All Roads Lead to Rome

Augustus's only child was his daughter.
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The lineage cannot possible come from Rome.

So what do you come up with is you trace Julius Caesar's blood line back into time?

The long-running controversy about the origins of the Etruscan people appears to be very close to being settled once and for all.

Professor Alberto Piazza, from the University of Turin, Italy, will say that there is overwhelming evidence that the Etruscans, whose brilliant civilisation flourished 3000 years ago in what is now Tuscany, were settlers from old Anatolia (now in southern Turkey).

www.science20.com...

The scientists compared DNA samples taken from healthy males living in Tuscany, Northern Italy, the Southern Balkans, the island of Lemnos in Greece, and the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia. The Tuscan samples were taken from individuals who had lived in the area for at least three generations, and were selected on the basis of their surnames, which were required to have a geographical distribution not extending beyond the linguistic area of sampling. The samples were compared with data from modern Turkish, South Italian, European and Middle-Eastern populations.

“We found that the DNA samples from individuals from Murlo and Volterra were more closely related those from near Eastern people than those of the other Italian samples”, says Professor Piazza. “In Murlo particularly, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey, and, of the samples we obtained, the Tuscan ones also show the closest affinity with those from Lemnos.”

Scientists had previously shown this same relationship for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in order to analyse female lineages. And in a further study, analysis of mtDNA of ancient breeds of cattle still living in the former Etruria found that they too were related to breeds currently living in the near East.

The history of the Etruscans extends before the Iron Age to the end of the Roman Republic or from c. 1200 BC to c. 100BC Many archaeological sites of the major Etruscan cities were continuously occupied since the Iron Age, and the people who lived in the Etruria region did not appear suddenly, nor did they suddenly start to speak Etruscan. Rather they learned to write from their Greek neighbours and thus revealed their language. Archaeologists and linguists are in agreement that the Etruscans had been developing their culture and language in situ before the first historical record of their existence.

“But the question that remained to be answered was – how long was this process between pre-history and history"” says Professor Piazza. In 1885 a stele carrying an inscription in a pre-Greek language was found on the island of Lemnos, and dated to about the 6th century BC. Philologists agree that this has many similarities with the Etruscan language both in its form and structure and its vocabulary. But genetic links between the two regions have been difficult to find until now.

Herodotus’ theory, much criticised by subsequent historians, states that the Etruscans emigrated from the ancient region of Lydia, on what is now the southern coast of Turkey, because of a long-running famine. Half the population was sent by the king to look for a better life elsewhere, says his account, and sailed from Smyrna (now Izmir) until they reached Umbria in Italy.

“We think that our research provides convincing proof that Herodotus was right”,

en.wikipedia.org...

So Caesar said he could trace is heritage back to the Gods, Venus,

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

It is perhaps relevant that two lions are also used in portrayals of the legendary ante-deluvian Sumerian hero/king, Gilgamesh, creating a direct link between Pre-Sumerian, Sumerian and Post-Sumerian (Mesopotamian) cultural themes. The significance of the discovery of an such an early mother-earth figure, flanked by felines, combines to enforce the idea of an prehistoric matriarchal society, of which influences may also be seen in Malta, where the mother-earth figure is given similar such reverence at approximately the same time in history.

Inanna/ Ishtar/Venus/bright and morning star.

Inanna was the Sumerian Goddess of love and war. Despite her association with mating and fertility of humans and animals, Inanna was not a mother goddess, and is rarely associated with childbirth[5]. Inanna was also associated with rain and storms and with the planet Venus.

en.wikipedia.org...

So Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute and her relatives who were with her in the house, because she had hidden the spies Joshua sent to Jericho. And she lives among the Israelites to this day.

Research the women of the Bible, there you will find your clues.

You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

It is possible the old ones, the mighty men of renown actually existed and were called gods,The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

So Caesar said he could trace is heritage back to the Gods, Venus,

And we must take this as fact, why?

Surely it can't be something which can be attributed to his HUGE ego, he just had to actually be a descendant of the 'gods'? You'll find that many emperors/kings/pharaohs in the pre-monarchical period tied themselves to the myths of the past. You had the pharaohs in Egypt declare themselves God's on Earth, linking their lineages to their gods. You had the emperors of the Orient tie themselves to ancient majestic dragons as a symbol of power and higher status.

As we enter into the age of monarchies you see a shift. No longer do these rulers tie themselves to myths, but through the power of the church as a legal institution, they tie themselves directly to what they perceive to be God and His 'will'. Do you really notice any difference?

In essence it really is no different. They are merely feeble attempts to justify their position and their actions. The OP will have you believe otherwise, that G. J. Caesar was a direct descendant of Venus (whoever/whatever that was) and that it was impossible that these links to the God's were merely words driven by ego.

Stupid points like this only hurt the thread and the core theory therein.

Majority of Roman Emperors depicted themselves as demi-gods and proclaimed heritage from the gods.

Nothing new. It was indoctrine into Roman life after the conquest of Greece.

Originally posted by infinite
Majority of Roman Emperors depicted themselves as demi-gods and proclaimed heritage from the gods.

Nothing new. It was indoctrine into Roman life after the conquest of Greece.

The theme of being given divine powers seems to have been something that leaders hit upon early on and still are using right on through today.

By the way when it comes to Corporation X, the current secret offer by the Vatican to buy out England's national debt, when Richard the Lion Heart was financing his Crusade to the Holy Land he was offering titles and lands in some cases for paltry and rediculously low sums to finance it.

People think of Richard of course as the King of what we know as England, but in those days his Avengine Empire included large swaths of France which he considered more as a home and a power base than England itself was.

He basically looked at England as nothing but a source of revenue, and while trying to finance his crusade once famously declared "I would sell London itself, if I could find a rich enough buyer who could afford it".

A statue of Richard the Lion Heart stands out in front of parliment to this day, so despite his ruinous fiscal policies, and failure to retake Jerusalem he is still quite beloved.

So it's possible to imagine that London still might be up for sale, for a cash strapped common wealth who's holdings certainly don't end or are limited to England's shores.

Yet as Serbsta points out, this incredible power to basically do what ever one liked without reproachment or fear, all eminated from the Catholic Church who bestowed divine rights on the Kings and backed them up with Rome and the Vatican's own apparatus of clergy and mercenaries.

The Catholic Church was of course just furthering what the Emperors and Kings had long been doing in claiming to be descendents of the Gods.

This of course was all about creating fear and awe in their subjects and we see right on through today where out of fear a lot of people still want to imagine their are divine forces and even off world forces at play in backing up the rulers of the world.

Superstition and fear continues to be a powerful card that protects the rulers and the elite.

I need some help tracking down a source.

The Treaty of Paris of 1763 designated King George III „Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” And „according to the Encyclopedia Judaica the Rothschilds bear the title „Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.” The Vatican Treasury, of course, holds the imperial wealth of Rome.

Rulers of Evil
Tupper Saussy, p. 160

I've been looking all through various versions of the Encyclopedia Judaica that I could find, but I still cannot verify that point ("Guardians of the Vatican Treasury"). I would be very interested if someone could verify the point made in this book with actual evidence to support it.

Originally posted by serbsta
I need some help tracking down a source.

The Treaty of Paris of 1763 designated King George III „Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” And „according to the Encyclopedia Judaica the Rothschilds bear the title „Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.” The Vatican Treasury, of course, holds the imperial wealth of Rome.

Rulers of Evil
Tupper Saussy, p. 160

I've been looking all through various versions of the Encyclopedia Judaica that I could find, but I still cannot verify that point ("Guardians of the Vatican Treasury"). I would be very interested if someone could verify the point made in this book with actual evidence to support it.

I am currently engaged in another non-related thread where I have brought up prince George's Titles but as usual most people dismiss these out of hand because of the Angelican Church and the split King Henry the VIII had with the Catholic Church.

The general school of thought is that these titles are meaningless, but of course I believe they are very significant.

He uses them in the next treaty of Paris where he declares himself the Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer of the United States in 1782 when that next Treaty concluded the Revolutionary War.

I will try stopping by the Temple here in North Miami Beach and ask if they have a reference to this in any of their Encyclopedia Judaica, I would bet you will have to find a relatively old copy of one to find reference to it.

Another great find Serbsta, I will let you know what I can find out.

Thanks.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Great, let us know if you come across anything.

I find it strange that the only reference to the "Guardians of the Vatican Treasury" is in this one book, which is a secondary source. Throw in a primary source to support this baby and we've got a neat story to work with. Otherwise its just hearsay.

reply to post by serbsta


Here you go.

Jewish Encyclopedia

The Jewish Encyclopedia website contains the complete twelve volumes which were published in 1901. Under the Rothschild entry it clearly states that they are still the guardians of the papal treasure.

It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
en.wikipedia.org...

So Caesar said he could trace is heritage back to the Gods, Venus,

www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk...

************* Julius Caesar

Pre Roman Empire Etruscans and the Phoenicians were trading partners. In fact, Phoenician economic influence was widespread in the entire Mediterranean area. Phoenician trade groups (Semitic Elite) were consolidated with a “Hebrew” language that was invented by their “Scholar” groups. The “Hebrew” influence in Rome began with the Phoenician trade groups “Scholars” (who wrote the Old Testament), circa 500 B.C. “Hebrew Scholars” also consolidated many Italic (Etruscan) languages into Roman accepted “Latin”.

It is possible that “Hebrew” group “envoys” had infiltrated the Roman Government early on.

It is possible that the entire Caesares “family” was fabricated for political dominance and ultimately economic purposes.

It is possible that the “Caesars” including Julius were in fact “Jewish” of Semitic backgrounds, or at least they were “Hebrew” agents.

The “Hebrew” methods of influence included widespread mythical characters and legends.

“Hebrew” myths and legends are similar to older myths from Egypt, Babylonia, etc.

“Hebrew” Jews were well known for administrative duties and were widely used by the Roman Govt.

Julius Caesar descends back only a few hundred years when the Caesares family line seems to begin, no other genetics exist in history. The standing claim is that Julius “married in” to the ancient elite bloodline through Egyptian Queen Cleopatra VII (one offspring named Caesarion never had known children). All offspring from Her (with Mark Anthony) claim to be various “royal” bloodlines (Merovingian). Illegitimate offspring may have carried on Julius’ bloodline as well to preserve the “cloaked” economic agendas.

Julius Caesar was preached to be an Immaculate Conception from a virgin and the god Jupiter (some say Apollo) and some say Venus was his Mother.

Julius Caesar was pro-Jewish according to history.

Cleopatra VII was of Semitic bloodlines (from early political and economic infiltrations).

Julius Caesar’s “writings” were probably “written” by “Hebrew” scribes.

Many “historical” references to Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar are very similar.

Julius Caesar’s death was documented by JEWISH historian Josephus Flavius years later.
Flavius may in fact have fabricated the account and destroyed any genuine “evidence” (if any existed).
Flavius may in fact have written “fictional” accounts of “Jewish” revolts and slavery.
Flavius may also have been the “originator” of the New Testament.
Flavius by His own accounts was a “double agent”, and many of His writings have been marked as forgeries perhaps written by His successors.
It is possible that Flavius was the real “father” of Christian belief structures.

Julius Caesar may in fact be the “Jesus” character and was never “assassinated”.
Or, a “cloaked” offspring with Cleopatra may be the “Jesus” character.
Or, Caesarion, son of Julius and Cleopatra may be the “Jesus” character.
It is possible that the “Magdalene” bloodline may be of Julius Caesar or His son cloaked as the Jesus character.

see this post for some more info:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Epiphron


I was looking on that page and I must have missed it, thank you sir.

The Union Générale.

Meanwhile the Nationalist and Reactionary parties in France desired to counterbalance the "Semitic" influence of the Rothschilds by establishing a banking concern which should be essentially Catholic. Accordingly in 1876 the Union Générale was founded with a capital of 4,000,000 francs, increased to 25,000, 000 fraces in 1878 under the direction of a certain Bontoux. After various vicissitudes, graphically described by Zola in his novel "L'Argent," the Union failed, and brought many of the Catholic nobility of France to ruin, leaving the Rothschilds still more absolutely the undisputed leaders of French finance, but leaving also a legacy of hatred which had much influence on the growth of the anti-Semitic movement in France. Something analogous occurred in England when the century-long competition of the Barings and the Rothschilds culminated in the failure of the former in 1893; but in this case the Rothschilds came to the rescue of their rivals and prevented a universal financial catastrophe. It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.

Of recent years the Rothschilds have consistently refused to have anything to do with loans to Russia, owing to the anti-Jewish legislation of that empire, though on one occasion the members of the Paris house joined in a loan to demonstrate their patriotism as Frenchmen.

Was the wording changed from earlier editions of the encyclopedia?

I have multiple books which all list this part as clearly stating GUARDIANS OF THE VATICAN TREASURY and not a seemingly more diffused term "papal treasure". Not too sure if earlier versions will be available online to double check this.

I've also come across this, would like some further information but I'm really having trouble:

The following year [1823], the Rothschilds took over all of the financial operations of the worldwide Catholic Church.

from Eustace Mullins' book The Curse of Canaan

What happened in 1823?

nothing real special in 1823, just a milestone:

jubilee2012.50webs.com...

and a list of some Rothschilds "Loans" and finance arrangements:

www.rothschildarchive.org.../textguide/articles/loans

I've placed a NEEDS CHECK next to the parts which need verification, some kind of proof, which I have been unable to find as of yet.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed24be230ea8.png[/atsimg]

Direct link in case it gets cut off: files.abovetopsecret.com...

Now notice the list of Banks which supposedly had shares in the Federal Reserve. There are 5 listed there:

National City Bank (now Citibank)
National Bank of Commerce
First National Bank of New York
Hanover National Bank
Chase National Bank

After the Federal Reserve Act had been passed by Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, six New York banks controlled by the Morgan-Standard Oil group bought controlling interest of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which they have held ever since. The May 19, 1914 organization chart of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that of the 203,053 shares ( NEEDS CHECK) issued:

* National City Bank took 30,000 shares
* the Morgan-Baker First National Bank took 15,000 shares
* The National Bank of Commerce (of which Paul Warburg was a large shareholder) took 21,000 shares
* Hanover Bank (now Manufacturers Hanover, of which Lord Rothschild is a director) took 10,200 shares
* Chase National Bank took 6000 shares
* Chemical Bank took 6000 shares
(NEEDS CHECK)

These six banks in 1914 owned 40% of the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

www.modernhistoryproject.org...

And yes I do notice the discrepancy between these 2, one says 5, the other 6. But I still can't find any evidence that the Fed actually issued stocks.

[National City and First National] merged into the present Citibank in 1955, giving them one-fourth of the shares in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The $134 billion Citicorp is now the largest bank in the U.S.

The Federal Reserve System printout of shareholders July 26, 1983 showed that they now own 53%, as follows:
NEEDS CHECKNEEDS CHECK

* Citibank 15%
* Chase Manhattan 14%
* Morgan Guaranty Trust 9%
* Manufacturers Hanover 7%
* Chemical Bank 8%

* Citicorp Citibank is No. 1 in size in the U.S.
* No. 3 is Chase Manhattan with $82 billion assets
* No. 4 is Manufacturers Hanover, $64 billion
* No. 5 is J.P. Morgan, $58 billion
* No. 6 Chemical Bank
* No. 11 is First Chicago, formerly First National Bank of Chicago, controlled by the Baker-Morgan interests

[In 2000, J.P. Morgan merged with Chase, and by 2004 Citigroup was "by far" the largest bank in the world. --ed]

NEEDS CHECK

I'm trying to find support for this... but no luck at all. You can see why it would be interesting, tying these banks to the Federal Reserve ownership if you look at the first chart I posted and how it does tie back to the Bank of England. If anyone can help, it would be great.

But if anything, surely this can be verified by actually look at the newspaper at the time:

The New York Times, Sept. 3, 1914, at the time of the Federal Reserve stock was being sold, showed the principal stockholders of these banks as follows:

* National City Bank -- 250,000 shares:
o James Stillman 47,498
o J.P. Morgan & Co., 14,500
o W. Rockefeller 10,000
o M.T. Pyne 8267
o Percy Pyne 8267
o J.D. Rockefeller 1750
o J.S. Rockefeller 100
o W.A. Rockefeller 10
o J.P. Morgan Jr. 1000
* National Bank of Commerce -- 250,000 shares:
o George F. Baker 10,000
o J.P. Morgan Co. 7800
o Mary W. Harriman, (widow of E.H. Harriman) 5650
o Paul Warburg 3000
o Jacob Schiff 1000
o J.P. Morgan Jr. 1100
* Chase National Bank:
o George F. Baker 13,408
* Hanover Natl. Bank:
o James Stillman 4000
o William Rockefeller 1540
NEEDS CHECK

I think it would be important to find evidence for this, because it would then directly tie the stockholders of the Federal Reserve back to the City of London and the financial interests which operate it, mainly the Rothschild banking dynasty who also, according the Encyclopedia Juadiaca are the main treasurers of the Catholic Church. I hope those reading understand where I'm trying to go with this, I'm not trying to push it though, if we can't prove anything it really doesn't mean anything.

1823 - The Monroe Doctrine, Joseph Smith having visions of angels and founding the Mormons, China creates it's first bank, and in America, the first birth registration law. Also lots of internation boundary agreements and trade disputes.

reply to post by Alethea


If I stood as the figure stood and pointed my right hand as it shows (it does not show the left arm or hand) there is nothing improbable about the anatomy and I am a damn fine artist ty.

reply to post by serbsta

Was the wording changed from earlier editions of the encyclopedia?

I have multiple books which all list this part as clearly stating GUARDIANS OF THE VATICAN TREASURY and not a seemingly more diffused term "papal treasure". Not too sure if earlier versions will be available online to double check this.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia website and wikipedia, the 1901-1906 edition that is available online is the original edition. Also, the Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is what the books that mention ‘guardians of the vatican treasury’ claim is the source, was first published in 1971. I searched the Encyclopaedia Judaica and there was no reference to a ‘vatican treasury’.

I’m not really sure what the cause of the discrepancy is, but something seems odd here I don’t think it is due to accident.

What happened in 1823?

There seems to have been a very interesting string of events occuring in the early 1820’s.

While the Barings are seen as the incumbent around 1815 (Ziegler 1988), historians concur on the basis of contemporary statements that during the period between 1815 and 1820 the Rothschilds took an edge and became the market leader in sovereign debt (Gille 1965: 57-77). By 1820, literally dozens of statements show that market participants recognized their ascendancy.

First, Rothschilds rise to power.

Then, between 1816 and 1822, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Greece, and Argentina all declare their independence. Why?

Bail out expectations for Britain had sponsored the independence movements in Latin America and it recognized the new republics in October 1822. Following this line of reasoning, the trigger of the crisis was Lord Canning eventual insistence that Britain’s foreign policy and the interests of the bondholders were different things (Gille 1965, Ziegler 1988, Dawson 1990).

The bondholders, being the Rothschilds, wanted all of these nations to be independent of European rule. Why? We already discovered that the encyclopedia says the Rothschilds are the ‘Guardians of the Papal Treasure’, so we know that some time after their rise to power (1810’s) they were given control of the Vatican’s money. The alleged year for this is 1823, which makes perfect sense because right around that time, the Rothschilds began to enslave all these newly independent countries through debt. As the Vatican Treasurers, it seems likely that the Vatican ordered them to do this to further Rome’s influence.

The first to suspend the payment of coupon was Peru, in April 1826, followed in May by Colombia. After that date, bad news accumulated, although only gradually, through a fairly long process that extended over almost two years. Chile defaulted in September 1826, Greece in January 1827, Mexico in October 1827, Guatemala in February 1828, Buenos Aires in January 1828, Portugal in June 1828. By the end of 1829, the sovereign debt issues of the early 1820s had turned into a disaster. All Latin American countries, except Brazil, and all Southern European countries, except the Kingdom of Naples, were in arrears.

By the end of the decade, most of Central America had defaulted and the Papal Rothschilds had successfully enslaved them through debt.

So 1823 seems accurate as it corresponds with Rome’s financial takeover of Central and South America.


Rothschilds and Sovereign Debt

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Firstly.....

I would like to say greetings to all. I have just received my posting privileges back from the gmods and as a result, I might be a bit behind on some of the information in this thread.

If so, I would greatly appreciate a link to answer any of my question as to avoid redundancy.

The first that I would like to ask is to you Proto and it involves your statement concerning Corporation X (The Vatican) and buying London.

When you say this, do you mean purchasing the incorporated inner square mile?

I had the understanding that this was "banking central" for the empire of the city and that it is no different than DC or the Vatican.

Would you elaborate on that point for me?

reply to post by Josephus23


Welcome back Josephus, you should give this thread a look www.abovetopsecret.com...

It appears to be all of Great Britan with Corporation X basically looking to purchase all the debt and even invest additional money on top of that for infratructure and health.

So no it's not limited to the London Corporation the square mile that is actually London, built on the ruins of Lundinium the original Roman settlement.

Some pretty good research went in to this thread, I think you will enjoy reading it.

Thanks.

reply to post by Epiphron


Brilliant, thanks.

Found this point to the clincher.

On the other hand, verbal evidence is unanimous which makes things easier. Around 1820, there were
two “market leaders: Rothschilds and Barings” (Chapman, 1984, Chapter 2: pp. 16-38).
While the Barings are seen as the incumbent around 1815 (Ziegler 1988), historians concur on the
basis of contemporary statements that during the period between 1815 and 1820 the Rothschilds took
an edge and became the market leader in sovereign debt (Gille 1965: 57-77).

Further,

Hidy (1949: 64): “By this time the house of Rothschild had assumed a marked ascendancy in floating issues
of securities for the established governments on the Continent. They had become “the financiers of legitimacy.”
The heads of national states were turning first to the new leader, and the Barings lust needs come into the
operations only upon invitation of Nathan Rothschild. The change had been great since 1818”. Ziegler (1988:
97) “By 1825 Rothschilds, when it came to international loans, were unequivocally the most powerful house in
Europe”.

"Financiers of legitimacy", love it. Thanks again for some actual evidence to back up where we're going with this.\

If I could kindly refer you to this post... www.abovetopsecret.com...

Would be great to get some help getting evidence for the points raised there.

Check this out... once again need to find clarification on a certain point, but interesting none the less.

The family's financial backing of the war effort led them to become official banking for many European governments and royal families--the family's financial clout even extended to the Vatican, which turned to the Rothschilds for a loan in 1830.
www.fundinguniverse.com...;-Sons-Limited-Company-History.html

I'm trying to find evidence of this loan from 1830, I can't track anything down, if anyone has sources that could help out with this, would be great. Although I am having trouble finding proof of this loan, I thought it interesting to see who the Pope was at the time. It was Pius VIII, a Pope who held the title for merely 1 year and 245 days between 31st March 1829 and 21st December 1830 after he was supposedly poisoned.

Again... need a lead on this loan.