It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All Roads Lead to Rome

page: 49
607
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I have already addressed the law of the twelve tables, twice.

Fell free to read my previous posts.

Stating that the Federal Government is to look out for the welfare of the people is confusing in modern terms, because...

The 14th Amendment had not yet been forced onto the people.

So the welfare of the people was only in respect to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
It was not in respect to the state governments, as was noted in my Barron v. Baltimore link.

The US Constitution was only designed in respect to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Please stop with the "you are wrong"...
"You must be confused" or " you don't know what you are saying".

I do not wish to get too much into this, but if you were to search through PT's other threads, then you would find that I have already answered your question concerning Federal and State's rights regarding the Barron v. Baltimore ruling in GREAT DETAIL.

If your personal attacks continue for another post, then I will put you on ignore status as well.

This is all HIGHLY disrespectful to PT.

Cheers.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Once again, you provide a link that does nothing to back your claims, and the site yo ink to is completely biased. Of course a website for Gold Speculators is going to claim that we must go back on the gold standard, and sees everything as being a result of currency not being based on gold.

You need to stop with your false accusations and claims.

I have not made any personal attacks against you, and nothing I have written is off topic.

Pointing out that your claims about economics and law are based on pure nonsense is not a personal attack, it is a defense of the truth. None of your links have backed your claims as I have pointed out.

That you have confused deflation with inflation is enough to prove that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Here is a link that discusses the concept. I hope you can understand it.

fraser.stlouisfed.org...

My pointing out that your points are nonsense is no more personal than you statements that claim my ideas are what they are not and "not based on anything of real value." You are the one making it personal. I don't care if you put me on ignore, it is a childish maneuver at best.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


None of your claims about the twelve laws of Rome are based on the actual twelve laws of Rome. It is nonsense heaped upon nonsense.

If you can't engage in a discussion on the actual twelve laws of Rome, why would I bother looking at anything else you have posted.

The 14th amendment was not forced upon the people. Do you have any idea of how an amendment is approved? This is this kind of regurgitated nonsense that keeps people from standing up for their rights.

Stop putting up nonsense as fact, and I will stop pointing out that it is nonsense.

You started with the "you are wrong" claims, and now you want to complain that I gave back what you dished out in the first place.

This constant effort to attack anyone who disagrees with the op as being off topic, or accusing them of personal attacks, got old long ago.

This thread is an insult to anyone who has a reasonable grasp on history. It belongs in skunkworks.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
This thread is an insult to anyone who has a reasonable grasp on history. It belongs in skunkworks.



Hardly think so. There's more to this thread than banking history, although it has and continues to play a large part.

There are many ways in which the structure of both the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire have ramifications in today's world. Current politics and theology draw much from what has occured, especially in the period of time between 300 and 400 AD.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 





People have been led away from faith in God in search of finding their own "godhood",and answers outside of the gospel of Christ and their need for redemption. I know this goes against logic,as the world teaches. That is just where we are in life. So many choices and distractions,so many doubts,...so little faith.

If I were putting my hope in this world,I would be very afraid. As it stands,I am neither confused nor afraid. There will be pain,there will be sorrow,but I also believe that God's justice will prevail. According to the Bible,that involves complete destruction of the world as we know it.



Christ did not write any Gospels, Roman citizens claiming to be disciples of Christ wrote letters stating what they purport Christ to have said.

These were published by Rome to establish the ancient version, of the more modern religion of “Political Correctness”.

Which is what you have when you defy all logic, and common sense to arrive instead at an answer that “Peer Pressure” and the “State” influencing that group of “Peers” would prefer you to accept, which is neither wise, nor logical, nor correct, which is why they call these things “Politically Correct” and “Conventional Wisdom”

Thus we have a group of circular thinkers who have come to believe black is white, and up is down, and despair is hope, and frankly anyone who sees hope in the entire destruction of the human race, is not only a potential danger to themselves and others, but someone so indoctrinated into a illogical school of thought as to be a detriment to the human race.

I utterly reject the notion of human inferiority as put forth in this way, by people who have been tricked and misled into absconding and abandoning their responsibility as humans to look for true solutions to real problems.

The only thing likely to be entirely wiped out is those who have been misled into this skewered version of life and God, and rendered incapable of functioning at a fully reasoning capacity as a result.

Once again this thread is not about despair, or the cults of fear, or those whose notions of piety have led to such blithe indifference that they see something noble or virtuous in fulfilling the very prophecies that would allow the very mind set they imagine they despise to succeed in conquering the world and installing a totalitarian government that seeks to control people by robbing them of freewill by any means necessary.

This thread is about hope, and evolution, away from those obscene and repugnant dogmas that institutions and tyrants have exploited for far too long to minimize and trivialize human and human intelligence, for profit and control.

That anyone could or would see hope or a solution in the destruction of all of humanity?

I would ask them to stop wishing such things on me, and themselves, and others, and my children, and other peoples children, and their children, and to stop pretending that they aren’t part of the problem, and admit they are afraid to be part of the solution.

For in fact all such people are doing is bringing success to Rome and it’s plan, and reveling in the drama of the mental spectacle Rome gave those who want to be entertained with epic stories and mental bread and circuses.

Once again, not what the thread is about, in fact, its what the thread is aimed to help people evolve away from, that abject and utter slavery to diminishing ones own self worth, the self worth of others, and some inane and supercilious belief that humans are too inferior to learn to be Masters of themselves.

No God would wish for the deaths of its people!



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Back to the point I was making before being attacked.

The U.S. constitution was a result of the intellectual movement of the Age of Reason. If you want to gain a good grasp of history, I recommend you research this era when man rbrke free from looking at the world from a religious perspective, and turned instead into studying nature. This was the era of Darwin, Newton, and Shakespeare, when the U.S. was founded on the notion of the rights of man.

www.allabouthistory.org...


The Age of Reason was an eighteenth-century movement which followed hard after the mysticism, religion, and superstition of the Middle Ages. The Age of Reason represented a genesis in the way man viewed himself, the pursuit of knowledge, and the universe. In this time period, man’s previously held concepts of conduct and thought could now be challenged verbally and in written form; fears of being labeled a heretic or being burned at the stake were done away with. This was the beginning of an open society where individuals were free to pursue individual happiness and liberty. Politically and socially, the imperial concepts of the medieval world were abandoned. The Age of Reason included the shorter time period described as the Age of Enlightenment; during this time great changes occurred in scientific thought and exploration. New ideas filled the horizon and man was eager to explore these ideas, freely.


You can choose to believe in free will, or you can choose to believe your life is controlled by some secret cabal. It seems to me this is the choice of taking control of your own destiny, or giving up.

The power of Rome was broken long ago. Yes, it survives in many ways through the Catholic Church, but its power continues to decline, and the common man has consistently increased his liberties. The Roman republic was a civilization worth celebrating, and the Greek and Roman symbols we choose to embrace do not mean we are still controlled by Rome.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This is a fantastic thread, one of the best on ATS in a long time.
I don't agree with everything the OP claims and don't agree with the grand conspiracy of it all... but as an actual thread it has been absolutely absorbing.
A brilliant read and some of my fav ATS'ers have been participating in it.

Of course people are going to disagree and there's going to be people annoyed because when someone disregards your research and opinions as rubbish and wrong and says they're not relevant, that is very annoying.

It's obvious Rome was a major player and that it's tentacles reach across the globe and into many religions and cultures... but I don't think that all those that went before and all other religions and "stories" should somehow be irrelevant because Rome created modern civilization and systems and so on.
However I do agree to some extent about Rome using religion as a tool and using and changing the Bible for it's own purposes and in that respect, yes, Rome still has a massive influence on people today.

A very good thread though and enjoyable to read so far.






[edit on 2/5/10 by blupblup]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I think you have made some good contributions, and I don't disagree that Roman culture still has great influence on our modern times. Many ancient culture continue to have a great deal of influence on modern times. Certainly this is about much more than banking, and I have not attempted to make this all about banking.

I think it is important to point out that Romes continuing influence has nothing to do with some secret cabal.

We continue to celebrate Rome because of their great accomplishments. We celebrate Rome because it was the first Republic, and it proved what a republic style of government where the commoner is counted and given his say can do.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 




Quite right, except for that famous (and questionable) deathbed conversion. If true, perhaps it was a case of 'covering all bets', but we'll never know.


This is true, we will likely never know, if the deathbed conversion of Constantine happened at all, or why he did. The truth is though, that when people are most inclined to seek the ultimate answer of the riddle of “God” is when they are leaving this world and death is imminent. That doesn’t establish the existence of “God” per say, but a finite and defining moment when one hopes that there will be something after this life.




The rivalry was constant (pun intended). Routine murders of anyone remotely suspected of any dissention or aspersions to power were the norm. Family members, other ceasars/augusti, wealthy people are continually at risk throughout much of the early history of the empire. Proof of intent was not a requisite for killing anyone, not even those in the senate. Only the fact of their wealth was enough to prompt death and confiscation.

To 'don the purple' was to invite 1000 continuous plots for your demise as well and the extreme paranoia of line of ceasars led to the torture and death of thousands in pretty much all of the empire's history.



Sulla was first, during the first Roman Civil war to kill his rivals and confiscate their wealth to replenish the Roman Treasury, similar to our own Stock Market today in a less violent way.

You in fact didn’t have to be an enemy of the State or the Emperor, or even engaged in plotting against him, but if you had the potential to become one, because of a level of wealth and political connection, this often did invite your elimination from the gene pool.

Of course the most ambitious and wealthiest Senators and Patricians knew the best way to avoid elimination, or robbery of their wealth and exile to obscurity abroad, was to plot to seize control of the Empire.

Seizer and Caesar in fact are two phonetically indistinguishable words in our common modern English language.

My avatar can certainly attest that to don the Purple is to invite 1000 endless plots to hasten your demise!






Constantine was a pragmatic. Opportunities which presented themselves at key moments in his campaign to become the sole power in the empire were grasped with expediency. The union of Licinius and Constantine to release the Christians from their oppression was shortlived and the latter soon defeated the former on the field of battle. Think of it like Osama bin Laden and the US government... once a brave cohort in Afghanistan to defeat the Russians and then hated as the planner of 9/11.

As far as the Christians and Hebrews were concerned, their true strength lay in their constant willingness to become martyrs to monotheism and their uncompromising hatred of polytheism. This was the real war which lay like an undercurrent for literally a thousand years previously. First, it was the defeat of Jerusalem under Alexander the Great and then the later Roman invasion which replaced the Persians. The Jews (well, most anyways) never gave an inch toward the polytheistic gods of either the Greeks or the Romans, preferring death and a glorious 'hereafter' to saving their skins and losing their place in the promised Kingdom of God on earth.

Martyrdom, as seen in Masada, had a profound influence on the citizens of Rome and the soldiers within the legions.



As far as Constantine and his embracing the Christians it certainly seems in many ways historically to have been shrewd opportunism, as he himself was a devotee of Apollo and not monotheistic.

Yet as these legends of Martyrs grew, and the notion that Jews and Hebrews alike emulated it because of those defining acts of defiance that led to ritualized or militant forms of suicide to escape what was in all reality a fate of being put into bondage and slavery and poverty, were Romans actually seeing a virtue in this, or were these accounts over exaggerated to develop a mind set, that made individual life even more cheap, and seeing your own life as being so easy to discard part of the indoctrination process into embracing these monotheistic notions of God, where you were no longer sacrificing your life in stoic style to the State but in divine style to God.

In other words, now that too few Romans are left who have enough of Rome in property or freedom to defend it stoically to the cost of life and limb for the State, that you are increasingly left out of, perhaps you won’t mind expending life and limb on God’s behalf to enter his estate ‘The City of God’ as a reward.

So were the shrewd and cunning Roman leaders simply devising a new method to extract a person’s last full measure of devotion on behalf of Rome, by overstating and exaggerating people’s willingness to do this, along with the heavenly reward that they would receive, as a precursor to the next system?

For instance in today’s world ever pedophile caught seems to make national news, and in a big way, it actually makes people think pedophilia is on the rise and a huge problem, because it is so predominantly featured, very similar to the scandals that the Vatican is facing with its priests.

The truth is pedophilia has always existed as an affliction and perversity and likely always will, and it’s always existed within the Vatican and the Priestly class and always will, but the sheer volume of the reports and their constant broadcast absent of hard data and facts as to the length and actual numbers of the trend, makes it look like the trend is on the rise.

Since Rome intended to replace its bled white Legions who were no longer fighting effectively because they no longer owned property or had any real status within Rome itself, with Christian Soldiers, were they simply creating the concept of what a Christian soldier should be, a martyr who if they died for the Christian State (Rome) that the riches of heaven would be bestowed upon them, in the afterlife to reward and compensate them for the lack of earthly riches Rome was now intending to increasingly deny them?



[edit on 2/5/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Attention Please:::

Let's leave other Members alone and concentrate on the topic, shall we?

Any further such instances will result in post removal and possible warnings.

Thank you

Semper



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 





Constantine saw the Christians gaining popularity within the empire even as they were persecuted by Diocletian. On top of that, the various sects within the Christian faith itself were also killing each other on an amazing scale. Each sect considered all others as heretical but all railed and fought the pantheon of polytheism. The Edict of Milan was supposed to bring peace between poly- and monotheism, but monotheism couldn't abide the thought... ever. THEY were right and all others were dead wrong and they were willing to die to prove it. Martyrdom was something longed for. There's strength in that, right or wrong.


Classic Romans who favored polytheism were most often indoctrinated into the stoicism notions of Marcus Aurelius of Service to the State as being the highest virtue.

There were many Gods to choose from, for all purposes, seasons and reasons, so the State itself was looked at as the highest unifying and most important power towards both prosperity and life and death.

However, the State tended to have to provide a high level of prosperity in order to have the total allegiance of its citizens and a willingness to pay its taxes, and abide by its laws, but most importantly to fight and die for it.

This placed a tremendous and increasing burden on the State; after all you are only as good as your last line or show.
Highly entertained and fickle Romans who had more choices, luxuries and amenities than any other nation or system at the time, were naturally an increasingly demanding lot.

Making the State synonymous with God, by creating just one God that espoused everything the State required from it’s citizens, would have relieved a lot of pressure off the State to provide for it’s citizens, for to rebel against the State or to flee it, for lack of amenities, luxuries, entertainment and freedoms would have been then abandoning God and suffering those prescribed punishments for which their was no earthly appeal.

Where the Christians targeted at first because they were the smallest and least politically connected class of Rome’s countless religious cults primarily composed of slaves, to in fact persecute publicly, in ways that would promote them as being stoic, in their resignation to their fates, and display an unquestioning willingness to die bravely, not for the State but for a God, that the State would actually then plan to meld into a monotheistic state where God and the State were the same, after establishing in them, a reputation and willingness to die for God bravely.

As they persecuted these Christian slaves, establishing their ability to be stoic, which always impressed Romans were the masses then being purposefully stripped of economic opportunities and the freedom of choices money gives a person, to bring them closer to a social level and strata of slavery, so that they saw some virtue in being poor and dying easily and cheaply for heavenly rewards, instead of physical rewards as a way to grow the cult, to where it reached a point where it would achieve a level of membership that would then make sense for the state at that point to incorporate it into the state, and impose it as the state religion, to make God and the State one in the same.

For the very shrewd and enterprising Roman Patrician and Caesars this would have been a logical metamorphism to create a new impoverished and virtually enslaved class of citizen that would still fight for the state stoically and bravely, and economically and with few rewards, because they were taught to believe they were now fighting for a God that had conquered the State, who would provide them their true rewards not in this life but the next.

This is what I believe happened, because the motivation to make such a thing would have been powerful and so would the opportunity.

The fact that many of the U.S. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are there to fight for “Christian Values” and most of the people who support the wars are supporting them along that same line, speaks to the overwhelming advantages Rome would have seen in this, indeed get from it, and is still reaping today.




Constantine looked inward at the empire and mostly ignored the growing influence of the barbarian tribes north and west of the empire. In his determination to control everything within the Roman empire, he sowed the seeds for its destruction. In the end, it was this blinkered vision for control which proved to be the ultimate deathknell of the Roman Empire and the evisceration of its legions.


Was he though along with the Patrician ruling class that would inherit the vestiges of the Old Rome, simply looking to the Barbarians to do for them, that which politically would have been suicide to do themselves, and to get the barbarians to destroy the infrastructure of costly bread and circuses and costly amenities, while laying the pretext for monotheism by claiming it was the Christian God that was bringing down the wrath of the barbarians, and prompting then an increased level of support and acceptance of outlawing polytheism and ushering in a Spartan monotheism devoid of most of the privileges, amenities and luxuries that were now being tied to, what had made this new God so angry?

Was it incompetence or sheer Roman cunning and brilliance in bringing about the next stage and phase of it’s conquest?

Legend tells us that the Pope rode out alone with a small party unarmed to meet the Barbarians who then parlayed with him and fled after witnessing the Power of the Cross as wielded by the Pope, but were they simply well paid with a sizable bribe of Roman Gold to turn around and go home, after effectively doing for the Patricians and the Emperor what would have led to the citizens turning on them in mass?

There is accepted history propagated by Rome even by those who seem to be critical off it, and then there is what Proto would have done, whose avatar wears the purple in seeing both opportunity and profit with a motive of how can I keep going on conquering the world, now that I have spent the flower and most potent of my people in countless centuries of conquest, and am left with nothing but a handful of obscenely rich patricians, millions of slaves, and millions of poor plebes who just want fed, who aren’t going to keep fighting effectively for me at all.

But these new Christians that will die in the blink of an eye for this new God, them, them I could definitely use.

I would argue that they have been used, and used, and abused, and used thoroughly, and will be expended and chewed up, just as the flower of free Romans once were.

All to continue and complete the conquest.




Not really. During the worst persecutions of Nero or Diocletian, there already was a well-established clergy complete with bishops (etc). This formed another level of government within the empire and that became the 'champion' you mentioned. It was the clergy who gave Constantine direction even though he was a polytheist himself. This is the most important fact of the time... the battle between God and the Gods, so to speak. Towards the end of Constantine's time, monotheism gained the upper hand over the polytheism, which had been the strength of the empire up until that moment in time. The notion of religious tolerance was established early on in the empires's Pax Romana. This gave credence to all religions and all were represented in Rome itself as well as in Constantinopal.


Why though was this clergy allowed to grow and flourish and form a shadow/alternative government if they were truly a threat to the state?

Was a new infrastructure being purposefully and painstakingly slowly grown to gain enough of a support structure and critical mass in numbers, when it was time, to make the big switch over from a polytheism state, were people fought and served for earthly wealth, that giving them was bankrupting the whole enterprise, to then switch over almost seamlessly to a new system that had already been put in place, where God and the State would become the same, and the new citizen would require little and be asked to sacrifice and give even more.

That this was allowed to develop within a Rome where its leaders were ever on guard for plots and trouble and would ruthlessly put them down, is highly doubtful.

It is much more likely that only token efforts were made, like the state today makes a token effort in the War on Drugs, while profiting off of the very thing, it tells people they shouldn’t do, and that the State and they should eliminate.

Yet as many of us might know, who have partaken in illicit substances, were your initial acts of imbibing in them to simply discover them, or part of a rebellion against the state and its laws. When you look at the Hippie Counter Culture that gave rise to the Drug Culture, what you see is the use of illicit substances as a common form of solidarity to signify rebellion against the state and its laws.

So did Rome marginally and minimally persecute this cult, to give dissatisfied Romans a place and venue to turn to, where their rebellion against the state through it, unbeknownst to them was going to be harnessed by the State, in getting them to rid the state, of the very things the State no longer saw as profitable or productive, while teaching them how to become the new profitable and productive citizen.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 





Constantine, in his youth, was disgusted by the imprisonments of clergy and the waste of life which Diocletian propogated during the persecutions but he was also impressed by the bravery of the Christians as well as their growing popularity within the empire. If I was to put it as simply as possible, I'd say that he saw it as opportunity for power rather than anything else.


I see a game of good cop bad cop. One arm of the state persecutes you, defames you and harasses you, while another arm of the state says, I get you, confide in me, share with me, work with me, and it will all be alright “I promise!”

I think we really have to consider that the Christian cult was purposefully being grown through it’s limited persecution by encouraging those dissatisfied with the authoritarian state to turn to it as an alternative for solace and support, all the while convincing them, that the very things the State wanted to get rid of, but could not just take away without causing rebellion, were the things that were causing all the trouble.

The Bad Cop persecuting them, and the Good Cop protecting them, and then encouraging them would have been the perfect way to harness the synergy to a conclusion that would ultimately benefit the core Patricians and the Core State.

I don’t see it as opportunism, but a well thought out plan, slowly developed over a few centuries, to create a metamorphism of the State that would have been seen as necessary at that same time centuries ago, but not to avoid moral bankruptcy and decay, but to avoid physical bankruptcy in wealth and control, by a controlled decay while slowly creating a new economical system for control through moral law, instead of civil law, that would have allowed for the continued advance of the Empire, right on up through today, in the very form of a Shadow Government it had already begun developing through the Cult!




All any Christian had to do to survive Diocletian's persecution was to light some incense or provide some food at the altars of polytheistic sects. They did NOT have to renounce their faith in the One True god. This, for the most part, they happily refused to do, looking forward to a happier place in the promised ressurection. To be a martyr was 'da bomb' back in those days.


There is of course a deep message in all of your post that is as subtle as it is brilliant in how you laid it out, that I fear most members might overlook because of the wealth of information you are sharing.

Isn’t it amazing that the Hebrew and Christian Sects that popularized militant and suicidal martyrs and were taught to emulate them and cherish them, today despise that very concept they created being used by Muslims in a world that has become as equally oppressive towards them because of a Judean-Christian form of governance as the Roman Empire once was towards Hebrew and Christian Sects.

Here we see in stark and present detail the foibles and dangers of monotheism that you brilliantly displayed created violence within themselves from the onset as to who was now interpreting this one God correctly.

In the polytheism world, it wasn’t all that important the interpretation of each God; you could just switch to a God that espoused what was important to you!

In the monotheistic world though, defining God becomes all important, because emulating that God as defining that God for the qualities and virtues that you prize becomes paramount, in order to gain that only God’s absolution and rewards.

It is basically throwing one piece of candy to a room full of children and letting them fight over who should get to be the one to enjoy it.

Of course none of them get to enjoy it, and all it does is cause a fight, and for the people to fight one another and divide and conquer, and divide and conquer, until that time, when Rome has completed it’s conquest, by virtually getting all these envious, vengeful, and jealous children to violently destroy one another, after they took over the world for Rome.

Perhaps someone should shed a little light on that.

Brilliant posts my friend, you are not just a super moderator but a super intellect!



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Thus we have a group of circular thinkers who have come to believe black is white, and up is down, and despair is hope, and frankly anyone who sees hope in the entire destruction of the human race, is not only a potential danger to themselves and others, but someone so indoctrinated into a illogical school of thought as to be a detriment to the human race.


An awesome post my friend and this is where the crux of the matter lies with me. In my mind there is no doubt about Rome's control over the globe. Their is no doubt in my mind about the technologies that will soon be implemented. I see the system and in my mind you are one hundred percent accurate with your assessment of it.

The thing with me though, is I believe the Bible. Using your theory I can see what you are saying. I also though have to ask myself some very disturbing questions. Questions that I have in the past avoided and supplemented blind faith for. Questions that have very big implications for me. So without fear, I have asked myself these because the God I know is far bigger than my petty fears. He actually tells me to entertain ideas and see if they are of Him. He tells me that it is the glory of kings to search out a matter.

So I looked at what is going on in the world and I can see the Biblical prophecies lining up. I can see what was written so long ago coming true. So I wondered, wouldn't God have written what is going to happen so that we can avoid them? So that we would see the futility in aligning ourselves with a system that proclaims God but does the opposite? Now what if God knew that the Muslims would create a religion that is the polar opposite of what Christianity teaches and this is why it was written down and can go no other way.

Which leads me to the Pope. He embraces Islam and touts its virtues and even kisses their Holy book. He must know what I know. He must see the prophecies unfolding on his very door step and yet he is silent. He is silent in saying that God does not want us killing each other over Him. He is silent to suggest that we have lost our way and that what we are engaged in has nothing to do with God. God gave us a brain to figure these things out you know. He gave the Pope his own little country and access to world wide media and yet the Pope is silent. On this little matter I see Rome's complicity and encouragement for the violence to continue. So Proto, you are definitely onto something.

So would God have us lean back and watch the crescendo of horror take place in the Middle East and wait to be raptured off the planet? I don't think so. I do believe He prophesied what would happen as a warning. I do believe that He would like us to assess our current situation and ask for His intervention. You see, in my minds eye Proto and God are on the same wave length. I believe God wants us to realize that we have been lied to about how we perceive what was written because if we don't do something about it, someone is going to be victorious in the end and it will not be us. They will have us believe it is the will of God and that we can do nothing to stop it. Don't worry about all the fighting and possible nuclear exchanges, you'll be raptured out of here before it gets real bad.

It's insane. That's all I can say.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by HothSnake
 


I missed this post from awhile back.

I have been watching how certain rich and powerful groups have been tearing this country up for the last 35 years, since I was a young man in high school. There really isn't anything new on this thread for me. It is just nice to see some people grabbing some of the clues, while frustrating how they all go astray.

If you want to know where a huge part of our problems come from, look up JP Morgan.

www.smashtheman.com...

It really isn't some secret society passing down the baton, but ambitious, intelligent, ruthless people following the example of those who succeeded before them.





J.P. Morgan took over his father’s banking company in New York City in 1861, a year when the young country’s course took a dramatic turn.


Doesn't exactly sound like a self-made man to me. I wish I had a money laundering usury scam called a bank given to me. That would be nice, if I were into the whole Roman conquest thing.



Stevens next contacted General John Fremont, and offered him 5,000 “new” guns at $22.00 each. The U.S. Army, anxious to supply their arsenal, quickly agreed. The guns were shipped and when the barely working carbines were placed into soldiers hands, it quickly became apparent that soldiers’ lives were going to be lost directly as a result of these faulty weapons. Too late to recall the weapons, the government took J.P. Morgan to court where J.P. won one of his first major legal battles – the court determined that a contract was indeed valid, even though the quality of the weapons were vastly lower than expected by the purchasers. J.P. Morgan pocketed over $100,000 dollars (millions in today’s currency) which served to bankroll the many financial undertakings that lead to his dynasty.


Wow, it sounds like he used the Roman system of fleecing the public with contracts brilliantly. This just proves how binding a contract can be, even when it is clearly used in the perpetration of fraud and out right murder.




The Rothschilds "preferred to operate anonymously in the United States behind the facade of J. P. Morgan and Company."
- Eustace Mullins



"By hundreds of thousands, hard handed Americans believed that Cleveland and Carlisle [Cleveland's Secretary of Treasury] had sold the credit of the republic to the Morgans and the Rothchilds, and had pocketed a share of the price."
- The 'Morgan Bonds'



"Thereafter, Morgan appears to have served as a Rothschild financial agent and went to great length to appear totally American."
- G. Edward Griffin


Morgan's activities in 1895-1896 in selling U.S. gold bonds in Europe were based on his alliance with the House of Rothschild."
- Gabriel Kolko


"Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1913, beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had vowed to veto legislation establishing a central bank. To divide the Republican vote and elect the relatively unknown Wilson, J.P. Morgan and Co. poured money into the candidacy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Progressive Party."





THE MORGAN CONNECTION

George Peabody, a Massachusetts’s trader, set up a banking house - George Peabody & Co. - in London in 1837. He became regarded as a "financial ambassador in London. Carrol Quigley attributes the use of tax-exempt foundations for manipulation of society to Peabody, seen in his IllumInati Peabody foundation. Daniel Colt Gilman, a member of the Skull & Bones and first President of the Carnegie Institution, was involved in the establishment of the Peabody foundation. He was in such high regard by the elite that they have erected a statue of him across from the Bank of England. Peabody was getting old and needed a younger partner. Junius Morgan, of Hartford, Connetticut, was recommended to Peabody. In 1854 Junius and his family arrived in London to join George Peabody & Co. When the elite’s concocted American Civil War broke out, Peabody and Junius Morgan raised loans for the North. It appears JunIus played both sides of the war. Ralph Epperson claims Junius was one of the Rothschild agents who shipped supplies to the South. When Peabody retired in 1864 Junius took over the business. The firm was re-named JS. Morgan & Co. That same year Junius’ son, J.P. Morgan, became a junior partner in the firm. A year later J.P. left for America to represent the firm in the New York. After the end of the Franco-Prussian War, Junius Morgan was called on to help restore the French etonomy. Around this time his bank was talked of as a rival to the Rothschild’s New Court, but Junius was a Rothschild agent, when he prospered so prospered the Rothschilds and the Illuminati. J.S. Morgan & Co. was one of the Rothschild’s great power tools in the United States. In 1869 JunIus’ son, J.P. Morgan went to London to met with the Rothschilds. They laid out the plans to form Northern Securities, a company that would act as an agent for New Court in the US. J.P. ruling as a proxy for the family. In 1871 Junius’ son, J.P. Morgan, made an alliance with Tony Drexel, heir to the powerful Philadelphia bank. Their firm - Drexel, Morgan & Co. -resided in an extravagant new building on Wall St., which is still Morgan headquarters today. After the Europeans got over their lack of confidence at the end of the CIvil War, money began to stream across the ocean to the US., providing massive profit for the firm. It set out to finance the growing number of industrial projects in America. The House of Morgan was getting extremely rich. source


Like I said, he was a Bank of England goon, and Rothschild stooge.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 



Wow, it sounds like he used the Roman system of fleecing the public with contracts brilliantly.


Fleecing the public was around long before Rome. Do you think that Rome also invented lying as well?

Um, a blog isn't an actual reference.

The leaps of logic this blog post you link to are actually funny.


When the elite’s concocted American Civil War broke out,...


Hmm, really, elites started the first battles of civil war which were fought before Lincoln was even elected? Nonsense, the the institution of slavery in the south and the Souths refusal to consider its elimination made war inevitable.

Certainly the banking elites took advantage, but they take advantage of everything they possible can.


The Rothschilds "preferred to operate anonymously in the United States behind the facade of J. P. Morgan and Company."


As if Morgan needed someone to force him to lie and cheat in order to obtain his fortune. I think the Rothschilds would have chosen someone that would be more trustworthy as an agent.

Banking elites are all in bed with each other, this type of insinuation process proves nothing.


The House of Morgan was getting extremely rich.


No doubt he did it all just for the Rothchilds!

Or maybe JP Morgan did it all for himself, and it had nothing to do with Rome. JP wasn't even a catholic.

You should really do some research of your own instead of relying on what others tell you.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
dunno how it could be said that the op is considerate of all religions and yet this thread is an attempt to say the entirety of religion, particulary abrahamic religions, such as judaism and christianity are lies fabricated by rome. lol (and the op should know cause he was "born on the same day as julius caesar" (his own words), wink wink, hint hint, kinda hinting around that he's the big j, reincarnated. which of course is appealing to people who like the idea of a fabricated version of the fulfillment of prophecy, since it ends in the destruction of a few troublesome beliefs, which means the current incarnation of rome is actually doing the rest of the world a favor if what he says is accurate

now that's what i call rome at its most glaringly best. calling itself a liar (which it can afford because its so powerful), offering eradication of its own flock, for the purpose of maintaining its power over the globe, and folks like the op helping it along by claiming none of the texts and artifacts are real anyway, just a plan to rid the planet of religious people lol brilliantly evil, i must say).



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The Fate of the Library of Alexandria

I just found this article, I don't know how it will add or subtract to the argument, but I found it interesting,

www.americanthinker.com...



A story, apparently first appearing in the thirteenth century (mentioned first by Abd al Latif, who died in 1231, and later by Gregory Bar Hebraeus, who died in 1286), says that the Arabs, under Caliph Umar, destroyed the Alexandria Library shortly after the conquest of Egypt in 639 AD. The account states that the caliph, when informed about the institution, declared that if the books it contained agreed with the Koran, then they were superfluous, and if they disagreed, then they were heretical. In either event, they were worthless and should be obliterated. The books of the Library were put to the torch -- used to heat the palace baths.

For centuries, Europeans had little cause to doubt this story. There were very good reasons indeed, as we shall see, for believing it to be true. Yet by the late nineteenth century, historians were having second thoughts. Evidence, they said, showed that the early Arabs had great respect for learning, and the period between the seventh and eleventh centuries was coming to be regarded as an Islamic Golden Age, when Muslim societies led the world in science and medicine.

Indeed, it was argued that the Arabs were the saviors, rather than the destroyers, of Classical learning. A prime example of this genre of thinking is Robert Briffault's 1919 book, The Making of Humanity, which argued that the real Renaissance, or rebirth, of Classical learning actually occurred in eleventh-century Islamic Spain rather than fifteenth-century Italy.

Briffault's thinking, with its negative view of Christianity and European culture, may be regarded as an early form of political correctness. His thesis has become the default mode of thought in much of academia. And this is reflected in theories about the fate of the Library at Alexandria. A prime example of this may be seen in the Wikipedia page dealing with the Library. Here we encounter a lengthy discussion of the destruction of the institution. The accidental destruction caused by Julius Caesar is given pride of place, as are other real or apparent destructions which occurred at later periods of the Roman Empire. The final destruction, which must surely be the most important -- that carried out by the Arabs -- is mentioned rather briefly at the end, only to be dismissed "as a hoax or propaganda."

But if the destruction carried out by the Arabs was a hoax, then what happened to the Library? Even the authors of the Wikipedia page admit that following the earlier destruction by Caesar, the Library was rebuilt and restocked. This needs to be stressed: Until the disappearance of Classical civilization (apparently in the seventh century), the Library could be restocked and recreated -- for the great majority of the volumes it contained were not unique to it. They were copies of books also available in the other libraries and institutes of learning that dotted the Mediterranean world. It was only with the disappearance of Classical civilization as a whole -- along with the cultural, social, and economic infrastructure that underpinned it -- that the restocking and re-endowing of the Library became impossible. The lost volumes could not then be replaced because all other copies, in the other libraries and academies, were also gone.

Leaving aside the assertions of the Wikipedia authors, there is irrefutable proof that the wider dissolution of Classical culture occurred in the seventh century, and that this was a direct consequence of the Arab conquests. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that this dissolution and destruction was the result of a deliberate act of policy on the part of the Arabs.

This is seen most clearly in the sudden rupture, in the seventh century (in the lands conquered and controlled by the Muslims), of all cultural links to the past.

Until the first quarter of the seventh century, Classical civilization was alive and well in the Mediterranean world. City life flourished, as did the economy and the arts. Literacy was widespread, and the works of the Classical historians, as well as the philosophers, mathematicians, and physicians, were readily available and discussed in the academies and libraries located throughout the Near East, North Africa, and Europe.

In Egypt during the sixth century, renowned philosophers such as Olympiodorus (died 570) presided over the academy that presumably had, if not the original Library, then at least a well-stocked and well-funded library of some sort. The Alexandrian academy of this time was regarded as the most illustrious institute of learning in the known world, and it is virtually beyond doubt that its library matched, if indeed it did not surpass, the original Library founded by Ptolemy II.

The writings of Olympiodorus and his contemporaries demonstrate intimate familiarity with the great works of classical antiquity -- very often quoting obscure philosophers and historians whose works have long since disappeared. Among the general population of the time, literacy was the norm, and the appetite for reading was fed by a large class of professional writers who composed plays, poems, and short stories -- these last taking the form of mini-novels.

In Egypt, the works of Greek writers such as Herodotus and Diodorus were familiar and widely quoted. Both the latter and such native Egyptian writers as Manetho had composed extensive histories of Egypt of the time of the pharaohs. These works provided, for the citizens of Egypt and other parts of the Empire, a direct link with the pharaohnic past. Here the educated citizen encountered the name of the pharaoh (Kheops) who built the Great Pyramid, as well as that of his son (Khephren), who built the second pyramid at Giza, and that of his grandson Mykerinos, who raised the third and smallest structure. These Hellenized versions of the names were extremely accurate transcriptions of the actual Egyptian names (Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure). In the history of the country written by Manetho, the educated citizen of the Empire would have had a detailed description of Egypt's past, complete with an in-depth account of the deeds of the pharaohs as well as descriptions of the various monuments and the kings who built them.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Isn’t it amazing that the Hebrew and Christian Sects that popularized militant and suicidal martyrs and were taught to emulate them and cherish them, today despise that very concept they created being used by Muslims in a world that has become as equally oppressive towards them because of a Judean-Christian form of governance as the Roman Empire once was towards Hebrew and Christian Sects.


Sweet irony indeed. It's quite remarkable, considering the en masse suicide of Zealots at Masada centuries before. It's as if the tortures and massacres of the persecutions have become almost symbolic in the Christian churches today. We know that the last pope did flagellate himself, so it hasn't totally disappeared, but, for the most part, Christians these days don't happily get eaten by lions anymore.

It must be said, though, that such suicidal thinking is not constant throughout Islam either. I could compare the propensity toward Muslim martyrdom to the Hebrew Zealots and Christian rigorists easily. These are all extremists. But, I don't want to get ahead of myself in this.

Here's how Constantine thought regarding all religions:


The mind of Constantine might fluctuate between the
Pagan and the Christian religions. According to the loose and complying
notions of Polytheism, he might acknowledge the God of the Christians as one of the many deities who compose the hierarchy of heaven. Or
perhaps he might embrace the philosophic and pleasing idea, that,
notwithstanding the variety of names, of rites, and of opinions, all the sects, and all the nations of mankind, are united in the worship of the common Father and Creator of the universe.
www.gutenberg.org...


... and to the Christian faiths in particular:


The partial and increasing favor of Constantine may naturally be
referred to the esteem which he entertained for the moral character of
the Christians; and to a persuasion, that the propagation of the gospel
would inculcate the practice of private and public virtue. Whatever
latitude an absolute monarch may assume in his own conduct, whatever
indulgence he may claim for his own passions, it is undoubtedly his
interest that all his subjects should respect the natural and civil
obligations of society. But the operation of the wisest laws is
imperfect and precarious. They seldom inspire virtue, they cannot always restrain vice. Their power is insufficient to prohibit all that they condemn, nor can they always punish the actions which they prohibit.
www.gutenberg.org...


So, it was in the pursuit of 'convenience' that he strove to bring about a peace between the old Pagan standards and the more recent growth of Christianity.

I'm going somewhere with all this in relation to the OP topic, but it's going to take some time. Remember this fact: Pagan Romans, from the most ordinairy citizens to Emporers have, for centuries, allowed ALL religions to flourish within the empire. None were restricted, from the most bizarre practices imaginable to the most benign and boring. Nothing was disallowed.

This was fine, except to the new kids on the block, Christians who could not abide anything else. They attacked temples, destroyed idols, desecrated sanctified places and generally harrassed pagans for centuries, much to the dismay of the PTB. It was this intolerance which led to the frequent persecutions that befell the various Christian sects. The fact that most Christians who were caught in the net actually wanted to become martyrs only made matters that much more frustrating and impossible to control.

The situation with the polytheistic sects was seriously in decline at the time and the growing strength of Christianity certainly provided a means to govern a large part of the population:


Philosophy still exercised her temperate sway over the human mind, but the cause of virtue derived very feeble support from the influence of the Pagan superstition. Under these discouraging circumstances, a prudent magistrate might observe with pleasure the progress of a religion which diffused among the people a pure, benevolent, and universal system of ethics, adapted to every duty and every condition of life; recommended as the will and reason of the supreme Deity, and enforced by the sanction of eternal rewards or punishments.
www.gutenberg.org...


And now we can see how Constantine might benefit by providing succour to the Christians churches. Remember that he was focussed entirely on the empire itself and had a waning interest in the savage tribes which surrounded it. Those legions at his disposal were now defensive rather than offensive and you'd never win at any sport that way. They quickly grew soft and indolent. Now add to those legions a huge influx of barbarian soldiers and we can see that there is more afoot within the empire than a growing religion.

To put it into todays perspective, the military arms would be tasked with protecting the interests of both the state and the elite, rather than in protecting citizens and borders. Sound familiar? It should.

But, back to Constantine's brain:


Constantine might
listen with some confidence to the flattering, and indeed reasonable,
assurances of Lactantius. The eloquent apologist seemed firmly to
expect, and almost ventured to promise, that the establishment of
Christianity would restore the innocence and felicity of the primitive
age; that the worship of the true God would extinguish war and
dissension among those who mutually considered themselves as the
children of a common parent; that every impure desire, every angry or
selfish passion, would be restrained by the knowledge of the gospel; and
that the magistrates might sheath the sword of justice among a people
who would be universally actuated by the sentiments of truth and piety,
of equity and moderation, of harmony and universal love.
www.gutenberg.org...


Geez... I wonder how that worked out over the past 1700 years?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Part two
www.americanthinker.com...

The change that came over Egypt following the Arab Conquest can be described only as catastrophic. All knowledge of the country's past disappears, and it does so almost overnight. Consider the account of the Giza Pyramids and their construction written by the Arab historian Al Masudi (regarded as the "Arab Herodotus"), apparently in the tenth century (though there are good grounds for believing substantially earlier):

Surid, Ben Shaluk, Ben Sermuni, Ben Termidun, Ben Tedresan, Ben Sal, one of the kings of Egypt before the flood, built two great pyramids; and, notwithstanding, they were subsequently named after a person called Shaddad Ben Ad ... they were not built by the Adites, who could not conquer Egypt, on account of their powers, which the Egyptians possessed by means of enchantment ... the reason for the building of the pyramids was the following dream, which happened to Surid three hundred years previous to the flood. It appeared to him that the earth was overthrown, and that the inhabitants were laid prostrate upon it, that the stars wandered confusedly from their courses, and clashed together with tremendous noise. The king though greatly affected by this vision, did not disclose it to any person, but was conscious that some great event was about to take place. (From L. Cottrell, The Mountains of Pharaoh, London, 1956.)


This was what passed for "history" in Egypt after the Arab conquest -- little more than a collection of Arab fables. Egypt, effectively, had lost her history.

Other Arab writers display the same ignorance. Take for example the comments of Ibn Jubayr, who worked as a secretary to the Moorish governor of Granada, and who visited Cairo in 1182. He commented on "the ancient pyramids, of miraculous construction and wonderful to look upon, [which looked] like huge pavilions rearing to the skies; two in particular shock the firmament[.]" He wondered whether they might be the tombs of early prophets mentioned in the Koran, or whether they were granaries of the biblical patriarch Joseph, but in the end came to the conclusion, "To be short, none but the Great and Glorious God can know their story." (Andrew Beattie, Cairo: A Cultural History, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 50.)

We should not imagine that this loss of connection with the past occurred gradually. From the very beginning, the Arabs displayed absolute contempt for the culture and history of both Egypt and the other countries of the region they conquered. Immediately upon the invasion of Egypt, the caliph established a commission whose purpose was to discover and plunder the pharaohnic tombs. We know that Christian churches and monasteries -- many of the latter possessing well-stocked libraries -- suffered the same fate.

The larger monuments of Roman and pharaohnic times were similarly plundered for their cut-stone, and Saladin, the Muslim hero lionized in so much politically correct literature and art, began the process by the exploitation of the smaller Giza monuments. From these, he constructed the citadel at Cairo (between 1193 and 1198). His son and successor, Al-Aziz Uthman, went further, and made a determined effort to demolish the Great Pyramid itself. (Ibid.) He succeeded in stripping the outer casing of smooth limestone blocks from the structure (covered with historically invaluable inscriptions) but eventually canceled the project owing to its cost.

The loss of contact with the past occurred in all the lands conquered by the Muslims. Here we need only point to the fact that the Persian poet and mathematician Omar Khayyam, at the end of the eleventh century, was largely ignorant of his own country's illustrious history and imagined that the great palaces built by the Achaemenid Emperors Darius and Xerxes, as Persepolis and Susa, were raised by a genie-king named Jamshid.

What then of the much-vaunted Arab respect for learning and science that we hear so much of in modern academic literature? That the Arabs did permit some of the science and learning they encountered in the great cities of Egypt, Syria, Babylonia, and Persia to survive -- for a while -- is beyond doubt. Yet the learning they tolerated was entirely of a practical or utilitarian nature -- and this is a fact admitted even by Islamophiles such as Briffault. Thus, for a while, the Arabs patronized physicists, mathematicians, and physicians. Yet the very fact that knowledge had to plead its usefulness in order to be permitted to survive at all speaks volumes in itself. Even this utilitarian learning was soon to be snuffed out under the weight of an Islamic theocracy (promulgated by Al Ghazali in the eleventh century) that regarded the very concept of scientific laws as an affront to Allah and an infringement of Allah's freedom to act.

The crushing of all science occurred far earlier than is generally believed. As I explain in some detail in my Holy Warriors, the entire concept of an Islamic Golden Age, the three centuries between the seventh and tenth centuries during which the Muslim world enjoyed an altogether higher level of culture than Europe, is little more than a myth. The Golden Age of Islam, as archaeologists have found to their astonishment, has no archaeological confirmation.

Not a trace of the supposedly fabulous, wealthy Baghdad of Harun al Rashid in the ninth century has been found. The first Muslim remains in Baghdad, as everywhere else in the Muslim world, date from the first half of the tenth century. (A few monuments dated to the seventh century also occur, with nothing in between.) The lack of archaeological evidence is also true for Cordoba in Spain, supposedly a metropolis of half a million souls during the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. The earliest Islamic remains for Cordoba are also dated to the mid-tenth century. All of this suggests that the appearance of Islam on the world stage has been seriously misdated and somehow placed three centuries in the past. This means, among other things, that the destruction of native cultures in the lands conquered by the Muslims occurred quicker than is generally taught and believed. Thus, Al Masudi would have displayed his complete ignorance of the pyramids and of Egyptian history not three centuries after the Muslim conquest, but only a few decades after.

Admittedly, the question of chronology is still extremely controversial. Further excavation throughout the Near East is necessary to confirm what actually happened in the three missing centuries. Nevertheless, it appears that the entire Islamic Golden Age is a phenomenon that existed only on paper and in the imagination of the storytellers of the Arabian Nights.

What, then, of the destruction of the Alexandrian Library? Were the Arabs responsible? The evidence indicates overwhelmingly that not only did the Arabs destroy the library or libraries of Alexandria, but they simultaneously put to the torch all secular learning (with the exception of the sciences) throughout the entire Middle and Near East.

Thus the Arabs, as I show in Holy Warriors, destroyed Classical civilization in Europe through an economic blockade, but in the Middle East, they destroyed it deliberately and methodically.



I posted most of it for easier access to discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
607
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join