All Roads Lead to Rome

I am not at all optimistic even ATS is ready for this yet.

Nonsense! Didn't I say it in plain language in a few paragraphs just a few pages ago?

That ET have already been here for thousands of years, they already have all the space-age technology, that Rome and the Vatican and the Jesuits are the secret-keepers?

You don't need an epic 390-flag thread, and three not-so-epic offshoot threads, to put forth this mind-blowing idea PT. Three paragraphs!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The truth is though if I chose, which I do not, I could do the very same thing, and organize and coordinate with others to make my arguments seem more valid than they do on the appearance of stars alone.

How can I prove this? Quite easily any post that is anti the original piece or anti the original poster is now widely starred, yet in reality, each is in fact promoting a very different stance and take of their own. So what in fact is anyone agreeing to in this process?

Nothing. What type of cohesive theory are they putting forward...none.

As a free thinking human being I have chosen to challenge certain inaccuracies that have been posted in this Thread. I have co-ordinated with no one and do not agree with some views that have been posted by either the OP and his supporters or those who disagree with his theory.

It saddens me each time I see you respond to those who challenge your view with glancing aspersions as to their comprehension.

It's just a barbarian horde taking over the city, as we have seen happen in Rome before, yet the Power Structure of Rome didn't cease to exist, nor did Rome itself.

ALL human constructs that have gained the ascendancy have eventually failed. They rule only in cycles. Your 'Rome' will tumble, sooner than you think. They are already eclipsed, just as they eclipsed Egypt before rising to domination. Question is, who is 'Rome' afraid of?

So it's all just smoke and mirrors, divide and conquer which is what Rome is very good at, mainly driven by ego and emotion, which Rome is very good at getting people to use, instead of their intellect.

My intellect has helped me discern that there are too many inaccuracies in the premise for this Thread for me to not question the veracity of the supposition.

Whilst it is true that I have gained knowledge from reading this Thread (I first posted on day 1) and am grateful for the effort put in by both the OP and others, I simply cannot dismis other cultures and ancient histories as having no relevance to today's world.

I put forward no alternative theory about 'who' TPTB are! This is not the playground. It is not a matter of tit4tat.

I get it, it's your Thread, it is in the public domain for all to see. And it contains too many inaccuracies and omissions to qualify as the definitive authority on who runs the world.

Originally posted by Isaacland
reply to post by serbsta

 

serbsta, i took a look at your threads and it all turn around speculative theories about a outer space powerful aliens PTB who visite and control us and 2012 end of the world prophecies.

I've never made any thread like that, I denounced the 2012/AA theory hoax countless times.

Liar. You've shown to be incompetent at posting, and now at character assassination as well.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by serbsta

 

Where is an Etruscan Power Structure, where is an Etruscan Banking System, where is there a dominant Etruscan concept of God and religion? Where is there a Club of Tuscany trying to take over the world.

The lack of common sense to understand that Rome developed out of the Etruscan system of living and therefore replaced the Etruscan system of living is mind boggling.

It's cool, if you choose to believe a myth/legend, then go for it. I am not denouncing the importance of the legend, I am not saying that many did Romans didn't link the Trojan myth with their lineage, but every civilization has their own myths and legends of origin. Does it mean that:

-The Aboriginal people were really created by Rainbow serpents?
-The Chinese people were really created by 2 dragons?

That logic is insane!

There is plenty of proof to show that Rome is an Etruscan creation, you chose to ignore it.

reply to post by serbsta


Where would that evidence be, and why wasn't Tuscany then the Capitol of this Tuscan Empire?

The Etruscans like many other neighboring Kingdoms merged with early Rome as it was expanding. You could look at the contributions of two or three other neighboring Kingdoms Rome absorbed early on and just as easily draw the same conclusion that they created Rome.

Yet once again you aren't addressing the main hole then in your argument. You are claiming Rome can't be believed to tell it's whole history, and no other Poster can be believed either when theorizing like you are, based on some alternative limited schools of thought.

All the while you have failed to lay out any case, beyond you have seen some Etruscan influences in some of early Rome, primarily I imagine what I discovered based on my own research that those would be some simple building and engineering principles and techniques.

So are the guys digging ditches at the side of the roads, and grading ground to build roads, the real power behind the world now?

Should we really be paying more attention to those signs that say: SLOW WOKERS PRESENT SPEEDING FINES DOUBLED?

Etruscan influences are no more prevelant than the other neighboring Kingdoms a place called Rome, not Tuscany absorbed.

So why then would the Etruscans not name this civilization named Rome after them selves? Where they ashamed to be Etruscans?

It really makes no sense Serbsta, it didn't 4 months ago and it doesn't today either.

That's a question that you are avoiding. A very important and telling one too.

reply to post by teapot

I get it, it's your Thread, it is in the public domain for all to see. And it contains too many inaccuracies and omissions to qualify as the definitive authority on who runs the world.

Which you conclude with as an authoritative statement after stating:

I put forward no alternative theory about 'who' TPTB are! This is not the playground. It is not a matter of tit4tat.

Which is really just a way of saying, you really don't know. So if you really don't know then why pretend you know who you imagine isn't running the world?

I think it's one thing to say, I really need more information to draw a conclusion, and entirely another to dismiss so many very obvious things, in fact overwhelmingly obvious things that point to Rome.

Especially in absence of an alternative theory.

It's just an elaborate way of saying "I disagree and everyone else should too, though, I really have no clue as to who is in control and driving world events".

Yes everyone is sure entitled to an opinion, but the truth is, it's a conspiracy thread, in a conspiracy forum, that is under active investigation.

I don't think you really have enough information or anyone does that would make it wise to eliminate Rome, especially based on all the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in this thread.

Eventually the thread will get back on track and moving forward, and having said that, besides saying you disagree, what are you offering for us to instead consider and agree too, beyond the fact that you disagree.

Like I said, I respect your opinion, I just don't see what constructive role it is playing.

So I really think if people focused in on trying to come up with some alternatives, that were things that people who are looking at todays world to understand what's really driving it, no matter how far back they go, or don't, that would be a lot more helpful, than just repeating over and over again, I disagree.

Conspiracy discussions are aimed at arriving at the truth. Of looking at motive and opportunity, people, and things and organizations involved, and trying to figure out what's really going on.

If you are saying this isn't going on, you more or less ultimately can only determine that by showing what is really going on.

It's pretty simple.

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by serbsta

 

So why then would the Etruscans not name this civilization named Rome after them selves? Where they ashamed to be Etruscans?

Why then didn't the "Trojans" simply name it Troy? What a joke.

Rome either got its name from the archaic Etruscan name for the river Tiber which is Rumen, which flows through Rome. Or it got its name from the Etruscan name Rum (meaning teet) which could be a reference to the Palatine and Aventine hills (2 of the most important of the 7 hills of Rome). Others say it comes from Romulus, but that story is based solely on myth, so its better to stick to more practical explanations.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Where would that evidence be

I've shown it to you above. Proto please follow, there are many examples and I'm sick of doing research for you. Here it is again, worded differently... maybe this time it can come through clearer.

The legend of Rome's beginnings is generally accepted as having one, or maybe both, feet firmly planted in mythology. Did anyone really believe all that about the princess impregnated by Zeus and the twins brought up by a she-wolf? A far more likely version of events points to the Etruscans and their expanse southwards in the eighth century BC. There is evidence to suggest that the Etruscans were present on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills at this time. When they first came to the Tiber, they found nothing more than a collection of small hill-top villages made up of shepherds' huts. They united and organised these disparate settlements into a prosperous town, building an important sewer, the Cloaca Maxima in 578 BC, which drained the marshy land between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills (the future Roman Forum), and also building city walls around the Capitoline Hill. From this it is clear that the Romans owe their very inception to the Etruscans.

* Many Etruscan religious customs have been absorbed into Roman (and consequently Christian) practices, such as the use of the priest's Littus (a curved staff), which later became the Christian bishop's staff.
* There are significant influences on Christian dress and rituals, derived from Etruscan religious customs. Purple was a sacred colour used by Etruscan priests and this use continued in the form of the purple toga designated for the emperor of Rome, and for the cardinal's robes in the church.
* The Etruscans had their own calendar divided into 12 sections, which would have provided a basis for an early Roman calendar – although it is possible that both Etruscan and Roman calendars are based on the Greek lunar calendar.
* Etruscan gods took on Roman guises, for example the Etruscan gods Tinia, Uno and Menrva were all given a new lease of life under their Roman incarnations of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva.
* The Etruscans had advanced knowledge of metallurgy, hydrolics and divination, which they passed on to the Romans.
* Although the Etruscan language has been only partially decoded, many Etruscan words became part of the Latin language of Rome, and so find themselves in modern romance languages. Etruscans also had their own form of writing, which may have influenced the Latin script.
* The Etruscans were skilled architects and engineers and, while the Romans became far more famous for their ingenuity and construction, they learned many of their skills from their forebears the Etruscans.
heritage-key.com...

Meanwhile, you can choose to believe in this fairytale:

Romulus and Remus are Rome's twin founders in its traditional foundation myth. They are descendants of the Trojan prince and refugee Aeneas, and are fathered by the god Mars or the demi-god Hercules on a royal Vestal Virgin, Rhea Silvia (also known as Ilia), whose uncle exposes them to die in the wild. They are found by a she-wolf who suckles and cares for them. The twins are eventually restored to their regal birthright, acquire many followers and decide to found a new city.

What's clear was that once Rome became independent it launched an assault on Etrutia with the same amount of aggression that they showed other victims (e.g Carthage), even if these people were the ones who had found the city state. Rome felt as if it was owed a right to be independent (which it got), a right to have their own independent and unique history (which they got) and a right to expand this new (not really new) culture and set of ideas. You see, Rome was highly jealous of the Greek system, they looked up to their brightest and more intelligent for teachings in philosophy, language, etc. The Greeks had a unique and complex set of mythological and religious traditions which gave their culture a superior image to show off, Rome was lacking in this. So what did the Romans do? Make something up of course.

There's a reason why the Romulus and Remus myth originated only in the 4TH CENTURY BC and not earlier, Rome became independent in the 5TH CENTURY BC. The myth was created in order to facilitate this requirement to distance themselves from their Etruscan heritage and to put it more simply, 'be more like the Greeks'. That's why you have such connections with Hellenic/Roman gods like Mars, Apollo, etc. As well as making up their own myth of origin, they also played upon existing Hellenic legends and adapted them to suite their own needs.

I hope we can get over this point and move onto something else, Rome is an Etruscan creation, NOT a Trojan one like you stated.

It really makes no sense Serbsta, it didn't 4 months ago and it doesn't today either.

You're telling me.

reply to post by serbsta

Why then didn't the "Trojans" simply name it Troy? What a joke.

Why did the descendants of one, sole surviving Trojan Prince Aeneas not name it Troy? You might want to ask them, but what those descendants did in fact do, is claim a blood line. A royal bloodline that dated back to Troy.

Now here is maybe where it would help if you attempted to clarify some of your arguments further.

Are you saying Troy never existed?

Is that what is causing you to believe that it's all simply myth because you believe there was no Troy, even though Troy was heavily featured in one of the oldest known stories to mankind?

If that's the case how to you explain what archeologists believe to be the mound where Troy once stood? A huge settlement dating back to the Bronze Age?

So if you accept Troy existed, are you saying you absolutely believe everyone who lived in Troy was killed to the last man, woman and child. That there were no survivors, that there was no chance any of them could have migrated from the scene of destruction.

That say for instance no other deposed Royal like say the Shah of Iran's son the Prince Regent who runs around Talk Shows today, and spends millions of dollars trying to influence the Iranian internal and international political debate, then might quest to maintain their title and create some kind of new power base, based on their own Royal bloodline?

The only thing that would absolutely eliminate Rome having been founded by the direct descendants of a migrating Trojan would be if Troy never existed.

You are also forgetting that Rome started out as a Kingdom, while you seem to keep saying Rome was based on the Etruscan Political System, suggesting some how the Republic was an invention of the Etruscans.

When in reality the Republic was based off of a modified version of Greek Democracy.

Now lets look a bit further using a modern example. The Prince Regent of Iran with the help of the CIA and MI6 stages a return to power in Iran. Is Iran now a American and British creation, because the Prince Regent did this from the United States and Britan? Or is it still Iran?

Considering your source for this challenges Rome's own version of it's history, and the Universities and major History Texts version of it's history and your seem to only have one source in a site named Heritage.com I think your theory is just that a theory.

Now I know my entire Presentation is a theory, because it contradicts the official history told throughout the ages.

Do you know your theory is a theory because it does the same.

There's a reason why the Romulus and Remus myth originated only in the 4TH CENTURY BC and not earlier, Rome became independent in the 5TH CENTURY BC. The myth was created in order to facilitate this requirement to distance themselves from their Etruscan heritage and to put it more simply, 'be more like the Greeks'.

Because we were not there we don't know when Rome first started making these claims. We just know based on a very limited amount of surviving history, a possible date as to when accounts of it first seem to appear.

Once again the above is a Theory too, that is a subject of much speculation.

In fact there is a tremendous amount of speculation about early Rome and it's origins that goes on in the academic as well as the conspiracy world today.

Just like the highly speculative article you are using as your sole source from Heritage.com.

For someone who demands evidence to support things that are more than theories from web sites when it comes to trying to refute other's theories and contentions you certainly don't appear to be requiring any greater level of evidence when it comes to how you arrive at your own conclusions.

Because there are so many speculative theories regarding Rome's origins within the academic community, they are in fact speculative theories.

This one obviously is your favorite, but why is it your favorite. Because of thorough independent research in libraries, in the field, and talking to a host of historians, or because you found it on a web site, and it can be used to counter my theory?

I would say it's the latter, since you are only presenting one source.

Rome either got its name from the archaic Etruscan name for the river Tiber which is Rumen, which flows through Rome. Or it got its name from the Etruscan name Rum (meaning teet) which could be a reference to the Palatine and Aventine hills (2 of the most important of the 7 hills of Rome). Others say it comes from Romulus, but that story is based solely on myth, so its better to stick to more practical explanations.

The saturday before last I drank the better part of two bottles of rum while roaming around a party in my backyard, while I drank the Rum, some of the guests and I talked about Rome, which even in my drunken state sounded entirely different than Rum, even though my primary focus being a pirate was on the Rum and not Rome.

So why then would the Etruscans not name Roma, Rumen, why then would they change the name of the Rumen to the Tiber.

You found a web site article, saying Rome is an Etruscan creation. Horay.

Now having presented it several times, I still don't believe Rome to be an Etruscan creation, based on that very limited amount of information that you are presenting.

No one is really coming out and arguing this theory on your behalf in any way where they are attempting to answer the questions that really make this theory not add up.

So it's not even a theory anyone else posting to the thread besides you favors.

In this present posting environment which basically just consists of a handful of people clinging to the thread for religious, political and personal reasons, anything that is anti-thread becomes popular with stars, but in absence of that handful of people joining in and presenting those arguments too, all you have to support these contentions is one internet article, a whole lot of speculation and a few people not prepared or qualified to talk to them.

So since Troy factors heavily into the theory, and I and some other members plan to be discussing it at much greater length here presently, and you certainly haven't presented any information tht rules out Rome's Trojan roots. If you have no actual further, real research to better establish your theory as it pertains to just one of hundreds of aspects to the thread, I do wish you would allow the thread to continue on, in a more, objective, less distruptive way.

Which I have been politely asking you for months now.

Thanks.

Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by masqua

 

Originally posted by masqua

I believe it contains the ONLY historically recorded account of a living, breathing Jesus Christ. (this is why I'm surprised)

That's all fair, but the Testimonium Flavianum has not been accepted as a valid source for centuries now. The worlds leading scholars dismiss it as a forgery, most likely a misinterpretation or misrepresentation by the Catholic Church through the "historian" (I use that loosely) Eusebius.

Here's an interesting excerpt, dismissing the validity of the TF from Dr. Lardner:

"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'

Christian Mythology Unveiled (1842), page 47

Dr. Lardner was, by the way, a Christian himself.

The first person to ever quote the TF was Eusebius himself, more than 250 years after it was supposedly written. Josephus, being a Jew, would not refer to Christ as being divine, it does not make sense. The passage is a clear forgery.

Only part of the quote is considered an addition. " Referring to Christ in the Divine." The rest of the quote is authentic Josephus from Arabic editions before Eusebius.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


How does it mean that I think Troy never existed?

STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. I highlighted it for you.

I used that source because it summarized the ideas presented from a variety of sources. Instead of attacking the message, you attacked the source, meaning you failed to actually address critical judgments made within the source only to dismiss it for the sake of dismissing it.

Read Pennell's Ancient Rome which details all these issues in depth, especially in the 3rd and 5th chapters. Also read Tim Cornell's The Beginnings of Rome, both which presented points for a similar argument. I'm not doing the research for you. I've presented my argument in a clear and coherent way.

The point still stands. You have no evidence whatsoever to back up Rome being of Trojan origin other than one myth, yet you keep raging on about it, denial? Too afraid to say you're wrong?

So it's not even a theory anyone else posting to the thread besides you favors.

No one else is addressing the foundations of the state. Let's face it, you only present one fairytale as a source, not leaving people with a lot to work with aye?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by serbsta


Everything in this thread is about Rome being TPTB and so from page 1 so again sersta if Rome is not TPTB who is it then, you seems passionated by aliens civilisations, so is it green little men from planet Zoulou...please tell us sesbsta, who is TPTB...

thank you

reply to post by serbsta

How does it mean that I think Troy never existed?

STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. I highlighted it for you.

Stop deflecting Proto said:

Are you saying Troy never existed?

So in fact all you have done is avoided the question with an other emotional based out pouring.

My question to you is specific, do you believe Troy never existed.

I used that source because it summarized the ideas presented from a variety of sources. Instead of attacking the message, you attacked the source, meaning you failed to actually address critical judgments made within the source only to dismiss it for the sake of dismissing it.

This is where you are in fact making assumptions. I questioned why you were only presenting one source, while asking a series of key questions that you failed to answer.

Spefically the main ones I shall list again since you seem to be having a difficult time identifying questions put to you:

Why if Rome is an Estruscan creation did they not name it for themselves?

This is the most important one. Further if Rome was, if being the keyword there why would the Etruscans hide their own roots.

Where your argument then falls into emotionally inspired dogma is you then claim, Rome was obsessed with the Greeks and invented the mythology.

Yet according to your own theory, they weren't Romans but Etruscans who were not only so ashamed that they were Etruscans they reinvented themselves as Romans but then even that didn't help their inferiority complex and they then patterened themselves off of Trojans.

Which in fact would not have impressed the Greeks at all, which is why you contend they did this, because Greece and Sparta had destroyed Troy which was by the way never a part of Greece, but one of three closely neighboring city states, Sparta, Athens and Troy.

So this part of your argument is not well thought out either.

In part because you have failed to think out the arguments these couple of authors that are amalgamated into one opinion oriented website, but have simply accepted them yourself verbatim, in part because you want to discredit the notion of Troy being involved, and in part because you want to discredit the thread itself and Rome still running the world.

Further you appear, appear being the key word to bristle at early Rome using mythology, even though you don't seem to have any objection to Christians, Jews and Muslims still using Judean mythology today.

So what makes one mythology not mythology, and another mythology, mythology. What makes one credible and one not credible.

Both are highly embelished rewritten accounts based on notions of God(s) and ancient history that require massive imposition through domination tactics.

What many fail to see is at the time of early Judean/Christian philosophy, the world represented a plethora of different cultures who had never heard of Yahweh or believed in monotheistic concepts.

Rome with the aid of the Jews and then later the Muslims basically made monotheism popular by using a variety of tactics including but not limited to force of arms and punishment by death for not accepting the 'Group Think'.

So yes early Rome like every other civilization including our own, has used myths that infer and confer a divine mission and origin to bind the people together by creating a dominant philosophy.

That doesn't mean that Troy, Jerusalem, Babylon, and other ancient cities never existed, it just calls into question how they used concepts of God to dominate the people.

Now getting back to the thread itself, no one else is arguing your point here Serbsta just you.

A few other posters have aligned themselves to make their random partial and incomplete theories seem popular primarily by trying to make the original post, and the original poster seem unpopular.

This has included doggedly holding on to the thread for months after it became relevant as a current discussion on ATS when these same random incomplete theories were not popular, to wait for a time where a few determined people could band together to make them seem popular by employing the tactics above.

If people were really agreeing with you, you would have hundreds of stars, and post after post from member after member speaking to some real depth of information they arrived at independent of you that support your theories, which aren't even your theories but the theories of a couple of authors.

Because many people on the site are in fact not conspiracy theorists they don't actually know how to observe and investigate ellements that suggest a conspiracy is present.

For instance in the first 30 days of this thread it grew to about 47 pages, less than an average of 2 pages a day.

When this coordinated attack began 5 months later 5 days ago launched by no more than a dozen posters all banded together through a dislike of the original piece and or the original poster, 23 pages of content were generated in just 2 days.

Most of those posts presented no actual counter theory, or complete theory but simply an attack on the Original Piece and the Original Poster. Considering the thread had long fallen to no longer being current, and was generating on average 5 or 6 posts a day for months, this burst of posting rivaling and then surpassing the frequency of posts in the first 72 hours the thread was originally posted clearly points to a coordinated effort on a group banded together to each try to make their own incomplete counter theories seem more popular simply by trying to use the same dominating techniques all societies do when putting myth forward as fact.

However whether it's here on ATS, or the NetWork News such bursts of opinion and effort usually do in fact peter out after 72 hours, which is why most threads on ATS have about a 72 hour shelf life before they end up becoming no longer currently topical.

Because so many members on ATS come here for entertainment, base entertainment at that, once that entertainment becomes boring after about 72 hours, then the numbers fall off.

So moving forward as the attack on the thread no longer becomes entertaining to those enlisted to that end, who have nothing topical to add and never did, who have no real ongoing vested interest, you will actually, as will anyone else actually still posting have to put forward your theories in ways that answer all my relevant questions if you want me to agree with these theories and snippettes.

Where you are in fact assuming is that I have not researched out these things, simply because I have not come to the same conclusions you have.

What Infinite tried to explain yesterday, is in fact before I even posted this thread, a very serious and detailed conversation that was very research intensive took place for months between he and I and some very other notable ATS posters.

So the assumption that I have not researched these things because I didn't arrive at the same conclusions you have, is really just wholesale ignorance.

If you are putting forth a counter theory that you want me to adopt its on you to present it in a way that answers and addresses all the major holes in it.

Your own methodology, reliance on dogmatic sources, and political motivation, in addition to the holes in the information you are presenting caused me to reject it months ago.

As someone who has hijacked many a thread from posters who have not done research or had any real interest in the subject matter, I can assure you that I have not only done an incredible amount of research but have a genuine interest in the subject matter, so much so that it led me to posting what is likely the longest Original Post in ATS history.

About a dozen people out of hundreds and hundreds of respondents to the thread want to gloss over the very quality discussions held earlier on in the thread, the vast amount of research and posts other's contributed to establishing Rome's Trojan roots earlier on in the thread, by falsely charachterizing what's taken place in the thread, to try to make what were unpopular and largely rejected contentions and incomplete theories seem popular now when no one but the posters engaged in that process are no longer involved.

Hoping that others can not put two and two together, and hoping that I can't put two and two together are entirely two different things, since a large part of this Conspiracy has to do with highlighting the tactics that Rome has used to manipulate popular opinion by first making through various deceptive and forceful means to make that which had been popular seem unpopular.

You like many others still continue to miss what the thread is about. The people still clinging to it, want to make the thread about something near and dear to them, the sanctity of Christianity, the proposition that there is no one world government in the immediate offing, or simply the notion that so many could not have possibly been decieved so long.

I won't be rolling over for these people, and the main sticking point of contention is people with incomplete theories who can't fill in the holes demanding I accept them.

I am not accepting them because they are incomplete theories full of holes, that no sensible motive or opportunity has been displayed for, as I mentioned above serbsta how would it aide the Etruscans inferiority complex by renaming themselves Roman after inventing Rome for that specific purpose as you claim, and then choosing a city that that the Athenians and Spartans destroyed to make them them feel superior to the Greek state that had by then hundreds of years later popped up, when Troy was destroyed by the Spartans and Athenians and was never a part of Greece.

Poorly thought out argument and contentions will be rejected by me.

Thanks.

REMINDER

All off-topic and unmannerly posts lead to removal!!!!!!!

For those who may be wondering what is off topic or is considered not mannerly:

Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

Please Stay on Topic

Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Thank you for cooperating.

If you are going to use architecture and symbolism to prove a connection,

You should also look at the evolution of languages,

and genetics

www.pachman.com...

Only Greek Architecture before Alexander (who died in 323 BC) carries any ethnic designation. The ancient Greeks were notoriously dismissive of barbaroi, those who spoke Greek non-natively or not at all. The incredible conquests of Alexander and the subsequent application of a veneer of Greek city states to a base of Egyptian, Semitic, and even Iranian populations produced an important change. Though Greek-speaking remained the touchstone of whether one was a member of civilized culture or not, the ethnic diversification of the Hellenistic world is clear. The formal elements of classical Greek architecture were applied to temples for gods never worshipped in Greece.

The Romans can be seen as the latest Hellenistic empire. Pre-imperial architecture is more or less

" Etruscan with some Greek elements."

I am still trying to find a very good web site on architecture I once found, that takes you through the styles and similarities from Sumerian and on,








MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

I apologize, I did give the credits yes,?

What I found interesting was this quote,

Division of Classical and Sumerian architecture

www.pachman.com...
The Romans can be seen as the latest Hellenistic empire. Pre-imperial architecture is more or less Etruscan with some Greek elements. By the time the Romans conquered mainland Greece in the 2nd century BC they were importing Greek craftsmen to build major public buildings. The term Roman Art and Roman Architecture has no ethnic meaning of Italic Romans. Most art historians assume that it has the ethnic meaning of "Greek-speaking slave" or "Greek-speaking free laborer," in fact.

www.pachman.com...
architecture is more or less Etruscan with some Greek elements

Due to the fact people are using the history and evolution of architecture .

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Ok. Many pages ago, I asked for your view on the House of Saud. You ignored my query. So, many pages later, I asked you the same question. You responded! And your response told me that your focus on 'Rome' has blinkered your view.

It is my view that whatever Julian of Wiki fame was going to leak that would 'change/rewrite history' is linked to the Saudi royals. It is a theory that has it's basis in a rumour I heard in college in the 1970's, a rumour that had the Kuwaiti students spitting and cursing.

I cannot dismis your theory about 'Rome' being immensely powerful. It is a matter of historical fact and absolute truth that English Law, the basis of American Law, follows the Roman model. Just as it is a fact that the Romans adopted Grecian Democratic Political systems. Both have been the frameworks used by western powers as the founding principles for international 'relations'.

It suprises me that you seem unable to accept the possibility that 'Rome' may have some competition in the world! Or indeed, in the 'family'.

You have postulated that whilst the Catholic Church is and always has been, involved in the legal, fiscal and political development of the modern world yet claim the Thread has nothing to do with religion! I would like to let you into a little secret, Catholicism is a religion! And some of the people who follow that religion are Christians who experience the transcendential life in the Christian Way. The world would be a far darker place than even you envisage were it not for the efforts of those believers (and otherwise!), who seek to undermine and even undo, 'Rome's' influence.

But you know, this desire ('Rome') for total control and domination is often born of fear and insecurity, I'm not a psychologist but I believe this is the sign of the bully who cannot logically foresee his own doom!

Your references to your 'contact' in the 'cabal' concern me. I choose to keep an open mind about this person and the information you say they have revealed to you. I have no guarantees that your 'contact' exists, is truthful or has no 'roman' driven agenda.

**OFF TOPIC material removed**

reply to post by teapot

You have postulated that whilst the Catholic Church is and always has been, involved in the legal, fiscal and political development of the modern world yet claim the Thread has nothing to do with religion! I would like to let you into a little secret, Catholicism is a religion! And some of the people who follow that religion are Christians who experience the transcendential life in the Christian Way. The world would be a far darker place than even you envisage were it not for the efforts of those believers (and otherwise!), who seek to undermine and even undo, 'Rome's' influence.

I am not sure how anyone who has read the thread would be so confused as to think I have said the Catholic Church runs the world.

Time and time again I have in fact stated that the core Roman Patrician, Oligarchs and Royals that constitute Rome stand above or aside from the Catholic Church, while publicly defering to the Pope in matters of State protocol.

Protocol just being manners and decorum for the sake of appearances and public consumption.

This again is one of those convenient distortions on behalf of others that truly cause me to wonder about the reading comprehension and or motivation of those that keep repeating this.

Significant portions of the thread early on deal with the different arms of Rome, the Council of Eight that stands above them all, and the Pope simply being a figurehead for public consumption.

You might want to reread the thread and find anywhere where I have said Rome is the Catholic Church.

I do frequently discuss as do others the extraordinary powers that the Pope has in relation to things like protocol over the Royals and heads of state, and the United Nations, but no where ever have I stated that the Pope and the Catholic Church is Rome.

Numerous places totaling in the hundreds including this post I have very specifically stated the opposite.

One of the things that most threaten productive discussion is these constant misrepresentations for obvious religious reasons on the part of some readers.

As far as the world being a far darker place in absence of Christianity, that’s a matter of opinion, that frankly the descendants of many of the World’s First Nation’s peoples, Jews and Muslims would have a very different opinion about.

Once again everyone is entitled to an opinion, but people should understand that their own personal opinions are not proof positive of anything or likely to effect anyone else’s opinion in absence of some compelling definitive proof.

Ok. Many pages ago, I asked for your view on the House of Saud. You ignored my query. So, many pages later, I asked you the same question. You responded! And your response told me that your focus on 'Rome' has blinkered your view.

You might want to repost the question then and ask again if you feel it went unanswered. Generally I have answered such questions by displaying that Muslim Royals also defer to the Pope as a matter of protocol during state visits and posted videos of past and present Pope's state visits to the Middle East region meeting with Muslim Royals to display this.

Now understand that in the above statement you are not actually asking a specific question or how I responded to that specific question but merely stating an opinion that in fact does not tell the readers anything that is topical or relevant to the thread.

Once again understand that snipes and gripes are just snipes and gripes, and are not part of a positive discussion on the topic.

It is my view that whatever Julian of Wiki fame was going to leak that would 'change/rewrite history' is linked to the Saudi royals. It is a theory that has it's basis in a rumour I heard in college in the 1970's, a rumour that had the Kuwaiti students spitting and cursing.

Considering that Wiki Leaks did not exist in 1970 and that no such revelation by Wiki Leaks has come out that would support a rumor you can't even define, I would ask you once again to conside putting forth informative arguments.

I can't imagine that such limited statements are informative on any level since they contain not a shred of information.

Once again please consider contributing something topical, and at the very least informative, besides vague references to random unspecified fears.

I cannot dismis your theory about 'Rome' being immensely powerful. It is a matter of historical fact and absolute truth that English Law, the basis of American Law, follows the Roman model. Just as it is a fact that the Romans adopted Grecian Democratic Political systems. Both have been the frameworks used by western powers as the founding principles for international 'relations'.

Then I highly urge anyone who feels the same way, to put their emotional driven responses on the back burner to engage in an intellectual discussion regarding these things. That is the purpose of the thread.

It would appear you too like me and many others do in fact see Rome as being far more than the Vatican and the Catholic Church based upon the above statement.

It suprises me that you seem unable to accept the possibility that 'Rome' may have some competition in the world! Or indeed, in the 'family'.

It surprises me that some are unable to read the works of Hegel that outline the promblem/solution, thesis versus anti-thesis pradigm to use synergy in state craft to create a end product and result that neither side of the problem/solution, and thesis/anti-thesis politically see or want on the ground level.

Those who want to learn about how Rome works, need to start actually doing some real study on the strategies it employs and understand that they do not employ common thinking or look at problems in common ways.

Problems are oppotrunities, which is why they present everything as a problem that requires some type of measure from the right to correct, while convincing the left at the same time that this attempt on the right imperils the left, and to counter it with a action of their own.

This then creates the synergy that leads to an outcome Rome wants that neither the Right or the Left wanted.

When you further realize that the entire world has fallen to the United Nations and it's oversight and arbitration, to International Corporations and Banks ultimately funded and owned by Rome, and to common systems of law these so called independent entities aren't independent at all.

When you take the denial and emotion out of arguments and start observing objectively, looking for tell tale patterns, repititions, and mutually beneficial objectives you start to see a whole different picture.

By the way one of the things that clouds how some of these things are mutually beneficial to both parties, is whey you identify and align yourself with either the left side or the right side of the conflict you are looking at it with that bias and objective involved.

In other words, how a Israeli sees the tension between Israel and Iran, is going to be entirely different than how an Iranian sees the tension between Israel and Iran.

How Rome views it will not be the same as either side.

Israel wants to get something out of the conflict and feels it already is, while Iran wants to get something out of the conflict and feels it already is.

What Rome wants is the end product of the conflict between the two.

If you want to get a better idea of how Rome really thinks and what they would be looking for stop taking sides based on religion or nationality or political party, read Hegel and step back and watch it from an objective standpoint and view it as a puzzle and you will start getting a better idea, of how Rome looks at things and manipulates things.

But you know, this desire ('Rome') for total control and domination is often born of fear and insecurity, I'm not a psychologist but I believe this is the sign of the bully who cannot logically foresee his own doom!

Anyone who imagines that there is not a One World Government in the offing is not really paying attention to events or their political leaders.

As one early poster put it so well: "Call it Roam, calle it Rome, call it Foam but it would serve everyone well to pay attention and consider what this thread is about."

As the original poster I truly am the one who ultimately defines what the thread is about my friend.

I didn't post it as a series of random thoughts nor was I vague as to why I posted it, in fact I laid it all out in the opening piece which I highly reccomend you and others laboring under mis-charechterizations of the thread, borne from those trying to construe it in other ways, reread the opening post, and rejoin the conversation then in an objective way, based on it's premise.

Your references to your 'contact' in the 'cabal' concern me. I choose to keep an open mind about this person and the information you say they have revealed to you. I have no guarantees that your 'contact' exists, is truthful or has no 'roman' driven agenda.

This individual represents an input of less than 2% of the opening piece, and one of the problems is people continually wanting to construe an anonymous source to mean things it does not.

Once again those objectively reading the thread even recent posts would learn that Infinite the ATS Subject Matter Expert on the New World Order, and a number of other notable and respected ATS posters, discussed the bulk of these theories laid out in a different thread.

During the course of that conversation dozens upon dozens of ATS members asked, let me repeat asked me to lay out the entire theory I had been discussing in part when it TOPICALLY fit into other threads, to lay it all out in WHOLE in a thread dedicated to just that.

I think if people stop trying to misconstrue things, in desperate efforts to debunk a THEORY that no one but a handful of people running the world could debunk, because no one has the access to all the information but them, and instead put their emotions and egos aside, this could once more become a pleasant and informative discussion.

Which save for a few unhappy posters that I would not accept random incomplete theories as playing a part, and not allow it to become a religious thread instead of a conspiracy thread, it has been a pleasant discussion.

So please consider adding something positive to the thread. If you have heard rumors then please tell us actually what those rumors are, if you have a theory, then please tell us what those theories are.

I think what a lot of people are missing, is anyone who has a sound theory that makes sense could in fact lay it out here or any where else here on ATS, just as I have done. The only one stopping them from doing that is them.

Instead after in some cases having up to six months to present a theory that really makes sense they are still angrily posting a few paragraphs that make no sense while claiming it changes everything.

Such people should take their time, lay it all out, write it all out, and present it, in a way that isn't laced with snipes and gripes because they failed to persuade me with a couple of paragraphs and a link to a web site.

It's real simple my friend.

Masqua was kind enough to send me the latest news on the latest Vatican scandal.

I would like to extend a personal thanks to Masqua for a lot of the great research he has brought to the thread, high quality discussion, and for a steady stream of information he has been compiling in his own on going interest in this thread and discussion.

People like Masqua and a few other great ATS Members are some of my sources too.

The fact that I can not name one of my sources who remains to wish anonymous just means that the source wishes to remain anonymous.

I wish people would stop trying to assert that one annonymous source has any overwhelming bearing or influence on my opening piece or views.

Having said that lets get back to Rome:

Money-Laundering Inquiry Touches Vatican Bank

Published: September 21, 2010— Italian monetary authorities said Tuesday that they had impounded $30 million from the Vatican bank and placed its top two officers under investigation in connection with a money-laundering inquiry. The announcement amounted to another potential storm confronting the papacy of Benedict XVI, who is struggling with the effects of a priestly abuse scandal.

www.nytimes.com...

This is not the first time the Vatican has had a banking scandal in recent years for those who remember the last affair.

Many feel that the Vatican may be in fact laundering the proceeds from Organized Crime transactions.

The sandal before this one did lead to the exposure of a Masonic Lodge tied to the Vatican despite the Masons long held claim that Catholics are forbidden from becoming Masons.



This is a seven part series that details large parts of the last Vatican banking scandal.



A short one on the death of "God's Banker"



Another series on the Pope and the Mafia Millions

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Money-Laundering Inquiry Touches Vatican Bank

Interesting development Proto, including the last scandal, now if the Vatican and Catholic Church were ruling the world it would seems to me they wouldn't be dumb enough to be caught up in scandals like this, just saying.

Thanks for including this information here.