# America is Amalek is Rome



## emperornorton (Aug 28, 2021)

You may have noticed the enthusiasm, among revolutionary political groups, for the name _Jacob_. A number of different movements, both political and apparently religious, in different times and places, have taken this name. There may seem to be little in terms of their purported purposes and principles to build a grand theory of history from their combined parts, but the name is a clue pointing toward a true understanding of American history. Specifically, I contend that:

_the Western Roman Empire was located in America_
_the name_ "America_" is derived from the word "_Amalek"
_the destruction of Amalek was the purpose of the Spanish Conquest and Puritan colonization of America_

First we'll look at a few of the groups that have identified themselves with the name Jacob.

*JACOBINS*

The _Jacobins_ were a ruthless politlcal group active in the French Revolution. Its ends were the eradication of Christianity and monarchy (big surprise) and its means were blackmail and terrorism. They were closely associated with the Bavarian Illuminati and Templar Freemasonry. Like the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) the Jacobins assumed the pretence of a religious order under Christian auspices in order to appear harmless on the way in and to cause their enemy to take the blame for their crimes on the way out.

Thus the Jacobins were named, according to official sources "because their first house in Paris was the Saint Jacques Monastery" and because "Jacobus corresponds to Jacques in French and James in English," which, if it were true, would be a dumb reason.






*Jacobins (left) and Puritans (right) doing their thing.*

_*JACOBITES*_

Wikipedia will try to tell you that the _Jacobites_' chief doctrinal interests, in contrast to the Jacobins, were first, the sanctity of kingship and second, devotion to Roman Catholicism. You might then wonder whether their reputation as ardent royalists was put at risk by their unrelenting determination to depose the reigning King. But apparently the Jacobites were just so committed to monarchical legitimacy that they were obligated by principle to overthrow the government and restore James II to the throne. Hence their animosity toward the_ de facto _monarch, the former "Prince of Orange."

What Wikipedia won't tell you is that few of the influential Jacobites were Roman Catholic and that despite their devotion to the supposed rightful King in exile, they had already plotted, in concert with some of his French military guards, to assassinate him. They had also begun debasing English currency in preparation for an even darker plot.

At any rate, the official story, as regards their name, is that the Jacobites were named after King James II, again since "James" is just a variation of "Jacob." Sure. And the Congregationalists were named after King Kong.

*PURITANS*

The Puritans, although nominally a Protestant Christian sect, were preoccupied exclusively with themes from the Old Testament and assumed a militaristic philosophy modeled on the warriors of the Mosaic conquest, to whom they continually compared themselves. Their political aims and religious ideas seem to have been borrowed from the Illuminati. Their enemies were not the Turks, Moors, or Saracens--or any of the traditional foes of Christendom; their enemy was The Church itself and the state powers aligned with it, although other other Protestant sects were also regarded with strange animosity.





*Idiosyncrasies of Puritan morality.*

However, the Puritans did not generally refer to themselves as "Puritans." In England they called themselves "Covenanters," and took as their emblem the burning bush. In the English colonies of America, the Puritans also chose to identify themselves as "Jacobites."

This name _definitely _wasn't in honor of a Monarch or a monastery since they used a parallel Biblical term, *Amalek*--referring to the progeny of the Biblical Esau, the twin and immortal rival of the Biblical Jacob--to identify their enemies: the Native Americans. The Puritans, in their interactions with the Indians, whether because there was little time to spare on the colonial frontier or perhaps because the natives were Christians already, generally dispensed with evangelism and proceeded directly to murder.






*From Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's Saviour in New England by Puritan Edward Johnson, first published in 1653.*


The legends you might have heard about blankets being deliberately infested with smallpox and given to the Natives are based on the times the Puritans deliberately infested blankets with smallpox and gave them to the Natives. In fact, one gets the impression, reading the earliest narratives of these pioneers, that the annihilation of the so-called Indians was* the purpose* of the Puritan immigration to New England.

The Puritans prosecuted their war of annihilation against Amalek (or _Edom,_an equivalent term) without mercy, sparing neither woman nor child. They found the motivation and justification for these acts of genocide in the Old Testament. The God of the Israelites commanded his people, as recorded in Deuteronomy 25:19,  to “obliterate the memory of Amalek." This obligation fell on the Israelites, a people descended from, and named after, the patriarch Jacob (who was later given the name _Israel_) and it was from him that the Jacobites and Jacobins derived their names.

Now the name _Jacob_ is supposed to signify _one who supplants _or _one who tricks_. The name _Esau_, meanwhile, means _red_. And "red," I don't need to remind you, is the universal descriptive term of identification for the Native Americans. As in "Red Man" or "Redskin."

However, I'm not sure that "red" is the word I would use to describe the people offered up as definitive representatives of the Native American race. I would describe them, if I had to choose a color, as brown. The term "red men" tends to suggest, to my mind, a Nordic race of people.

Indeed, red hair is a characteristic that has historically been associated with Vikings, Goths and other Norsemen. For instance, _The Saga of Erik the Red_--the father of Leif Erikson--which relates the Norse exploration of North America. You might hear the terms _Ostrogoth _and_ Visigoth _in connection to this topic, which mean _Eastern Goth_ and _Western Goth_, respectively. Since Leif Erikson was a Western Goth, could his voyage to America part of the Visigoth invasion of Rome?

Another Norseman or German described in such terms is _Barbarossa_, which means "red beard." Barbarossa, of course, was also the code name for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in World War II, whose Bolshevik government owed everything to forces that could be described as _Jacobitic_.







This brings us back to the "Prince of _Orange_," the monarch who so aroused the hatred of the Jacobites. Where did the Prince of Orange hail from, again? Germany.

We know that the Roman Empire at this time, the so-called "Holy Roman Empire" was centered in Germany. So Germany is closely associated with the Roman Empire, but is Germany ever identified with Edom/Amalek? All the time.

The evidence for the Roman Empire in America, meanwhile, is all over the place. I'll post just a couple representative photos (below).





*Some of the old Roman architecture in San Francisco, later destroyed by fire (right).*

Note that the USA Capital, _Washington, District of Columbia_, was once known as _Norumbega_. Norumbega sounds a lot like Nuremberg, a city in Germany. When the Third Reich was ascendant, Nuremberg became the geographic showpiece of the country's military power. Unless there were some historical significance to distinguish it, Nuremberg seems like sort of an odd place to choose.





*It's not weird at all that Julius Caesar is depicted at the top--on the American side--of this 1633 map. *

And there are lots of other cities in the Americas that have or used to have Roman names. _Cartagena_, for instance, along the South American coast, is suspiciously similar to Carthage, the great foe of Rome. And you may recall that the name of the Mexican capital at the time it was beseiged by the conquistadors, according to the earliest accounts, was_ Temix Titan_. Then it was changed. Was it changed because "Titan" suggests "Teuton" and the Spanish Conquest might seem less excusable or more suspicious to people if they were given to understand that the Spaniards were killing Germans?

Up by the Puritans in New England, the chief Indian sachem was named _Canonicus_, which you have to admit is somewhat less fake-sounding (and somewhat more Roman) than the names Indians are usually given.





*The only thing Freemasons enjoy more than making jokes about Indians is dressing up like them.*

However, the war did not start with the Puritans. It was merely a continuation of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, although the Puritan front along the North Atlantic was planned in collaboration with the powers behind the earlier conquest. Furthermore, the Jesuit Order and other secret societies active in Spain were closely enmeshed in a conspiratorial web with the Rosicrucian Society and various Masonic bodies affiliated with the Puritans.





*Scenes like these typified the Spanish Conquest of Mexico, according to Bartolomé de las Casas. *_*Is this why the Jesuits referred to the natives as "*_*gentiles"* *and "bestias" (beasts)?*

Bartolomé de las Casas, a Dominican Friar who arrived in America in 1515 alleged that the Spaniards there had pursued "two courses principally, in order to the Extirpation, and Exterminating of this People from the face of the Earth. The number of those I saw here burnt, and dismembered, and rackt with various Torments, as well as others, the poor Remnants of such matchless Villanies, who surviving were enslaved, is infinite...I do not conceive that I should deviate from the Truth by saying that above Fifty Millions in all paid their last Debt to Nature."

However, I believe the war on Amalek started before Cortes marched across Mexico, even before Columbus began his first voyage. It think that the _Tartars, _fighting on the same side, had already marched onto the Continent from the Northwest. Their influence persists to the present not in the architecture but in the form of "American Indians"--the ones officially thus denominated--who, I contend, are the descendants, with various degrees of admixture, of the Tartar and Spanish conquerors of America, not the people they conquered. I will leave that topic for another post, however.

It is tempting to reject a theory like this on the grounds that it's too big of a lie to get away with. It would be impossible to completely eradicate all the books and other documents that told the true history, right? I think what they did instead--pretty successfully--is just push the events in question into the distant past and then remove their geographic setting to a different continent. It does seem like Roman history has far more prominent a position in literature than anything else from that long ago, which would make sense if it was actually more recent. At that (apparent) distance in time we also tend to cut the narrative a lot of slack.

Any loose ends that remain in the narrative after that can be written off as forgeries or satires or prophecies or whatever. Inconvenient authors can be discredited, cancelled, subjected to other forms of well-poisoning. "Authoritative" and exhaustive treatments of delicate subjects can be assembled under names like Gibbon and Bancroft. Real relics can be destroyed, dismissed as forgeries. Fake relics can be created. Real ruins can be covered with reservoirs. Fake ruins can be built in the jungle. More propaganda can be made; more movies, more books, more lies.

It does seem like a lot of work. What's it all for?


----------



## SuperTrouper (Aug 31, 2021)

Greetings from 'down under'. I would like to contribute an alternative naming hypothesis for America.

The chief god of the Mayans in Central America was Quetzalcoatl. In Peru this god was called Amaru and the territory known as Amaruca. American Thesophist James Morgan Pryse argued that the name America was derived from Amaruca.

According to Manly P. Hall (_The Secret Teachings of All Age_s): "_These Children of the Sun adore the Plumed Serpent, who is the messenger of the Sun. He was the God Quetzalcoatl in Mexico, Gucumatz in Quiche, and in Peru he was called Amaru. From the latter name comes our word America. Amaruca is, literally translated, 'Land of the Plumed Serpent.' The priests of this 'flying dragon', from their chief center in the Cordilleras, once ruled both Americas. All the Red men who have remained true to the ancient religion are still under their sway. One of their strong centres was in Guatemala, and of their Order was the author of the book called Popol Vuh. In the Quiche tongue Gucumatz is the exact equivalent of Quetzalcoatl in the Nahuatl language; quetzal, the bird of Paradise; coatl, serpent -- 'the Serpent veiled in plumes of the paradise-bird'!_"

This origin of the name America is further reinforced by Jules Marcou, a prominent French geologist who studied in North America in the 19th century, who reiterates that the name America was brought back to Europe from the New World and that Alberigo (his real birth name) Vespucci had changed his name to reflect the name of this "new discovery".


----------



## emperornorton (Aug 31, 2021)

SuperTrouper said:


> Greetings from 'down under'. I would like to contribute an alternative naming hypothesis for America.
> 
> The chief god of the Mayans in Central America was Quetzalcoatl. In Peru this god was called Amaru and the territory known as Amaruca. American Thesophist James Morgan Pryse argued that the name America was derived from Amaruca.
> 
> ...



I thought Quetzalcoatl was an Aztec God. I guess he could be an Aztec God and a Mayan God.





Or maybe it's just a big joke. 

The _Napoleon and the Stone-Cutter_ article is their way of telling you that the pyramids were built during Napoleon's Egypt campaign. Didn't the French make a couple weird forays into Mexico in the 19th century too? And then right after that those Mexican ruins were discovered?






Those fake picture-books (center) that were "discovered" just in time to sell Prescott's Conquest narrative reboot in 1843 are so embarrassingly horrible that I feel sorry for everyone involved in their Luciferian nightmare.


----------



## N.D. Magoo (Sep 5, 2021)

Lots of interesting stuff posted above. I think the simplest explanation for the name of "America" is in the word itself, which when broken down to its roots indicates that the name probably just means the land at (over the) sea: A - Mar - Ica


----------



## Simon Ruszczak (Sep 6, 2021)

The Roman Empire never existed, it's a Catholic Church fiction.
Dr Anatoly Fomenko, book "History: Fiction or Science?".


----------



## huskofahuman (Sep 6, 2021)

Simon Ruszczak said:


> The Roman Empire never existed, it's a Catholic Church fiction.
> Dr Anatoly Fomenko, book "History: Fiction or Science?".


I disagree with that notion.  The Illuminati actually wants to erase the idea that Rome ever existed as part of their reset. 

It clearly shows with this card, from the Trading card game that is becoming reality.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 6, 2021)

Simon Ruszczak said:


> The Roman Empire never existed, it's a Catholic Church fiction.
> Dr Anatoly Fomenko, book "History: Fiction or Science?".


Fomenko doesn't say it never existed. He says the Empire existed in Russia and Constantinople


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 7, 2021)

Simon Ruszczak said:


> The Roman Empire never existed, it's a Catholic Church fiction.



I've read years ago that "Rome" was another name for "City" - unfortunately I can't find any reference for this. So "Roman Empire" meant something like "City Empire", and every empire on earth was a roman empire, and part of the worldwide empire state. Later after internal conflicts it split up into a "Roman Empire of the German Nation", an Italian (Vatican) Roman Empire, etc.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 7, 2021)

Rome is simply a mis hearing of the sound made by saying the word roam.
In the same way "a woman eh" is a speech impediment pronunciation of "a roman eh" which in turn is a mis hearing/pronunciation of " a roamin eh" .
_Please note I have managed to resist posting the famous clip from Life of Brian _


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 7, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> I've read years ago that "Rome" was another name for "City" - unfortunately I can't find any reference for this. So "Roman Empire" meant something like "City Empire", and every empire on earth was a roman empire, and part of the worldwide empire state. Later after internal conflicts it split up into a "Roman Empire of the German Nation", an Italian (Vatican) Roman Empire, etc.


I think it's the same old Fomenko who says it or implies it.

He says that the first Rome (aka Babylon) was in Egypt, then the second capital was near the modern Constantinople (known as Troy or Jerusalem). The third Rome was actually considered the first (!!!) and was in the Russian 'Golden Ring' (not really one city but a series of capitals collectively called 'Rome'). The fourth (later called the second!!!) was the newly founded Constantinople (founded by Constantine aka Dimitri Donskoi) and the fifth (third on the list!!!) was finally Moscow in the time of Ivan III.

Do I believe in this reconstruction? No, but this is what he says in his books.

Rome in Italy was built around 1380 by the Roman invasion of Western Europe by the ancient Romans (aka the Russians, aka the Tartars) guided by Batu Khan by whose name derived the Vatican.
The Vatican was then occupied by the Russians fleeing from Constantinople (the fourth - second Roman capital) when other Russians (aka the Turks or the Muslims) invaded that city putting an end to the now known Byzantine Empire. Those settlers established the Roman Catholic Church as we know it.

Again, do I believe in this reconstruction? No.

Sorry @emperornorton, this is my last comment on this subject


----------



## huskofahuman (Sep 9, 2021)

Its the same thing for Cathage or such, it meant colony in Phoenician or another language, or so I heard.  My bad, new town.


kd-755 said:


> Rome is simply a mis hearing of the sound made by saying the word roam.
> In the same way "a woman eh" is a speech impediment pronunciation of "a roman eh" which in turn is a mis hearing/pronunciation of " a roamin eh" .
> _Please note I have managed to resist posting the famous clip from Life of Brian _



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWu5bAU2mY0_


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 11, 2021)

Post it. 


kd-755 said:


> Rome is simply a mis hearing of the sound made by saying the word roam.
> In the same way "a woman eh" is a speech impediment pronunciation of "a roman eh" which in turn is a mis hearing/pronunciation of " a roamin eh" .
> _Please note I have managed to resist posting the famous clip from Life of Brian _


We need the laughs.


----------



## SknowMercy (Sep 14, 2021)

emperornorton said:


> I thought Quetzalcoatl was an Aztec God. I guess he could be an Aztec God and a Mayan God.
> 
> View attachment 12471
> 
> ...


Shriners. Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (A.A.O.N.M.S.), A MASON. 33rd degree. Their motto is 'Strength & Fury', and they like to play dress-up. Particularly clowns at their hospitals, for the children.

Whenever I see that word I can't not think of Stephen King and his famous clown with the red balloon, IT. He's a Shriner obviously. The themes that run just under the surface of all his work are even more disturbing once you know that bit. Basically the spiritual successor to Kubrick is hooked up and mainlining nasty right into the people's psyche. Apologies for detour.


----------



## sahm48 (Nov 3, 2021)

SknowMercy said:


> Shriners. Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (A.A.O.N.M.S.), A MASON. 33rd degree. Their motto is 'Strength & Fury', and they like to play dress-up. Particularly clowns at their hospitals, for the children.
> 
> Whenever I see that word I can't not think of Stephen King and his famous clown with the red balloon, IT. He's a Shriner obviously. The themes that run just under the surface of all his work are even more disturbing once you know that bit. Basically the spiritual successor to Kubrick is hooked up and mainlining nasty right into the people's psyche. Apologies for detour.


I've always found clowns incredibly creepy and never liked them as a child.


----------



## Gabriel (Dec 19, 2021)

emperornorton said:


> This name _definitely _wasn't in honor of a Monarch or a monastery since they used a parallel Biblical term, *Amalek*--referring to the progeny of the Biblical Esau, the twin and immortal rival of the Biblical Jacob--to identify their enemies: the Native Americans. The Puritans, in their interactions with the Indians, whether because there was little time to spare on the colonial frontier or perhaps because the natives were Christians already, generally dispensed with evangelism and proceeded directly to murder.


This is one area that confuses me.  In Adair's _History of the American Indians, _Boudinot's _A Star in The West, _Simon's _The Hope of Israel, _and plenty of others, there is extensive discussion that the Natives were Hebrew Israelites, or The Lost Ten Tribes.  Here is one particular example of a custom of the Native American Tribe illustrated by Ethan Smith in _View of the Hebrews_:



> "The native Americans have acknowledged one, and only one God; and they have generally views concerning the one Great Spirit, of which no account can be given, but that they derived them from ancient revelation in Israel...They were never known to pay the least adoration to images or dead persons, to celestial luminaries, to evil spirits, or to any created beings whatsoever...none of the numerous tribes and nations, from Hudson's Bay to the Mississippi, have ever beeen known to attempt the formation of any image of God." (p.98)



This observation was suggested by a The Early Spanish Explorers, I recall.  But Then again, Balboa and Columbus may have observed that the Natives were black, or moorish, and this has been researched by van Sertima.

As far as the Natives Being Christian, arguments have been made for scattered pockets of persecuted Christians in the pre-Columbian era. For example, mid-4th century Coptic Christian Artifacts were found in Michigan as argued in Henriette Mertz's _Mystic Symbol _Mystic Symbol, and Barry Fell has argued that the Micmac Tribe had a language comprising early coptic. He's found just many Ancient European and Mediterranean Region Language. 

But not just that, there is a possibility that Native Americans of North America may have been Black, or Moorish in appearance, says a handful of writers and academics who have published their viewpoints and observations. Just like we do here, they criticize deficiencies in the narrative. Here is a summarative quote from One article: 



> "Native American Indian Tribes have been awarded nearly a billion dollars in a historical settlement in early September 2015. 645 Native American Tribes won settlements against The U.S. Department of Justice, totaling in the amount of $940 million dollars. The United States Government was very fearful that more Native Indians (also known as ‘Colored’, ‘Negro’, ‘Black’ or blank, meaning no race mentioned, on their birth certificates) will discover their true history and bloodline heritage, and that they will be forced to grant them all reparations and land."




At any rate, the argument that Africans being Amerindians ties in with the observation of a handful of scholars that believe Blacks are the true Hebrew Israelites, ie., Jacob Israel, and perhaps, Esau is actually the white Europeans, which explains the zeal at which the Europeans have slaughtered the people from these lands.


----------



## Akanah (Jan 15, 2022)

It could even be true that America could have been ancient Rome, see my post here -> SH Archive - Very Old Maps

So it could be that in truth I do not live in the original Germany at all, but in a former area of Africa. But then one would have to question whether Adolf Hitler really had his 3rd Reich with us or in America. Someone had once posted pictures of Americans of the 40s who were walking around with swastikas. Hey, it would also explain why Erhard Landmann could recognize the Mayan language as a dialect of German. Perhaps this could be mentioned in a new film episode of @dreamtime, that America could have been the old Europe.


----------



## xandermcargyle (Jun 22, 2022)

The “land of the serpent” and “land across the sea” would be the same place, in my understanding of the older, “pagan” religion that seems to have been all over the world. The mountain (or pyramid) is on an island, so one would have to travel across the sea to get there. The snake lives on the mountain.

There was an article awhile back that said the Greeks may have visited America to worship Kronos. Kronos is the father god, ie Saturn. The serpent is at the boundary of god/heaven and mortal man.

IMO, snake gods are the warrior king who has killed the serpent and put on the crown, sometimes symbolized as a headdress of feathers.

Also, not to derail too much, but snakes were still symbolically important in the early USA — see Don’t Tread on Me and Join or Die.


----------

