All Roads Lead to Rome

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HothSnake

 

You got to be kidding.

Where did the revolutionary war start? Where was the Boston Tea Party? Where did almost all the battles of the revolutionary war take place?

Ever hear of the Son's of Liberty?

The push for revolution started in Massachusetts.

www.sonofthesouth.net...

This elm was called " Liberty Tree" because the Sons of Liberty held their meetings under it, and the ground below was called "Liberty Hall." The first meeting of this society was held there some time in 1765.

John Adams, John Hancock, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, along with a host of others certainly were primarily from the north.

www.sonofthesouth.net...

The system of correspondence committees started locally in Massachusetts and extended, at Virginia's suggestion, between the colonies, for counsel and mutual support, was made the means of calling together at Philadelphia the first Continental Congress (September 5th, 1774). In this all the colonies but Georgia were represented, and among the delegates were George Washington and Patrick Henry, of Virginia; John and Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts; John Jay, of New York, and many others famous in our historical annals.

New York had a large loyalist population only because the British controlled New York, having taken it by force, and so New York became a place of refuge for loyalists.

The largest numbers of Loyalists were in North and South Carolina, and Georgia.

Um, directly in the link provided by PT.

www.ourdocuments.gov...

The three American negotiators, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, proved themselves to be masters of the game, outmaneuvering their counterparts and clinging fiercely to the points of national interest that guaranteed a future for the United States. Two crucial provisions of the treaty were British recognition of U.S. independence and the delineation of boundaries that would allow for American western expansion.

The U.S. constitution is a brilliant stand against imperialism, and the control of those who would make themselves the Powers that Be.

If you don't look at the realities, and embrace the truth, then you can't be much of a cyber warrior.

Nope, not kidding at all... Of course, I've heard of the Boston Tea Party (1773) and the Sons of Liberty movement, but these movements gained their resolve and momentum from what Virginia had been doing since 1765.

Groups identifying themselves as Sons of Liberty existed in almost every colony. The organization spread month by month after independent starts in several different colonies. August 1765 was celebrated as the founding of the group in Boston.[5 Wikipedia

As you can see, they didn't show up til 1765, and it should be noted that Patrick Henry was one of them. Maybe Henry as being one of them, got the whole ball rolling with his Virginia Resolves in 1765, or maybe he got the whole ball rolling after his radical stand against the Stamp Act? Who knows, but it really doesn't matter to this discussion, since the movement gained most of its momentum from what Virginia did in 1765.

As for where the War started and where many of its largest battles were fought really doesn't matter. For strategic reasons they were fought mostly in the North, but not because that is where the movement for Revolution started, as can be shown by every historical account.

Everything that you mention from the first Continental Congress to the Revolution, though they were headquartered in the North, they were the offspring of Virginia, 1765. The rest of the colonies didn't have the balls until Henry stood up to the King in 1765. This is the historical record that is suprisingly backed by wikipedia.

It's funny that you should mention all of the Federalist (I would call them Loyalists) from the North that spear headed the treason that was the Treaty of Paris and later the Crown document known as the Constitution. That was kind of the point that me and Proto have been making from the beginning and actually defeats your theory.

You should note that the Bill of Rights came from Virginia and were a last minute concession made by the Federalists, to the Southern states, in order to get the Constitution passed in Virginia. That is the main reason that the agents of the Crown chose James Madison (a Virginian) to spear head the whole Constitional movement. They knew that Virginia, which had always stood for colonial rights, would be a thorn in the Crown side for the movement for a Federal Crown Constitution. It didn't work, so they had to resort to throwing in the Bill of Rights to appease them.

The Declaration of Independance was written by Thomas Jefferson (a Virginian) and later edited and watered down by Ben Franklin.

Have you noticed a trend here... Our rights and most of the fodder that fueled the Revolution came from Virginia? It was later hijacked by Northern Crown agents, and our history books conveniently leaves the South and the Anti-Federalists out of the whole deal, but it is history none the less and easily verifiable.

The Bill of Rights are a stand against Imperialism, the Constiution is an Imperialist tool to which the Bill of Rights were added as a ruse.

If you don't look at the realities, and embrace the truth, then you can't be much of a cyber warrior.

True... You would do well to follow the links in the above OP and in my above posts, and then embrace the truth. Sorry to have to burst your bubble poet1b, but the historical record is on my side.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by HothSnake]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by HothSnake]

reply to post by HothSnake


I never claimed that Virginia wasn't involved, of that Patrick Henry wasn't a revolutionary leader, but is seems that you want to pretend everything that went on in the North, were the almost all the battles in the RW were fought did not happen is in complete ignorance of history.

Virginia certainly did provide leadership in starting the revolution, but Massachusetts was typically ahead of them, and far more leaders came from the North.

The rest of the southern colonies barely participated. Georgia didn't even send a delegate to the first convention.

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org...

The British saw Georgia as the key to restoring control over the southern colonies. Not only did Georgia have a large population of Loyalists, which many other colonies lacked, but also it was poorly defended. When the British landed near Savannah in late 1778, it took only a few months for them to restore Georgia to royal control.

reply to post by HothSnake




What a bunch of nonsense, and an insult to the leaders of the revolution in the North.

Sure, Patrick Henry did it all himself, and the North was just a bunch loyalists.

Let's turn history completely around.

You are a good example of those who choose to embrace the lies.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HothSnake

 

I never claimed that Virginia wasn't involved, of that Patrick Henry wasn't a revolutionary leader, but is seems that you want to pretend everything that went on in the North, were the almost all the battles in the RW were fought did not happen is in complete ignorance of history.

Virginia certainly did provide leadership in starting the revolution, but Massachusetts was typically ahead of them, and far more leaders came from the North.

The rest of the southern colonies barely participated. Georgia didn't even send a delegate to the first convention.

www.georgiaencyclopedia.org...

The British saw Georgia as the key to restoring control over the southern colonies. Not only did Georgia have a large population of Loyalists, which many other colonies lacked, but also it was poorly defended. When the British landed near Savannah in late 1778, it took only a few months for them to restore Georgia to royal control.

Well firstly, your original contention that we actually won the war is erronious. The Treaty of Paris was a farce that was worked out by esquires (these Northern leaders that you refer to) were agents of the Crown, organizing our bankruptcy to the Crown. So your original contention that it was the North that won the war is wrong.

As for Georgia, I don't contest your presentation of this colonies history. I'm sure that it was a Crown stronghold, however, Virginia stood in stark contrast, not only to Georgia, but to the Northern colonies as well, which were quite willing to just stand by and bend over until Virginia made the original first stand. And this bit of history cannot be contested.

And as for the Northern leadership taking over... Well, all I can say is that the proof is in pudding, which is the Contract of 1782, The Treaty of Paris of 1783, the Constitution of 1787 etc. They were esquires working for Crown interests and not the interests of the colonies. They orchestrated a ruse and not a victory.

You're right in that the North did seem to take up the fight, after Virginia led the way, Which is odd in and of itself that the ones that started the movement and fought for it in the beginning were pretty much left out of all of the spoils. It's ironic, unless you follow the evidence that it was the Northern leaders that hijacked the whole process for the Crown, and who were infact Crown agents from the beginning. This is one of the Crown's favorite tricks.... Look at how the tea party movement has been taken over by one side of the Hegelian dialectical two parties, the republicans. Originally, this movement started as a libertarian movement against both republicans and democrats, and now is a watered down republican farce.


[edit on 28-4-2010 by HothSnake]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HothSnake

 

What a bunch of nonsense, and an insult to the leaders of the revolution in the North.

Sure, Patrick Henry did it all himself, and the North was just a bunch loyalists.

Let's turn history completely around.

You are a good example of those who choose to embrace the lies.

And yet I have proven you wrong, and you were the one advising me to embrace the truth? Like Proto has laid out, and I have laid out, it's all right in front of your nose. I suggest that you read the Treaty of Paris, all 747 pages and the Treaty of Ghent, etc... Read the linked post of Proto's at the top of this thread, and my own linked post that I provided earlier to this discussion.

As for Patrick Henry doing it all.. Now that is a misrepresentation of what I said, and a clear logical fallacy on your part. A cheap trick indeed.

reply to post by HothSnake


Soon as you post some links to back up your claims, you might have a leg to stand on.

While Virginia was a leader in the RW, it is beyond a doubt that it was Massachusetts who stood up to the brits first, who was the only colony who demonstrated the balls to stand up to England, and if you bothered to read the links I provided, you would know that Massachusetts began their protests against the crown long before 1765.

Here is another fact of history, The Confederacy actually appealed to Britain to join in the Civil war against the Union.

At what point do you realize that your claims have no credulity.

reply to post by poet1b


this kinda thing can be expected when folks start saying no part of history is true, that it's all been manipulated by rome. it makes me wonder how proto's theory handles things like the pyramids and ziggurats. clearly there was history, unless he means to say that even the pyramids and ziggurats were built by rome. i'd say that's giving romans a bit more credit than necessary.

Poet and Hoth- could you please stay on topic. You are wandering.

Up until now virtually every post in this incredible thread has been about Rome. This is one of the most focused threads ever. Please, let's keep that track record going. Thanks!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Fair enough, again, it really has nothing to do with a God concept in my opinion. God and man are separate, God and Rome are separate, despite what Rome wants you to believe. The implications that Divus Julius is in fact Jesus Christ is astounding. I've been doing research on this specifically, inspired by your thread of course, and the information is astounding. The pontif (pontifex maximus) means 'the greatest builder of bridges', a title attributed to Roman emperors and priests prior to the Catholic faith, a title attributed to Gaius Julius Caesar in 63 BC. Why give this title to the Pope?

All very fascinating...

PT. You sound well read on the topic of Rome, I would like some recommendations for some books. Some 'semi-concise' history would be great, and maybe something you've read about the Caesars aswell, any recommendations welcome.

Cheers.

reply to post by On the Edge

This is why God says for us to "Come out of her,my people!"

I wonder if that is in reference to Rome, or Catholicism or both? Considering the beast will burn the harlot with fire Revelation 17:16 I would have to think it goes for both as I think a lot of Revelations has a metaphorical and more literal meaning.

reply to post by undo


Another part that is not being considered is that there were three Romes.

First there was The Republic, which was by far the greater of the three. The republic built Rome established most of its technology, and superior organizational skills in warfare. It was the true culture of Rome that made it the greatest civilization of its time.

Then there was the Empire, which did succeed at some tremendous building project, but overall was a failure. The Empire was marred by tyrannical dictators, leading to the slow decline of Rome.

Lastly there was the Holy Roman Empire during which Roman civilization ground to a halt. Using deceitful methods, the HRE has managed to survive, and thrive for periods, but overall, it has been a complete failure.

Yes, the HRE is still a serious threat to our liberties, and wields enormous power, but currently there are other more powerful organizations we need to worry about.

reply to post by serbsta


If you really want to capture the essence of classic Rome I recommend starting out with the trillogy of semi-fictional accounts published by novelist Colleen Mucculough the Grass Crown First Man in Rome and Fortunes Favorites
are amazingly well researched, and historically accurate and then she brings the charachters to life in really engrossing reads that will put you right there.

You really get a very real sense, of the politics, and intriques, lifestyles and all the little details, very similiar to the way James A Michener weaves historical accuracy with fictional and real charachters.

Once you read those, you will probably have a life long passion for knowing more, and reading anything you can get your hands on when it comes to the eternal city.

Those were the books that first captivated me on the subject.

Give them a try.

Thanks my friend.

reply to post by Quantum Logic


We are on topic, I am addressing important points made in the original posts by PT.

No offense to PT, but those claims are seriously flawed.

A discussion with someone who could hold up their end would be worth having. To claim the U.S. constitution works for the Vatican, is a serious allegation, and I see absolutely nothing to give any credulity to the claim.

Are we here to expose who is behind the current, or go running down the hallway in terror?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Ok, well I've just ordered the first 2 books of the series from Amazon.

There are actually 7 books in the series, not 3.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by serbsta

The implications that Divus Julius is in fact Jesus Christ is astounding. I've been doing research on this specifically, inspired by your thread of course, and the information is astounding. The pontif (pontifex maximus) means 'the greatest builder of bridges', a title attributed to Roman emperors and priests prior to the Catholic faith, a title attributed to Gaius Julius Caesar in 63 BC. Why give this title to the Pope?

Because the Pope is one of the Two Roman Consuls in the current system. Caesar originally gained that title by the way from bridging the Rhine and marching his Legions across it.

The Rhine was a very wide river to bridge, and it was an engineering marvel to actually bridge it with just wood, and paving stones, taken from the shore, nothing like it had ever been done or attempted before.

When Caesar got to the other side he marched for several days, and it's then I theorize it dawned on him, just how large the world was he intended to conquer and how impossible it would be to do it in one life time, and started then working on a math based theory on how to conquer it all in time using divide and conquer warfare.

The Pope would in fact become that Greatest Bridge Builder, taking Rome, using Christianity and religion as a form of divide and conquer warfare all the way around the world and back.

As I have said my friend, when you start really digging, the evidence, the real historical non-biblical evidence, in the titles, in the treaties, in the bullahs are there!

The Roman Empire never died, and is still conquering the world through divide and conquer warfare, hiding behind the vatican, and binding it all together through contracts and treaties and organizations like the UN that really are there in Black and White, for people to read.

Thanks for a super edition to the thread!

I can only give you but one star, but it's a rising one!

reply to post by serbsta


Those three all tie together sequentially, the others are about Rome, but the three I gave you are like the Roman equivalent of the Lord of the Rings!

Three books that carry you through the Republic into the transition period running up to the Empire.

I hope you enjoy them as much as I did, I couldn't put them down once I started reading them.

In fact I think the Library would still like me to give one of them back! shhhhh!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I appreciate your responses Proto I am not trying to convert, just put questions to your hypothesis. And with that, here is one: Why would Rome write prophecies about its own destruction in Revelations 17? City upon seven hills

reply to post by poet1b


I was referring to the sidebar discussion about the beginning of the revolution you two were having, that's all. I just didn't want that becoming a distraction from the OP. No harm done, all is well.

reply to post by cepheusdraco


Well, I will gladly repeat myself here, because Rome has faked it's own death several times in the past, when ever it wants to do away with the old system of governence to impose a new one, that's what it does.

Rome is not really a place, like Des Moines is a place, and it's not really a religion, like Mormonism is a religion, it's a core group of Patricians, Oligarchs, Land Owners, and Bankers, that are global, and control the globe.

When the Barbarians sacked Rome in the late 400's and emptied out the city, that was not the end of Rome, and when the Romans sacked Jerusalem 400 years before that was not the end of the Jews.

My theory is based on tricking the three religions to fight each other and eliminate each other, and yes that means Rome being the religious center of one of those three religions, has to fall as a phsyical piece of property, but the wealth of Rome, and the power of Rome and the Masters of Rome aren't going to be in the city at the time.

They will come back later, to start yet another Rome under a new system, like they have many times before.

It's that simple, getting people to fight and kill each other, to get rid of everyone who is in love with or enslaved too the old system, so that its easy to then install a new system.

Thanks for asking.

That was a very enlightening post, Traveler.