# Imperial Rome: New York City



## emperornorton (Mar 17, 2022)

_“If I'd lived in Roman times, I'd have lived in Rome. Where else? Today America is the Roman Empire and New York is Rome itself.”  _

That's what John Lennon said. I don't know whether he meant it literally or not but I'm guessing you don't just get to be a Beatle unless you're already an "insider" so he probably did knew that New York City is Rome, just like I'm saying.





_LEFT: Artist's depiction of Ancient Rome. RIGHT: New York City. _

Is it true that the Imperial capital wasn't just one place but moved around a couple times over the years? Yes. It's also true that Chas Newby was a member of the Beatles at one point. Does it matter? No.






You may be thinking that if any American city would be Rome it would be Washington D.C., what with its Capitol Hill and its majesterial Treasury building. Actually, Washington is the "Greek" city Alexandria (which fact it's not really even trying to hide). So for instance the Library of Alexandria is the Library of Congress, etc.






New York City has several enormous triumphal arches within its boundaries, as seen above _(in Greenwich village and Brooklyn, respectively_). I'm not sure what their exact purpose is but they are definitely Roman.







Also Roman: The "Great Roman Hippodrome" (_above_).






You know where all those skulls and bones in the fake-Rome Italian catacombs came from? They're the soldiers that Napoleon killed once they were finished building all those fake relics.







If there are any genuine Roman antiquities in Rome (no, Papal tiaras don't count) it's only because they were taken from somewhere else.






Not only the Celebration but the book with that illustration of the Celebration (_above, left_) came out before the park was "created." I used to think that that Frederick Law Olmstead guy must be some kind of landscape-architect hero. What a dummy I was. Live and learn I guess.





It's the same statue. It's not even debatable.





_
ABOVE: The new, "enlightened" head-piece for the statue was parked at Madison Square for a while. RIGHT: Two artists' depictions of Lucifer. _






This photo was supposedly taken during the Civil War, which predates the bridge's official construction date by about twenty-five years. I don't know how old the bridge actually is but 1) it looks pretty old, and 2) they had that David McCullough guy put together a Pulitzer-worthy book report on it so it's probably older than they say it is.





New York City used to have a lot of those superior old buildings all over the place, all of which have yielded to the remorseless glare of Father Time and crumbled into dust. I'm just kidding. They were all burned down by Freemasons.






How old is this money that it has _Roman Numerals_ on it?





The Peutinger map of Rome (above) is supposed to depict (additionally) a strip of land running between Spain and the eastern tip of Asia. Konrad Miller made some "improvements" to the map in order to make this more clear. And, big surprise, his version is the only one that you're allowed to see. "Thanks," Konrad. But if you can suppress for a second the ludicrous idea that the map depicts 11,000 miles of terrain, house-by-house, you might see a straitforward representation of Manhattan island (above).





The World Trade Center, catastrophically bombed on September 11, 2001, was built  right on top of the old starfort located by the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan. It seems like someone has a grudge against Rome...

Now I know what you're thinking. What about the Rome in Italy? Isn't that Rome Rome? 

Not only is Rome not Rome, but, historically-speaking, Italy isn't even Italy. For instance, the Venice and Genoa that fought like three hundred wars against each other back in the fourteenth century were, geographically at least, South American. (And a consequence of my theory would be that pizza actually _is _American).






So _Terrafirma_ turns out to be in Venezuela...I guess that works out.







I guess it's was a good thing (for the interests of fake-history, I mean) that Central America and Italy look pretty much the same from certain angles. 







Does the official narrative suffer from a decisive climatological discrepancy? _Not anymore._ I mean, who hasn't heard of a miniature ice age? It's like a full-size ice-age but provides greater flexibility and allows a bigger story to be told.







Now if you want to get into the transitional nitty-gritty of Rome _vis a vis _The American Republic then you'll want to look into the _Spanish Netherlands_ and the _Belgii Foederati_. *







You may even be able to pull a piece of information from the depths of the historical mire that doesn't just contradict the narrative but pours five hundred gallons of pancake syrup into its gas tank.






Back in 1596, for instance, the Spanish laid seige to a city in the _Hulst_ district of the Dutch province of _Zeeland—_known today (and then) as Stockton, California. You can still see the outline of the starforts. 

So much for the 49ers...









(I would say that Latin seems to be a pretty superior language except for its pain-in-the-butt nominal declension scheme so makes fifty variations and hence fifty search terms for any word-pair.)


----------



## FromtheGutters (Mar 17, 2022)

The images are pretty conclusive. Particularly Rome v Manhattan maps. I'll also have to take a closer look at older currency now. Excellent write up!


----------



## BusyBaci (Mar 17, 2022)

I think the great Roman Empire was extended world-wide with it's technology, construction and rule of law. They might not have been the (good guys), as we know. But no empire has ever been about the greater good of the people (including Tartaria).

I speculate that center Rome must have been in North Africa much of where the Sahara desert lies now days. No way a big desert like that is a natural formation, a great destruction must have happened to every city laying in that area, as great as to atomize or reduce into grains of sand every building, every road, everything.

Roman Empire after this event must have been divided then into Western-Roman Empire in North America and Easter-Roman Empire in Byzantium or Constantinople. Italic peninsula being the center of Rome doesn't make sense to me. After all as the saying goes "All roads lead to Rome" doesn't quite fit Italy. How can all roads lead to central Italy if it is surrounded by seas? It can't.

Something very curious that I correlate is the roman helm of Legionaries troops and the look of the Sumerian gods/angels. They have the same appearance.






_Were the romans trying to imitate the look of their gods by wearing a helm like that? Who knows._​


----------



## Quiahuitl (Mar 17, 2022)

This is a fabulous post, but I can't comprehend most of it.  I need a bit more explanation of every piece within the post.


----------



## iseidon (Mar 17, 2022)

I was interested in this.



> Not only is Rome not Rome, but, historically-speaking, Italy isn't even Italy. For instance, the Venice and Genoa that fought like three hundred wars against each other back in the fourteenth century were, geographically at least, *South American*. (And a consequence of my theory would be that pizza actually _is _American).



I have an assumption (very modest, but it sticks in my head) that the modern English-speaking culture is the heirs of Antarctica (Atlantis), which ended up under the ice. This explains (hypothetically, of course) why English-speaking countries are near the southern part of the world (New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, the Falkland Islands). Later (or earlier, doesn't matter), they sailed as far as Britain. And after that they began (_added later _also French) to expand into the United States and Canada (the American part of the conditional Hyperborea-Hanana - Canada).

According to this hypothesis, the source of the Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Latin culture is in America. And they only came to Europe relatively recently.

The source of the French culture, according to this hypothesis is in Africa (but that Africa is inhabited by white people).

And Europe, according to this hypothesis, is German (_added later,_ + Jewish, ruEVREI ≈ intEURO) culture. This explains the weak German colonial policy. Moreover, I think (within this hypothesis) that Europe was at least up to the Urals German (this explains the German cultural influence in Russia). So, Hitler was probably just trying to get his own back.

And modern Russians - came from the Arctic, which had gone under water. This explains the possible confrontation on the line of the United States (Anglo-Saxons) - the USSR, Russia.

And the differences in the modern racial composition can only be explained by adaptation to the prevailing conditions (which have developed relatively recently).

The modern Chinese (Han, Canaan), on such a hypothesis, are conditional Hyperboreans from Eastern Siberia, who were forced to migrate to the south. And the modern Arabs are the conditional Hyperboreans from the Western Siberia. The modern Turks are the conditional Hyperboreans from the Volga region and the Urals (Khaganate, Khanate).

Also. I have a crazy hypothesis that there is a tunnel between the Arctic and the Antarctic (based on the toroidal shape of the Earth).

*This is not my point of view, but only one of the hypotheses.*

UPD1.

And the catastrophe of planetary scale, according to this hypothesis, is caused, among other things, by the outage (or destructive impact) of the place where the tunnel was located.

UPD2.

Perhaps the tunnel between the Arctic and Antarctica explains the discovery of Antarctica, including the Russians (the Bellingshausen and Lazarev Expedition), who are farthest from Antarctica.

I wrote this only in case someone in their research or thinking will come to similar conclusions.


----------



## 3D Printing Bear (Mar 17, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> New York City used to have a lot of those superior old buildings all over the place, all of which have yielded to the remorseless glare of Father Time and crumbled into dust. I'm just kidding. They were all burned down by Freemasons.





Apart from being a fantastically written post with wonderful evidence, I literally laughed out loud for nearly a minute after reading the lines above. I might have done a spit-take had I been drinking anything.


----------



## Referent (Mar 18, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> View attachment 20675
> 
> How old is this money that it has _Roman Numerals_ on it?


*Roughly 140 years old, if going by official timelines *
I tried to find out more about the 20 ("XX") dollar note with the big "1335" on the back.




*The bank note in question*​
Similar national bank note images appear in Bing reverse image search results.

The 1335 appears to be called a "charter number" (whereas I had been cautiously on the lookout for production in--or commemoration of--the _year_ 1335).
The above money looks to have the same format as an example associated with the 1880s, with the same intricate central back design as the following 1882 twenty dollar "brown back" (from Pennsylvania rather than New York, and charter number 2279 rather than 1335 [0]:




*1882 Twenty Dollar Brown Back Reverse/Back (Pennsylvania) with "charter number" 2279*




*1882 Twenty Dollar Brown Back Obverse/Front (Pennsylvania)*​
There are also five-dollar New York "national bank note" examples on auction house and dealer websites [1, 2].  The note pictured below

also has roman numerals on both sides,
also has the same "charter number" design, and
also is referenced [1] as pertaining to 1882:




*1882 Five Dollar Brown Back Reverse/Back (New York) with "charter number" 4581*




*1882 Five Dollar Brown Back Obverse/Front (New York) with "charter number" 4581*​
Further notes:

I did not investigate to see whether the 1882 date for the referenced notes above refers to "Series 1882" or "Series 1882-1908", though that detail may not matter much for the general purpose of this thread.
There seem to be possible tie-ins with some other SHnet threads, to name some:
the "bank note" topic in the thread 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War,
emerornorton's thread America is Amalek is Rome and
Exposing the Expositions book for (Howdie Mickowski's _Exposing The Expositions- Ancient Rome in America?_).
Various short-ish discussions on Roman numerals, though some expansion/connection could be worthwhile.

*References*
[0] 1882 20 Dollar Brown Back National Currency 2279 The Metropolitan National Bank of Pittsburgh
[1] Lot #287 - New York, NY - Ch. 4581 - 1882 $5 Brown Back - Manifest Auctions
[2] New York New York Charter 1394 $5 1882BB - Perakis Currency


----------



## User1 (Mar 18, 2022)

I like the America is Rome angle. Makes a lot of sense to my mind but leads to a few questions.

Firstly, if this is true, and I suspect it is, why both with the re-branding exercise? The almost reflex response is to keep our history hidden, disempower people and so on but we are talking about an empire that spanned continents if true. That have captured and co-opted every public institution and then re-wrote history....By today's standards that's an insane amount of control. As much as their is a "truth" movement and people are being "awakened" the amount of people that have bought the official narrative in some form or another are exponentially greater than truthers.  I don't think this explains the re-branding because they're not hiding from truthers. They often hide the truth in plain sight. 

The second question is if they're not re-branding to hide their identity from truthers, because they really aren't,  they're mocking us, then from who? Who are they hiding their true identity from? They didn't have to paint a picture that Rome has fallen some 2000 years ago , they just chose to.


iseidon said:


> I have an assumption (very modest, but it sticks in my head) that the modern English-speaking culture is the heirs of Antarctica (Atlantis), which ended up under the ice. This explains (hypothetically, of course) why English-speaking countries are near the southern part of the world (New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, the Falkland Islands). Later (or earlier, doesn't matter), they sailed as far as Britain. And after that they began (_added later _also French) to expand into the United States and Canada (the American part of the conditional Hyperborea-Hanana - Canada).


I've had a similar thought for a while. I believe the Dutch language is derived from the Afrikaans language in South Africa, not the other way around. There's a derogatory word for black people in South Africa for the past hundred years if not more and it's an Arabic word, which means disbelievers. We are taught Dutch criminals came to South Africa colonized the indigenous people then incorporated an Arabic word from some Muslim slaves to describe black people. I could go on for a bit on this topic but yes, I'm inclined to think the language moved South to North.


----------



## trismegistus (Mar 19, 2022)

User1 said:


> The second question is if they're not re-branding to hide their identity from truthers, because they really aren't, they're mocking us, then from who? Who are they hiding their true identity from? They didn't have to paint a picture that Rome has fallen some 2000 years ago , they just chose to.



When they say that "the victors write history" - does it _always_ mean that the victors portray themselves as the "good guys?"  What if the point of writing history is to *write the victors out*?  

The archetype of faking your death in order to control from the shadows is an old one, played out in history and literature ad-nauseum. What better way to obscure your position if it is only mentioned as an ancient past?


----------



## ViniB (Mar 19, 2022)

This is an amazing post! It reasonates as truth to me, mas for some reason the amazon pyramids just poped in my head  i like to stalk some coin IG pages now and then to see what kind of bullshitax historicous these collectors believe, and it's rather interesting. I'll drop some Pictures of'em here to discuss about, with attention to the rather suspicious dates & symbology
Many thanks!!

​


----------



## User1 (Mar 19, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> What if the point of writing history is to *write the victors out*?


I've thought about this and it made perfect sense from a strategy perspective...except that they didn't actually do this.  This group is awfully proud of that Greco-Roman heritage and they want us all to know it. They sing their praises in architecture, philosophy, law, civilization, and and and. If they're really trying to write themselves out they're putting out serious bi-polar vibes. 

And if you've already conquered the world, why hide? Present day governments are increasingly authoritarian so this need to pretend that democracy is a thing falls away. They know there is no recourse for the common man so they do away with the niceties. Why hide?

And it was a re-branding. If you said the Roman's discovered America after their golden age and wrote that fairy tale in the history books, most would believe it without question. In fact, I can't say it makes any difference to me whether it was them, Chris Columbo or whether Rome was always there. What is of interest is why hide that this is Rome? The argument that they fear the masses just doesn't fly when an entire history was created and we see these orphans trains. They never feared the masses.




emperornorton said:


> The World Trade Center, catastrophically bombed on September 11, 2001, was built right on top of the old starfort located by the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan. It seems like someone has a grudge against Rome...



This. If there were victors who wrote themselves out of history it wasn't the Romans. It's like we're in some fantasy movie where Harry Potter and the boys are waging war around us and we're unaware.  I'd add that at some point whatever Russia used to be a long time ago pissed off some serious people and there's been a really long war against the people of Eastern Europe.

And I don't view this through some good guy bad guy paradigm. To me at least, this specific deception seems logically inconsistent with victory. It's more akin to cowardice or fear sprinkled with pride and arrogance.


----------



## HealingTime (Mar 19, 2022)

Just stopping by to contribute this colourized pic from New York in 1900 for some added perspective.


----------



## Grumpy Owl (Mar 19, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> Not only is Rome not Rome, but, historically-speaking, Italy isn't even Italy. For instance, the Venice and Genoa that fought like three hundred wars against each other back in the fourteenth century were, geographically at least, South American. (And a consequence of my theory would be that pizza actually _is _American).





iseidon said:


> According to this hypothesis, the source of the Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Latin culture is in America. And they only came to Europe relatively recently.



I have often wondered over the years why Central & South America was called "Latin America". Especially as the majority of people there speak Spanish or Portugese.


----------



## trismegistus (Mar 19, 2022)

User1 said:


> And it was a re-branding. If you said the Roman's discovered America after their golden age and wrote that fairy tale in the history books, most would believe it without question. In fact, I can't say it makes any difference to me whether it was them, Chris Columbo or whether Rome was always there. What is of interest is why hide that this is Rome? The argument that they fear the masses just doesn't fly when an entire history was created and we see these orphans trains. They never feared the masses.



Yes it seems like one of the bigger questions in history is why was the idea of Roman *reset *for this generation of subjects? What if the victors decided to assume the title of “Roman” after the original civilization was removed or replaced? That would be a reason for the victors to hide their origin, while still embracing the “Roman” aesthetics.


----------



## Akanah (Mar 19, 2022)

This thread is actually a continuation of the other thread about Rome-America where I already pointed out that the old Rome-Europe was transformed from the world map to the America of the new world map by 1492 (if it was the real year). I see the cause in a growth spurt of a biological earth. Such a growth spurt could explain also immediately the 2nd world war with the destruction of many Roman-German building structures everywhere in the world. After this world war and the renaming of old Europe to America, many cities were probably renamed and the English language was introduced in America.
Probably it was easier for the people to rename countries and cities and to establish new official languages than to have to explain to the human common people that the earth had grown and some continental parts were now further apart than before.


----------



## Otherlane (Mar 21, 2022)

This thread made me think of the Raekwon song "Knowledge God" where he drops a line "claiming New York was ancient Babylon, where the sky stayed the color of gray like her-on."  We have a Babylon in Long Island, NY, we have many ancient European city names throughout the "Empire State", such as Rome, Troy, Ithaca, Copenhagen, Naples, Philadelphia (yes there is one in NY too), Amsterdam (and the state was once known as New Amsterdam when the state was under the control of the Dutch, giving us Harlem (Haarlem), Brooklyn (Breukelen), Bronx (for Dutch-Scandinavian founder Jonas Bronck), and Staten Island (literally States Island from Dutch)), some Sicilian city names like Massena (Messina) and Syracuse (Siracusa), even a Phoenician named-city with Utica (Utique in modern-day Tunisia) and of course a large host of English (York) and Native American names (Niagara and Adirondacks from the Iroquois and Algonquin tribes).  

Now, New York is the Empire State, and the mainstream narratives states because George Washington in a 1785 thank-you letter to the New York Common Council for bestowing upon him the "Freedom of the City" (I assume this is similar to the key of the city ceremony?) said that New York would be "the Seat of the Empire."  However, most mainstream historians state that the nickname is unknown in its origin.  1785 was quite early for determining that the United States would be an empire, considering it had supposedly just won the Revolutionary War against Britain a couple years earlier and would logically be in no position to be starting an empire when it's just establishing a new government.  

Could New York have been an ancient empire that housed not only the Roman Empire but the Babylonian Empire and this explains the warring factions?  Looking at New York from a "country" point of view, I struggle to see the English rivaling the Dutch, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Roman Church the way history teaches simply because the royalty of these families are all related.  The borough of Queens gets its name from the wife of King Charles II (for whom Kings County is named after), who is Queen Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese Royal Family.  Could there have been battles against the Moors and Mongols in New York?  Was it always an Empire State?  Unfortunately, even the best evidence such as the maps of Rome and NY in comparison is guess work at best, considering history has been destroyed and distorted in more ways than we can count.  I love the effort and I hope collectively we can keep digging and piecing together to come to some sort of an understanding.  Hopefully in the future we will find digs and libraries that give us a better picture of our hidden and stolen history.  But for now, we can keep lecturing and conjecturing and hope we stumble on something that sticks.  Excellent thread!


----------



## Alice11 (Mar 21, 2022)

Whoops sorry for so many tombs, but I am very inter in this place and the other castle prisons.


----------



## User1 (Mar 22, 2022)

If I could offer a hypothesis building on a few ideas in this thread, assuming Manhattan was Rome. New York is the seat of the empire.  This all happened post-reset as I don't think anyone built anything, they claimed what they found as their own.

Rome conquered the Americas and all its people.  Latin, Spanish and Portuguese languages originate in the Americas but later exported to Europe and the rest of the world. I would think the native speakers of these languages are from South America but were enemies/competitors and were killed off, with the exception of those who pledged allegiance and were rewarded with kingship or whatever and sent to the other lands to establish Portuguese/French/Spanish colonies, serving the empire.  Those tribes who we now know as indigenous to the Americas were not a threat to the empire and allowed to remain, giving the impression that only tribal people ever inhabited the lands.  This would explain the incongruence between tribal civilizations and the structures we see in the Americas that pre-date the current occupants of these lands.  How did these people do it? They didn't. Also, if you've ever tried managing people remotely, you'd understand the difficulties in coordinating people across large geographies.  I don't think these people (the empire) were walking around in sandals writing on papyrus and sending messages via pigeons. 

Having killed off/disappeared the competition (native Spanish/Portuguese speakers) , the empire sets its sights east and goes into Europe, setting up kingdoms and nations.  The picture coming to my mind now is that of George Orwell's 1984 (Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia), something like that.  Basically 3 competing empires in this real-life game of thrones, with New York as the seat of the empire.  UN headquarters is in New York, Manhattan if I'm not mistaken. I'm not European but it's pretty easy for me to hear a European language and determine whether it's Western or Eastern Europe.  This is the empire divide I suspect.  Big language jump when we go into Asia. 

Where are the continents of Africa and Australia in all this? Nowhere, just like in real-life.  The opinion of Africans and Australians have zero value in international affairs, for reasons unknown to me.  Perhaps a neutral ground where whoever can exploit it best can do there thing (pretty much what's actually happening in Africa). 

All 3 empires are in on what's really going on and adhere to the rules of the game (lockdown, digiID, etc.) but someone has to be the chief and that's where the tension is.  

Perhaps Eastasia made their play for power a while back through what we call the spice route and silk road. *Wtf *is the spice route? Is this code for drugs?  I watched the movie Dune a few weeks back and a central element is spice mining and I thought if spice is something like what they describe in the film then it makes sense. I cannot imagine how profitable spice must be, or how hard it would be to keep it dry on ships, in those quantities, during "those times",  risking lives.....for spice.

Lastly, I think all 3 empires are scrambling like players in a game of Monopoly.  A fake history was written for the few at the start of this re-colonizing of the world before the exponential growth of population numbers and this was adopted as official history.

Apologies if it's a bit off-topic or if I'm just rambling.  This post really got me thinking.


----------



## Akanah (Mar 22, 2022)

I found a connection between the Roman Empire and Star Wars and and wrote it in another thread already -> SH Archive - Star Wars occult poster imagery


----------



## User1 (Mar 22, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> New York City has several enormous triumphal arches within its boundaries, as seen above


 So they'll destroy most of the history but keep some obvious clues that it's a lie. That this is all a fraud and deception. Why? 

This fraud that has been perpetuated for generations. Most people don't maintain a singular interest for a lifetime, much less generations, and the theory is that we are dealing with a hidden, evil empire-building project.  As much as I entertain the idea, I don't find the argument compelling.  I've come across the theory that Tartaria (whatever that was) was wiped off the map,  literally. It was nuked into oblivion and all these craters and young forests scattered across Russia along with the orphan trains are the evidence. Now if this were true, where are the nuclear-capable victors of 200 years ago now? I'm increasingly getting the feeling that this whole Roman empire business is simply misdirection and as was stated by another member, the victors wrote themselves out of this story.
Perhaps are simply witnessing empire wars by the people who were allowed to survive the actual empire war,  for control purposrs. The real empire war is over. Which also explains why everyone moves in lockstep when it comes to certain international matters.




emperornorton said:


> Not only is Rome not Rome, but, historically-speaking, Italy isn't even Italy.


 And if Italy isn't Italy,  and I would guess the rest of Western Europe, then what were they? Or rather, who? It seems like we're missing a half a continent's worth of people.


Akanah said:


> I found a connection between the Roman Empire and Star Wars


Haven't followed the Star Wars universe so I don't understand the parallels you draw but I get that this is one of those subtle references to the "truth" that appear throughout books, movies, games and music. In fact, because they won't shut up about it I'm starting to think this is more misdirection. 

Perhaps it's quite simple. They're lying. We know they're lying. They know we know they're lying so they give us a lie with a great backstory, starting in the 1800s (post-empire war), move their subjects all around the world to setup nation states and create a false history, create the illusion of politics, nations, supranational institutions,  secret societies and an incoherent historical record. We discover the lie in the incoherent historical records and search for the true/stolen history but fail to see that their everything is a prop.  All peoples have been placed into their nations and a history written for them and everything we witness and uncover is theater. 

Just reading the various posts on SH and looking at the continents,  I get the feeling we're a people short.


----------



## Otherlane (Mar 23, 2022)

User1 said:


> If I could offer a hypothesis building on a few ideas in this thread, assuming Manhattan was Rome. New York is the seat of the empire.  This all happened post-reset as I don't think anyone built anything, they claimed what they found as their own.
> 
> Rome conquered the Americas and all its people.  Latin, Spanish and Portuguese languages originate in the Americas but later exported to Europe and the rest of the world. I would think the native speakers of these languages are from South America but were enemies/competitors and were killed off, with the exception of those who pledged allegiance and were rewarded with kingship or whatever and sent to the other lands to establish Portuguese/French/Spanish colonies, serving the empire.  Those tribes who we now know as indigenous to the Americas were not a threat to the empire and allowed to remain, giving the impression that only tribal people ever inhabited the lands.  This would explain the incongruence between tribal civilizations and the structures we see in the Americas that pre-date the current occupants of these lands.  How did these people do it? They didn't. Also, if you've ever tried managing people remotely, you'd understand the difficulties in coordinating people across large geographies.  I don't think these people (the empire) were walking around in sandals writing on papyrus and sending messages via pigeons.
> 
> ...


Excellent reply...I have a feeling that America was the home of the original empire dating back to Atlantis (if nothing else it's a place name for the ancient empire) and that it was actually Mayan, Incan, Aztec, etc. descendants that were coming to Europe and Asia and establishing civilization...as in 1984 like you mentioned everything is doublespeak and history is being rewritten as we speak...we will likely never know what happened but we can keep trying to piece the puzzle together


----------



## User1 (Mar 23, 2022)

Otherlane said:


> I have a feeling that America was the home of the original empire dating back to Atlantis (if nothing else it's a place name for the ancient empire) and that it was actually Mayan, Incan, Aztec, etc. descendants that were coming to Europe and Asia and establishing civilization.


 I think the empire wars are over and they are all co-opted into THE empire, you know, the one pushing immorality, suffering and chaos all over the world. That said, they could all have played a significant role historically and to this day.  Returning to Rome, do you suggest they basically followed the tracks of the pioneers (Aztecs, Mayans or whoever and then re-branded everything along the way)?  Would go a long way in explaining the planted artifacts.

Also, the language bit.  If Rome is in the Americas, as OP said, then we're talking Italy. So is Italian/Latin the language of the Roman empire? Only moving to Italy when Rome/Vatican did? We can follow the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and French colonies from the Americas through Africa to Western Europe.  My guess would be the empire killed the powers of these regions and left the tribal folk.  The same thing was done in the Far East and Europe. 

Something like this:






I came across a post on SH where the OP was saying that the invading army basically replaced the indigenous population with their army, not of their people but conquered warriors.  What I imagine then is that this happened throughout Africa, Europe and the Far East.  There are records of tribes who have distinctly black African features in South America.  These people were possibly conquered and then the black slaves were sent to Africa, not the other way around.  They then conquered and colonized Africa.  The Spanish/Dutch/French colonies already existed so they just claimed these as their own and setup the nations of France/Belgium, Spain, Holland, etc. after the fact.  They stole the languages of the original kingdoms and setup nations with these languages and then inverted the origin, claiming they brought it to the colonies when in fact they learnt it from the colonies, who were fallen kingdoms. 

There's probably a lot more to this chapter in our history.  Thanks @emperornorton for this thread, really opened a lot of possibilities.


----------



## Akanah (Mar 23, 2022)

User1 said:


> Just reading the various posts on SH and looking at the continents,  I get the feeling we're a people short.


There is actually a missing folk, namely the people of the snake-like sky people (anunnaki). Memories from my childhood around the turn of the 90s show me a short golden interim period with many anthropological buildings that were then quickly lost. No one could tell me where these buildings had disappeared to and many people did not even remember these buildings. In my memories, one of these sky people would flit past me here and there until it disguised itself as an anthropological building. I have already mentioned it somewhere in another thread that on our earth actually lives a hidden people who had come from heaven. But somehow hardly anyone can remember these people or in what way they camouflaged themselves from the people later, because they were somehow unwanted. No one apparently came up with the idea to write a story about them although they existed and perhaps still do in secret. To these sky people also Oannes belonged. Although no one knows much about this people, I know that they played a role in terraforming our Earth into Earth-embryos.
The history of these sky-people is the true stolen history behind our fake-history !


----------



## Otherlane (Mar 26, 2022)

User1 said:


> I think the empire wars are over and they are all co-opted into THE empire, you know, the one pushing immorality, suffering and chaos all over the world. That said, they could all have played a significant role historically and to this day.  Returning to Rome, do you suggest they basically followed the tracks of the pioneers (Aztecs, Mayans or whoever and then re-branded everything along the way)?  Would go a long way in explaining the planted artifacts.
> 
> Also, the language bit.  If Rome is in the Americas, as OP said, then we're talking Italy. So is Italian/Latin the language of the Roman empire? Only moving to Italy when Rome/Vatican did? We can follow the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and French colonies from the Americas through Africa to Western Europe.  My guess would be the empire killed the powers of these regions and left the tribal folk.  The same thing was done in the Far East and Europe.
> 
> ...


Exactly the kingdoms were much more intermixed as far as race, color, and creed.  We have blacks throughout Europe, whites in Africa and the Americas, blacks in the Americas before the Atlantic slave trade, etc.  The idea that people before Columbus were isolated for thousands and thousands of years in the geographic areas where they predominately exist now is ludicrous.  All the amazing navies from the Carthaginians and Phoenicians never managed to come across this giant landmass that occupies half the world is unthinkably insane but those with the highest degrees in academia will swear no one except Mongoloid Natives ever found this place outside of a freak Viking or Chinese expedition.  And we haven't been back to the moon since the 70s...

I am not sure about how long the Roman kingdom was in the Americas but there is no doubt it was here before Columbus.  I think what likely happened is there were some sort of sanctions against certain Roman empire factions from the Moors and Mongols until the Castilian Hapsburgs of the Spanish empire finally defeated the Moors in that fateful year of 1492 under the Roman Church.  And who was Columbus's ship comprised of?  Moors and Ladinos (Spanish Jews who converted to the Roman Church).  They knew the sea navigation, trade routes, people, etc. because they were either one with them or had traded with them.  Now that the Moors were defeated the Church took over the rule of the sea.  There is no question Native Americans had traveled to Europe, Africa, and Asia before Columbus.  I have a feeling that some of the European royals might have had power in the Americas and were expelled (Bible story?) and generations later finally had the capabilities to reclaim their holy land.  Just conjecture I know but I have a hitch.  The hard proof isn't spelled out for us but we are piecing things together slowly but surely.


----------



## ViniB (Mar 26, 2022)

This entire thread inspired me to look at the symbolism on older currency, to be precise in brazilian currency of the 1870/1880 period. I was quite surprised to see so much "roman" symbolism & references
Will try to put a thread together about it.....


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 26, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> I speculate that center Rome must have been in North Africa much of where the Sahara desert lies now days.


This was the original territory of the indigenous Amazigh/Berber people, also known as Moors, which can synthesize with place names such as  "MOOR"occo and A"MOOR"ica, and an anagram of ROME as MORE (they wanted "more" territory for their empire?). Also, from Nova Caesaria/Caesarea????, "the grant from James, Duke of York (New York named for him, who was later James II, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland), to (Sir George) Carteret and (Lord John) Berkeley (who had been named Governor to the Duke of York during his minority) explicitly reads: "which said tract of land is hereafter to be called by the name or names of New CAESAREA (Caesar's area?) or New Jersey." The aristocratic English Berkeley family has proven ancient Amazigh Y-DNA, and Sir William Berkeley, the younger brother of the Lord John mentioned above, was Royal Governor of Virginia and a Lord Proprietor of the Colony of Carolina, as he was a favorite of the Duke of York's father, King Charles I. Below, the Roman Emperor statue of King James II in Trafalgar Square (he originally held a baton in his right hand) -


----------



## BusyBaci (Mar 26, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Also, from Nova Caesaria/Caesarea????,



That's a good clue right there. Roman architecture and statues are to be found everywhere in every continent. That great Empire might even had a different name. Who knows how it was really named. We know that it was called Rome because "they" said so, but the inscription of _Rome_ is to be found nowhere on pantheons, cathedrals, statues, or towers. It's missing. And calling it _Tartaria_ it is also a mistake in my opinion using the same logic as for Rome.
I guess, if any country was to claim itself as _Rome,_ most likely that would be Romania. It fits perfectly, and if we're to take a good look at Bucharest's city architecture and design, it's the same as Paris, London, Dresden, Rome, St. Petersburg and every old city in USA. The same construction technique like everywhere on earth.





_Bucharest, Romania_​
Caesar/Kaiser/Czar/Tsar it is a title for the leader, king or ruler. I think that it's true meaning might be a _Governor_, a regional governor of the Empire. That's why we find this title sticking to everybody's statues on major old cities throughout the earth.
I know. Many inscriptions of statues can be easily re-engraved to fit the characters of the narrative. So there are muddy waters even in that front. It's maddening the fact that we can't be sure for many well known pieces of art and history.
Caesarea you said it yourself, the land of Caesar or governor. You're right. The important thing that it's missing in accordance with my way of thinking, (Caesar is not the big guy). Then.
Who was the emperor? Was there even one? Was it Palpatine?


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 27, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> Who was the emperor?


"James’s self-image as the new Augustus is a coronation medal which was minted for distribution to his new subjects, depicting James ‘wearing a laurel leaf, while a Latin inscription proclaimed him Caesar Augustus of Britain, Caesar the heir of the Caesars’" See below -   An Analysis of Shakespeare's 'Antony and Cleopatra’ in Historical Context

Near the beginning of the 17th century, royal Stuart dynasty founder King James I became the "Caesar Augustus of Britain" (Emperor), and such as the aristocratic Berkeleys served as Governors (Proconsuls) for his family. The Elite changed names and dynasties over time, but it was basically the same inbred bloodline of the "Firm" ruling over the world, since at least the period of the also inbred Pharaohs, taking them back to ancient North Africa. Many years ago, before the advent of the personal computer, I had the opportunity to view the "Descent from Antiquity" pedigree charts prepared by the Augustan Society, showing a conjectural line from the Stuarts back to the Pharaohs, generation by generation, so it is possible, and not all fantasy, wishful thinking, or conspiracy theory that now abounds on the Internet.


----------



## BusyBaci (Mar 27, 2022)

I'm afraid I'm not clearly understanding your point. My use of English language is poor and prone to mistakes, both in reading & writing.

If you want to make it definitive that the Imperator of the so called Rome is King James II because the narratives that be make it appear so, or because of Shakespeare's novels where he mentions him are something of a proof to you. Then, I could not stop myself from pointing flaws behind your reasoning in accordance with my point of view.
Just because you get to read from known history that some guy (King James II) is this and that. I would easily counter it by naming also known figures from established history, as Imperators of Rome. Precisely from Byzantium or Constantinople.

The figures of the like of Justinian I the Great, and Constantine the Great. There are 15-17 imperators well known in established history as rulers of Byzantium.
If I was to use your reasoning I could easily claimed that all of these guys, sometime long ago were all Imperators of Rome.
Who cares about a James Jew guy, if I could easily defend my point with already known facts in great numbers?

But I'm all beyond this simplistic point of view of the narrative. I'm looking for answers beyond it. I'm thinking big.
Sorry if I don't agree with you.

*Edit*: I forgot about the dynasty of the Egyptian Pharaohs. From known history they are the descendants of Ptolemy the I-st. He was a friend and a general of Alexander the Great. Alex, let him rule over Egypt once he conquered and defeated it, because he trusted Ptolemy and it was a custom to let "your people" be in charge of the lands a king was to conquer. It's easy to maintain command & control this way if you trust your subordinates and they trust you in exchange.
Ptolemy was a white man married with one or many white Macedonian women, ruling over Egypt which was filled with Semites, or partially black people like middle-easterns.
Cleopatra was the third generation of white rulers over Egypt after the first founder, Ptolemy I Sotir.
No way white rulers over black people would mix genes with them. It's heresy!

So, I'm not yet understanding your point on Cleopatra, even by using known established history.


----------



## fabiorem (Mar 27, 2022)

Moscow is Rome (continental power), New York is Carthage (maritime power).


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 28, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> I'm afraid I'm not clearly understanding your point. My use of English language is poor and prone to mistakes, both in reading & writing.


Thank You for your candor, I shall try to express my "point of view" more clearly to you.


BusyBaci said:


> Sorry if I don't agree with you.


That is quite all right, perhaps I can learn something from your "point of view". What I am trying to do is stick to this thread topic,
"Imperial Rome: New York City", as the rules of this site dictate. King James II was also created Duke of York before he became King, and New York (The Empire State), part of the American territory he was granted, is named for him. Along with New York, James was given what became the state of New Jersey (right underneath of the state of New York), which was also known as New CAESAREA. As I have shown, James II (and other members of his family too) were depicted as Roman Emperors in statues of them, which might beg the question, if this was "fake news", why was not that statue of James II pulled down after he was deposed and forced to leave England in 1688? His Grandfather King James I proclaimed himself the Caesar Augustus of Britain, and had coins minted with him named as such, whether anyone else believed him or not, including Shakespeare. The original Caesar Augustus and his immediate heirs (the Imperial Julio-Claudian dynasty) were the Emperors of the ROMAN Empire, not the BYZANTINE Empire, which did not actually exist at that time, and in fact ended on May 29, 1453, 150 years before James I even became King of England.​


BusyBaci said:


> Who cares about a James Jew guy


I never said that James was a Jew, what are your sources for that assertion?


BusyBaci said:


> I'm not yet understanding your point on Cleopatra, even by using known established history.


I never mentioned Cleopatra, you did.


----------



## BusyBaci (Mar 28, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Thank You for your candor, I shall try to express my "point of view" more clearly to you.
> 
> That is quite all right, perhaps I can learn something from your "point of view". What I am trying to do is stick to this thread topic,
> "Imperial Rome: New York City", as the rules of this site dictate. King James II was also created Duke of York before he became King, and New York (The Empire State), part of the American territory he was granted, is named for him. Along with New York, James was given what became the state of New Jersey (right underneath of the state of New York), which was also known as New CAESAREA. His Grandfather King James I proclaimed himself the Caesar Augustus of Britain, and had coins minted with him named as such, whether anyone else believed him or not, including Shakespeare. The original Caesar Augustus and his immediate heirs (the Imperial Julio-Claudian dynasty) were the Emperors of the ROMAN Empire, not the BYZANTINE Empire, which did not actually exist at that time, and in fact ended on May 29, 1453, 150 years before James I even became King of England.​
> ...


Ohhh now I understand. Thank you for writhing in big fonts, it's really helpful. Good luck sticking to the thread.


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 28, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> Ohhh now I understand. Thank you for writhing in big fonts, it's really helpful. Good luck sticking to the thread.


Thank You Kindly, Good Luck to you also!
New York City was also the capital of the United States from 1785-1790. There is a story that after the Revolutionary War, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of King James II, Duke of (New) York, was approached to be the first King of America, but declined the honor. Therefore, George Washington, of royal English ancestry, who also declined the title of King, eventually was inaugurated as the first "official" President of the United States in NEW YORK CITY, swearing the oath of office upon a KING JAMES BIBLE! This parallels the conventional story relating that after the ancient Romans ousted their Kings in 509 BC, they abhorred that title, and no one used it again when the Roman Republic was created immediately after that event.


----------



## BusyBaci (Mar 28, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Thank You Kindly, Good Luck to you also!


 I do really appreciate the fact that you do show your sense of humor. That's better. It's clear to me that in our previous exchange of replies there were miscommunications and misunderstandings, leading towards unnecessary and useless escalations of arguments.

Anyway, I do support the main thread's idea of the OP, that North America is _"Rome"_ in a sense. What I'm thinking without definitive means to prove it, is that the so called Roman Empire might have been a global empire. We can't even be sure about it's name after all because this site SH, is about trying to pierce the veil of indoctrinating history facts. And leaders the likes of let's say King James II (which I don't dare to question his historical narrative), or many other known imperators, might have been a local or regional governor of this world-wide empire.
It might not have been an Empire in the first place, maybe an alliance of a united languages and people's aspirations. Who knows.

I'm not against your comments about King James, it just felt weird to me that you had to reply specifically to me about it (without taking a stand on my 1-st post about the Sahara desert). There are many persons stating their different opinions about it on this thread, and I do read them all and try to understand their point of view. I'm not engaging specifically with them because their opinions are different from mine, and it might lead to unpleasant conversations. All I'm doing is trying to learn more.
But.
It felt to me, like you wanted to change my mind and opinion about Rome. We're all trying to understand here and make assumptions out of the ordinary, because some well known historical fact don't make that much sense to all of the subs of SH.
That's it.


----------



## trismegistus (Mar 28, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Therefore, George Washington, of royal English ancestry, who also declined the title of King, eventually was inaugurated as the first "official" President of the United States in NEW YORK CITY, swearing the oath of office upon a KING JAMES BIBLE!



This archived thread shows depictions of George Washington doing his best Caesar impression in the various artworks in DC.

SH Archive - Norumbega: Washington Monument and the Roman Empire


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 28, 2022)

I am not trying to start a political argument, just stating facts that relate to this thread topic, but the preceding President of the United States, Donald Trump, was actually born and bred in NEW YORK CITY, where of course the United Nations is also located. Thus, we have New York City, from being a temporary capitol of the United States, to hosting a United Nations after World War II, when the US was the leading victor of that conflict. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a NEW YORK patrician with royal English ancestry, was President during that war, reelected to an unprecedented third and then fourth term as such, and was supposed to have aspired to become the first Secretary-General of the UN. This seems to have been when New York City began to solidify its position as the "capitol" of a global empire, backed up by the "capital" of its Wall Street financiers.


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 29, 2022)

As a precedent for "New York City" in the American "Empire State" of New York, "Old" York "City", in North Yorkshire, England, was actually where the African Roman Emperor Septimius Severus governed the Roman Empire for a time, until his passing in AD2II. archive.ph

From the Wikipedia article on York, "the Emperor Severus proclaimed York capital of the province of Britannia Inferior, and it is likely that it was he who granted York the privileges of a 'colonia' or city."

York itself, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his fanciful history of the Kings of Britain, has its name deriving from that of a pre-Roman city founded by the legendary king Ebraucus, the cousin of King Alba Silvius of Alba Longa, Italy, and the great-great-grandson of Brutus the Trojan. Brutus himself was supposed to be the descendant of Aeneas the Trojan, the legendary forefather of Rome. So it would seem that the various forms of "York" were always connected to a "Roman Empire", and "Roman" origin stories.


----------



## User1 (Mar 29, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> King James II was also created Duke of York before he became King, and New York (The Empire State), part of the American territory he was granted, is named for him.


Please help clarifying a few things re this comment.  How does one hold the title of king and duke?  Even if James were a duke before he became a king, if my understanding of the present day British royals are correct and if the same applies to this, they hold both titles simultaneously.  How does that work?  When you obtain the status of licensed driver, your status as a learner driver expires as it is an inferior status.  Perhaps my logic is flawed but I don't quite understand why both titles would be help simultaneously. 

My second question is who granted him the territory if he was king?  



BusyBaci said:


> might have been a local or regional governor of this world-wide empire.
> It might not have been an Empire in the first place, maybe an alliance of a united languages and people's aspirations.


I'm inclined to think the caesars, kaizers, kings, etc. were governors of a worldwide empire though, not an alliance of like-minded individuals.  To create such a homogenous look and feel across continents and would involve subjugating people to your rule because they surely all didn't have the same culture even if they were united in language. I therefore think there was in fact an emperor-type, who decided to export that culture worldwide, not unlike exporting democracy.


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 29, 2022)

User1 said:


> How does one hold the title of king and duke?


I specifically stated "King James II was also created Duke of York BEFORE he became King, and New York (The Empire State), part of the American territory he was granted, is named for him." At the time James was created Duke of York, his older brother, Charles II, was the heir to the British throne and King, but when Charles passed away without legitimate heirs, his brother James then became King by default. I should have clarified my original statement by saying that New York was named for James while he was still known as the Duke of York, long before he himself actually became King.


User1 said:


> My second question is who granted him the territory if he was king?


It was his older brother, King Charles II, who granted his younger brother James, at that time the Duke of York, the American territory.


----------



## Fawkes (Mar 30, 2022)

I hope I am doing this right, if not I shall delete it. Felix Noille, almost a year ago, mentioned "York" in one of his postings from his thread "
Dr. John Dee, Hellfire, Antiquitech, Great Fires and Floods", and I wish to expand upon that part for this "Imperial Rome: New York City" thread. Here are his words concerning the city of "York" (I have mentioned "York" in this thread also), that I would like to try and work with here -​

 "I know the current reaction to ‘freemasonry’ is that it’s an integral part of the problem and so it is, however, there are theories claiming that what we have today is a twisted, evil version of something that was once honourable. *Moorish Science* is often cited as one such ‘something’.
In 1717 the Premier Grand Lodge of England was established in the City of London and so-called because it claimed it was the first Masonic Grand Lodge to be created. However, the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons in York disagreed. The upstart grand lodge was cobbled together from four existing Lodges who gathered at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house in St. Paul's Church-yard in *The City of London* where they constituted themselves into a Grand Lodge. 
The Ancient Grand Lodge of England on the other hand held their meetings in a lodge within York Minster. Their claim was based on a tradition that began in 926 AD when Prince Edwin (he of Edwin’s Burgh or Edinburgh fame) supposedly presided over a meeting of Masons in York, which was seen as the first Grand Lodge in England.
I did a great deal of research into this years ago and found that the York Grand Lodge has verifiable connections to the *Knights Templar* (whoever they really were), or at least to the symbolism that is associated these days with them. This information has since disappeared from public view, as far as I can ascertain.
The two camps became known as the Antients and Moderns. Amazingly the Moderns slowly but surely gained the upper hand over the Antients until eventually in 1813 they united with the Ancient Grand Lodge of England to create the United Grand Lodge of England."

I should like to mention that George Washington, the first President of the United States, inaugurated in New YORK City, the capital of the United States at that time, was indeed a Freemason, as was the patrician New Yorker, Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to an unprecedented four terms as President, who oversaw the United States become the leading world power during World War II . "Old" York "City", in England, is also where North African Roman Emperor Septimius Severus ruled the Roman Empire from in the last years of his life, seven centuries before York became, traditionally, the first Grand Lodge in England. Could the "Moorish Science", that Felix Noille mentioned, been spread to York through Emperor Severus and/or his soldiers, as he was expanding the Roman Empire in Britain, and been a basis for Freemasonry, which wound up as a "corruption" of it? Also note that the Roman Emperor Constantius Chlorus later campaigned and ended his life in York, like Emperor Severus, and his son Constantine the Great was acclaimed as Emperor there, who approved the toleration of Christianity, which was also eventually exported to the American colonies, along with Freemasonry. Is there any connection between "Old" York / "New" York, "Empire", and organizations with redeeming knowledge, or is this all just a coincidence?


----------



## Myopia (Sep 2, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> I think the great Roman Empire was extended world-wide with it's technology, construction and rule of law. They might not have been the (good guys), as we know. But no empire has ever been about the greater good of the people (including Tartaria).
> 
> I speculate that center Rome must have been in North Africa much of where the Sahara desert lies now days. No way a big desert like that is a natural formation, a great destruction must have happened to every city laying in that area, as great as to atomize or reduce into grains of sand every building, every road, everything.
> 
> ...


The name for the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl translates as "plumed serpent," or "feathered serpent." Look at the Legionnaire's helmet and armour: a feathered helmet and body armour appearing as scaled skin. Medieval knights also used plumed helmets, and their mail would appear as scaled skin too. The Aztecs deemed Quetzalcoatl to be fair skinned and light haired.


----------



## Zechariah_Murphy (Sep 2, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> View attachment 20677
> 
> The World Trade Center, catastrophically bombed on September 11, 2001, was built  right on top of the old starfort located by the Battery at the southern tip of Manhattan. It seems like someone has a grudge against Rome...


The answer is obvious. Today's architecture is modelled after a black cube 90 degree angles. the black cube is a jewish sacred symbol. jews own Manhattan. jews hated the romans for descending from the Aryans. If only we could figure out; who has a grudge against the romans?


----------



## _harris (Oct 13, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> I guess, if any country was to claim itself as _Rome,_ most likely that would be Romania. It fits perfectly, and if we're to take a good look at Bucharest's city architecture and design, it's the same as Paris, London, Dresden, Rome, St. Petersburg and every old city in USA. The same construction technique like everywhere on earth.
> View attachment 20983View attachment 20984
> _Bucharest, Romania_​


Romania is referred to as _Wall_achia in a lot of old maps.

Also have some wall/gall* place names in Switzerland, Germany and biggest mentions are Corn_wall_, and Wales (Pays de _Gall_es)

*[G is sometimes a W in French, see it in names such as "Guillaume", "William"]


Zechariah_Murphy said:


> The answer is obvious. Today's architecture is modelled after a black cube 90 degree angles. the black cube is a jewish sacred symbol.


Mecca is the black cube...


----------



## Zechariah_Murphy (Oct 13, 2022)

_harris said:


> Romania is referred to as _Wall_achia in a lot of old maps.
> 
> Also have some wall/gall* place names in Switzerland, Germany and biggest mentions are Corn_wall_, and Wales (Pays de _Gall_es)
> 
> ...


islam and judaism both descend from the same priest class, Kesh Ibrahim.


----------



## AntiSoof (Dec 15, 2022)

I did some searching on the name York and found this: Eboracum - Wikipedia

By the way, if you want to know what 'they' consider important, then you have to see what is always saved in terms of buildings, statutes and the like, I think.


----------

