well, Iíve always been interested in ancestral memory and genetic recall, because Iíve always felt certain things very strongly. Iíve always felt like I knew certain things but I didnít know how I knew them. I felt like this must be something thatís in my blood. This must be something that I was born with. Because Iíve never had any influences that caused me to make the choices Iíve made. So Iíd always had an interest in that. And I was visiting my son a few months ago, and I was talking to him about how things were when I was a child, how things were much different then. Itís like, "When I was a kid, like this and this", and after a week of this he kind of got tired of hearing these stories, and he just looked at me exasperated and he said, "Yes I know, because when you were a child, I was a man, and now Iím a child, and youíre my dad." And I said, "What did you say? What do you mean by that?" And he said it again, word for word, exactly the same, and it was like he couldnít understand why I didnít understand what he was saying. It just made me feel really weird. For days I had this strange, haunted feeling. And after a certain point I started remembering things that I had remembered when I was his age. Some of them Iíd remembered my whole life, some of them I didnít remember until after this experience with Wolfgang. I remembered when I was a child I had distinct memories, visions of places that I had never been, and I asked my parents, "What does it mean when you remember things that you know never happened?" And they said, "Oh, that was probably just a dream", but I knew it wasnít a dream. Because the visions I had as a child werenít normal kid dreams, they were just these images I had of just different scenes. Like I remember one had a tower, and another had a cave, and there was a certain field with a weird tree in it, and these images just kind of haunted me until two or three years of age. And when I reached a certain point I just forgot about them. But I remembered them after this strange occurrence.
DR: So you think that weíre not blank slates when we come into the world, that weíre carrying all this stuff with us from our ancestral past.
Boyd: I think so. I mean there are theorists who say that the events of a single lifetime can genetically alter a person, and that they will have acquired all of these new characteristics, which are then passed on genetically. Genes account for how you can put a spider in a box without a mother or father, and heís never seen a spider web in his entire life, but he can build a perfect spider web. The knowledge is in you. Some secrets are slumbered in the blood.
DR: Do you think that someday we might be able to use genes to trace the ancestral history of the human race back to itís origins, find out where we came from, kind of like reading a book?
Boyd: Yeah. That seems probable. But Iíve always wondered at peopleís obsessive need to understand where we came from, as though where we came from will explain everything else, or how life came into existence.
DR: You donít think thatís important?
Boyd: Donít you think itís more important to understand who you are now, to understand what the world is and how it operates and why it operates that way, and to understand what your relationship is to that?
DR: Well, thatís important. I personally donít think that you can understand that without understanding the past.
Boyd: I think the past is infinitely important. I think the past and future are intimately connected. Thereís nothing that separates them.
DR: So you donít really know or care whether we came from apes or aliens or Atlantis. It doesnít really matter to you?
Boyd: Well, any of those things would be interesting to know, but I think that people put too much emphasis on how we got here as being an explanation for why weíre here and what we can do now. And I think that, yíknow, weíre here now. I think that thereís a danger in feeling a need to definitively know something like that as a precondition to understanding what meaning or meanings life has. I think a lot of people sort of put life and living on hold to a large degree because they donít fully comprehend what itís all about. As a result, the very act of not getting out there and living life for all itís worth becomes in itself a process which prevents them from understanding it. Thereís an old saying: PRIMUM VIVERE, DEINDE PHILOSOPHARI. It means: First live, then philosophize.
DR: Then what do you say? What is your explanation for why weíre here?
Boyd: Geez, well, itís so broad it would be hard to pin it down to one thing. Basically I love life, but I see it as a biological process where the species perpetuates itself, trying to survive. How much meaning can you attach to that? But at the same time I donít mean to be totally cynical and say itís absolutely meaningless because obviously my life has meaning to me.
DR: So you make your own meaning. It doesnít have any intrinsic meaning in itself.
Boyd: Why does it have to? I mean, what would the intrinsic meaning be? Idealists think that man is capable of evolving into a god.
DR: Do you think that?
DR: You think this is it? This is the end of our evolution?
Boyd: I donít think itís the end of our evolution, but I think itís idealistic to think that mankind can perfect itself, because there doesnít seem to be any such thing as moral or spiritual evolution. What would man do if he was God? Would the TV shows be better?
DR: I hope so. Thatís what I hope heaven is like. So even if the human race were to overcome the basic problems of surviving, yíknow, if there was like, free energy and an abundance of food and people didnít have to work like dogs...
Boyd: That would create further problems, because it would lead to rampant population growth. I mean, if you had free food, think how bad it is now with millions of people starving to death. What if all those people had all the food they needed, free energy. I think everything that man comes up with as a solution to all of his problems evolutionarily leads to more problems.
DR: If everyoneís fed and housed, then whatís the problem with having all those people?
Boyd: If theyíre in your parking space when you want to go to the movie theater, they might get there first. Theyíre all on the Internet and you want to make a phone call and all the lines are busy. So you canít make your phone call Ďcause a bunch of people are downloading pornographic images and playing Dungeons & Dragons. I donít think that most people can deal with leisure time. I can do whatever I want, but I always have things that I want to do, and Iím productive, but most people really need some sort of structure in their lives.
DR: Yeah, I used to just assume that it would be better if no one had to work, because then they could use their free time for something more constructive. But the fact is that they wouldnít.
Boyd: What would be more constructive than work? I mean, if theyíre working at least theyíre fulfilling some kind of function or rendering a service to somebody. What would they do that was constructive otherwise? Work really does set you free. Iím happiest when Iím working. Thatís when I get the most satisfaction. But I might not say the same thing if I was a fry cook at McDonaldís or something.
DR: What do you think was the height of civilization, because you told me before that it was declining, so when was it better?
Boyd: Byzantium was better. Alexandria was better. 1963 was much better. I think there was a time when people were more grounded in reality because they had to deal with a lot of things that we donít have to deal with.
DR: Youíre saying because a lot of things are easier for people now that theyíre becoming weak and indulgent.
Boyd: Not becoming, they are weak and indulgent. Because I think people were heartier in the 1850s. I mean look at what they had to live with. But if Iíd lived in the 1850s Iíd have been dead 20 years ago when I had to have my appendix out. I wouldnít have made it. So there are lots of pluses and minuses there. I mean really, it seems like during the 1950s and early 60s that I just remember what a wonderful world it was, and people still believed in progress. Whenís the last time you heard somebody talk about progress?
DR: I havenít heard any young people say that, but Iíve heard scientists say that. Yíknow, they talk about scientific progress.
Boyd: Yeah, itís ironic that in the last few years, technologically things have progressed at this exponential rate but people still donít have this concept of progress. When I was a kid, everybody talked about progress and how great the future was going to be. We had this kind of shared optimism
DR: Well, all the things we were told were going to happen havenít. I mean, yeah, there have been a lot of technological changes, but we havenít been to the moon in thirty years, and there arenít flying cars, and all this neat stuff that was supposed to happen just didnít. I think it would be possible to have these things but it just hasnít been developed out of lack of interest.
Boyd: No, the technology is there, itís just that in the 60s everybody was of a single will, that they wanted for man to go into space, they wanted to send a man to the moon. And itís kind of like that desire on the part of the public made these things happen, made this new technology.
DR: When is that movie [Pearls Before Swine] coming out?
Boyd: Well, the last Iíve heard is that weíre supposed to go to the Stockholm International Film Festival and itís supposed to be premiered there. Itís like a quarter million dollars budget. It looks like a real movie, but according to real movie-making standards, itís like a poverty row production.
DR: Yeah, well it looks pretty slick from the poster you sent me. It looks like a Jackie Chan movie, or maybe a Lethal Weapon, yíknow, it looks like this action adventure movie. Boyd: Thatís funny because Jackie Chan was filming in the Melbourne right when we were filming and he used all the same sets that he did.