# Jerusalem and the Secret History of America



## emperornorton (May 27, 2022)

*I Tartary*

Let's get this out of the way first. The so-called Tartarian empire is a joke. Why? Well for one thing, the Tartars are not—excuse the understatement—what you would call "craftsmen." In terms of Tartarian architecture, a tent formed by laying a tarp over a pair of horses would be considered ornate. 

If you read through the annals of their history you'll notice that the Tartars were constantly fetching tinsmiths from France or wherever to build the simplest things like drinking straws for them. Creating a global civilization was out of the question. 







On the other hand, the Tartars were great at destroying things, which activity describes their actual involvement with the _Ancient Regime_. Some people call this cutesy form of poetic injustice inversion.

The way the propaganda works is there's the _official narrative_ first of all, and then, because a certain percentage of people will spend more than two minutes thinking about the official narrative and then not believe it, there's the _official conspiracy narrative_. Which in this case is Tartaria. 

The two alternatives are formed to compass the public mind between artificial conceptual bounds that keep the discussion limited to curated and harmless points of controversy. 

Or in other words, if the members of a conspiracy-theory forum on the web were to wrangle over the global tartary theory in a discussion spanning six thousand pages, they would thereupon be further rather than closer to their object, epistemologically speaking. 







II Romans

No, the global civilization we're talking about—with its semi-utopian blend of fantasyland architecture, "steampunk" technology, and pastoral innocence—was what is called the Roman Empire but which was in fact essentially Germanic (Franco-gallic) throughout its halcyon period. Germans are good at building things.  

Of course, the _Western_ Roman Empire has been pushed back into the mists of prehistory. Only its awkward and sanctimoniously-denominated nephew has been admitted to the modern history party, a hazy non-entity lurking behind England and France with an envious grimace. 

The "Holy Roman Empire" appears hazy in the orthodox annals because a lot of its history is predicated of the allegedly totally different _Ottoman Empire_ instead. But the Ottoman Empire, up to the seventeenth century, was just another term for the _Holy Roman Empire_ which again was the same thing as the Eastern Roman Empire. Otto, after all, is a German name and Otto I and Otto II happened to have been Holy Roman Emperors. Maybe that's the reason the Janissaries were Christians...

This is borne out in the treaty of Magdeburg of 1583, which carries the signatures of both Maximilian ("Most Serene Roman Emperor") and Mehmet IV ("Most Christian Holy Roman Emperor") and settles territorial possessions belonging to the latter in the Brazilian provinces of _Bahia_ and _Minas Gerais_. 

The two halves of the Roman Empire evidently ruled in more or less cooperative fashion, simultaneously, although various constitutent parts thereof were pried out of its control, here and there, little by little. This centuries-long scheme of annihilation can be observed in its execution quite precisely by looking for the flaming red castles in the consecutive maps published by cartographers party to the conspiracy such as Ortelius, Mercator, Blau, and so forth. 





*Caliph-ornia*

Obviously the Ottoman strand of the empire ultimately fell under Islamic control, an event that from a different aspect points to the imperial ascension of Russia, which, you may recall, was built on the Eastern Roman model—and from which a series of intense battles between the two powers commenced. This was followed by the tag-team Crimean war on Russia, for which nobody even bothered to hazard a pretext, and then the Russo-Japanese war (in which the latter was heavily subsidized by the Western Powers) followed by the Russian Revolution. For now though, I'm just going to focus on North America. 

III France and England

A lot of confusion in terms of understanding history proceeds from various forms of linguistic sleight-of-hand. For instance, we're conditioned to regard the following word-pairs as more or less synonymous:

*Anglia *           (England)              _vs   _ *Britannia *   (Britain)

*Gallia  *           (Gaul)                    _vs _ *Francia *   (France)

*Portugallia   *  (Portugal)             _vs_ *Lusitania* 

But are they? Even if we look strictly at formally ratified treaties, it's hard to figure out who's who; usually the text on offer has been translated from parliamentary Latin into something like BBC-Pidgin English, a process that entails an irreversible reduction in lexical resolution. 

Thus we learn, for instance, that the Whitehall Agreement of 1686 between "Great Britain and France," according to the English version given in Fanshawe's _European Treaties_, was brokered between the _Most Serene James II by Grace of God King of France and Great Britain_ and the _Most Christian Louis XIV by Grace of God King of France_. 




*Above: a treaty they made with each other.*

Huh? The fact is, per the official Latin, that *Louis XIV was king of Galliæ* and _James II was king of *Franciæ*_. Therefore Galli*æ* and Franci*æ* are probably not synonymous in this case. I won't even get into the fact that Great Britain supposedly didn't exist until 1707. 

In fact, the Britanic Majesty is always—_always_—introduced as the King or Queen of France in the treaty texts. 

For instance, In an earlier treaty with Louis XIV (_Breda_,  1667), the most potent (_but not_ most serene) king of Great Britain Charles II is again thus entitled. The treaty specifies, among other things, that Louis XIV should return the lands then being held by the English on the island of St. Christopher to Great Britain. But if they were held by the English why would they need to be turned over to the British? It might have been because Louis XIV was also the King of England. (I'm just telling you what the treaty says.)

You may remember that when Drake was sent to the West coast of North America in 1588, it wasn't New _England_ he tried to found but New _Albion_. To make things even more confusing the British consular court was known as "St. James," which points to a probable historical location in the Caribbean like Jamaica, Cuba, or St. James island. Heck, knowing the British royalty it was probably Epstein island, which, now that I'm thinking about it actually was named Little St. James or something like that.







But then where was England? I say England was where "New" England is on the Atlantic coast of North America (just south of Scotlan—I mean "Nova Scotia"), extending through the Old Dominion and Carolina to the South—and it wasn't new at all and was basically still there up until the Civil War. That's probably why there were Connecticut Yankees in King's Arthur's Court. Just take a look at some of the official maps given to Generals of the Army of the Potomac. 






Back at the end of the 16th century, Queen Elizabeth, with the permission of the Dutch, sent Robert Dudley to be governor of the Belgii Foederati (The United Provinces of the Netherlands in America). _Foederati_ were states allied to, and under the protection of, the Roman Empire. _Sub umbra alarum tuarum_ and all that.  




*Even the canals were already there.*


Interestingly, the governor of the Massachusetts colony at the time was also named Dudley, also sent from England, and also—before you give me the "it's a common name" business—was a "branch of the Earl of Leichester's family." This was Thomas Dudley, born in 1576. His reputed son Joseph, born in 1647, was a colonial administrator in Massacusetts too, but these dates look like they contain a nasty generation gap, conveniently enough. I imagine you'd find similar duplication in the governorships of the English _Berkeley_ and the Dutch _Barclay_. Another Englishman, albeit by way of Italy, with connections to Gaul was Julius Caesar, in whose house Shakespeare apparently wrote a lot of his plays, which circumstance could account for certain dramatic historigraphical distortions concerning his (Caesar's) life. 







At any rate, it looks to me as though the _English_ (along with the _Dutch_) would also have to serve as the "Indians" in the colonial scenario, marked as they apparently are by the stigma of monkey patrimony (_pa-munkey_) which clings to all Anglo-Saxon lifeforms. And according to the narrative, the pamunkey queens of the seventeenth century were named Betty and Ann. Say what you will about secret societies, when it comes down to it they deliver world-class chuckles, right?

I got a reminder of the intensity of this prejudice recently when using Google Translate to convert a paragraph of Latin into English, and it rendered the term "Engolismensi" as "Phillistines." But then look how Abraham Ortelius drew German (below, third from left) and Englishmen (below, right). The lady Indian on the far left is French and her companion, Belgian. 






This perspective forces us to reevaluate certain episodes of history and in some cases it could help to clear things up. For instance, after the Spanish Armada was repulsed off the English coast a lot of the Spanish ships ended up in _Ireland_ which, according to the narrative, occured because they decided to sail north in a counterclockwise circle around the top of Scotland in order to get back to Spain, which would be the stupidest way possible. (No wonder they lost, right?) I mean, that would be like routing a flight from New Zealand to Chile through Atlanta or something. Ok, bad example.  






Where were the Spanish at the time of Columbus? As you can see in the depiction below, the court of the Catholic Monarchs was in America. Notice Martin Boheim sitting on the floor at the lower left of the painting. Speaking of Columbus and Boheim, isn't it sort of interesting that the flags of Colombia and Bohemia (the countries) are so similar?

You have probably noticed the extremely odd placement and arrangement of territorial labels on a lot of old maps. Apparently after spending eight years etching thousands of tiny lines in solid copper, the mapmakers decided the names of the countries should be hyphenated, split on two lines with two different fonts, and then placed on the map at random. 




*Above: The schizophrenic labels above are from a single map. *

Rewriting history isn't always as easy as turning typographic 'F's into typographic 'A's but it's done by the same people. 

The "Fleur de lis" or Bourbon version of France, unlike its subsequent "tricolor" replacement, had a strong American presence. _Dolphins, Saints, Cardinals_, etc. Also: bourbon is an American drink. Not a good drink, but an American drink. 




*Center: The coat of arms of Dauphin de Viennois.*

A lot of researchers have developed links between the Holy Land and the French Templars, the Merovignians and that kind of thing in the literature of conspiratorial history. They're on the right track but unfortunately they tend to build their theories on fallacious geographic presuppositions. 

The truth is _The Holy Land was in Galliae_ ("Sea of Galilee," etc) and _historic Galliae is in North America._ 





*Left: The African Barbary Coast is *_*la Nova* _

The Celtic and Germanic civilization which ordinarily goes under the title of "European" covered most of America from Aquitane on the West (the Dutch _Zeelandia_) to Vasconia (Wisconsin) on the Northeast and into South America. The Franks arrived in Central California, the territory corresponding to the ancient Holy Land (Dutch: _Hulst, Heiligerlee_; English: Holy Wood → _Hollywood_) during the crusades, wherein they fought an interminable series of battles against various groups of Mohammedans until at some point the Tartars (i.e. Apaches and their kindred warrior tribes) swept across the continent. I think the theory was that the different Asiatic hordes would wipe out the Christians but they sort of wiped out each other first. 





*B-b-but Zeelandia is in Eur—*


The Armenian community also features prominently in all the crusader narratives and, indeed, Armenians have been in Central California for a long, long time. 






The Muslim Holy Land, incidentally, is (or was) not far away either. Mecca is in the middle of the desert on the other side of the Sierras but now they call it Las Vegas. (I'm serious). 

But (I hear you saying) _Isn't Israel the Holy Land? _

No.




*Above: An eighteenth-century depiction of the ruins of Ancient Jerusalem.*

The Israeli city _Jerusalem_ does not correspond to the ancient city of the same name at all. Not architecturally, not geographically, not topographically. For instance, the city of that name in Palestine, at the present, is situated 2400 feet above sea level. This position accords neither the Bible nor Josephus nor Tacitus nor even the relatively more recent surveyors of doubtful integrity like Catherwood. However it has inspired several enjoyably preposterous suggestions from the likes of James Fergusson "F. R. A. S," who says that a topological discrepancy of a few hundred meters is probably explicable in terms of "accumulated rubbish," and I won't venture to gainsay his expertise on those grounds.  




*Above: topographic surveys of the modern Jerusalem, which bear no resemblance to the ancient depictions or descriptions of the city.*

You won't find any _Jerusalem crickets_ in Palestine either. They only live in the American Southwest. That's also the only place _crucifixion thorns_ grow. 

The modern Jerusalem has a lot of other problems in terms of its answering to the historical qualities and events predicated of it as well, but when the narrative rests by explanatory necessity on the "oxidyzing asperity of the desert air," you know you can safely move on. 




*Above: Ancient Jerusalem: then and now*

The ancient city of Jerusalem, situated in the Valley of Jehosaphat as mentioned in the Bible, is in California's San Joaquin valley. _Joaquin_, incidentally, is the French name for the Jordan River. 





*An Eagle looking to the left refers to America; to the right, Europe. *

(The city of _Salem_, on the other hand, the one with the witches, was actually in European England—but let's not get distracted.)

IV Indians

The Tartars are what most people have in mind when they talk about Indians in America, but that doesn't make them Native Americans. 

I'm not going to delve too deeply into the subject right now but let's just say that few of the casino-owning Indians on the West Coast are "Native American" in any sense oither than possibly being born there. 

In the area of the Holy Land, the closest things to "Indians" in the period following the deluge were what the Franciscan friars called "wild gentiles," and are otherwise referred to as centaurs. The Spanish term is _caballeros_. Horse-men. Go back and read any history of nineteenth-century California. Trust me, it's all there. The dirt floors. The fleas. The massive land-grants. The lassoing of grizzly bears. Santa Anna's wooden legs... 

There was a half-hearted effort to dump a bunch of Australian aborigines ("Diggers") and Hawaiians ("Kanakas") in California and then pretend that they were the actual native Californians. Unfortunately, the Indian agents in the state were already in the process of creating several dozen fictitious tribes as part of a massive racketeering scheme in which the government paid the agents hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy cows to use as peace bribes for the imaginary Indian menace in the hills but which they sold to gold miners at a 6,000% markup instead. The whole subject of Indian mythology had by then become irretrievably incoherent and that's why if you try real hard you can probably get the Federal government to put you on a Rancheria roster yourself. 

A few years ago the Vatican admitted that it had a painting containing the first depiction of Native Americans. The painting contains several other interesting things too (below). 






But let's get back to Jerusalem. Where is it? 

Jerusalem is just north of Fresno, California.  





*Above left: Broken aqueduct pipeline projecting from hillside amid ruins.*





*Left (above and below): what the scenes depicted in the aforementioned engravings look like today.*










The location of Jerusalem might have serious geopolitical implications, maybe even apocalyptic implications. 





*Above: One of the (several) apocalyptic murals in downtown Fresno.*


----------



## Quiahuitl (May 27, 2022)

Fantastic post!

How about - the Western Roman empire was America and the Eastern Roman empire was Europe and North Africa, so when they talk about the empire splitting around 400 AD when Constantinople was declared the capital, that was really the breakup of a transatlantic empire.  This is a new thought to me, apologies if somebody else already thought of this.


----------



## SonofaBor (May 28, 2022)

I want to ask you where I might turn to find records of Taiwan of the same period? A common term, Zeeland, is something I'd like to consider.



​This also brings me to the question of method. Can you describe the method of your... genius a little?


----------



## Enzu (May 30, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> You won't find any _Jerusalem crickets_ in Palestine either. They only live in the American Southwest. That's also the only place _crucifixion thorns_ grow.


The _Jerusalem Artichoke_ is a root vegetable said to be native to the central region of North America, that was brought to Europe and not the other way around. Wikipedia does not go into any details about the etymology of the name.


----------



## BusyBaci (May 30, 2022)

My god, there are so many claims and assumptions in this thread that I don't know where to start to put the finger and correct something. Not that I mind where the real Jerusalem is, but the logic behind you claims is really weak and anyone can disprove it. I think you should really try to find solid evidence for it, because the claims are really big.



emperornorton said:


> The "Holy Roman Empire" appears hazy in the orthodox annals because a lot of its history is predicated of the allegedly totally different _Ottoman Empire_ instead. But the Ottoman Empire, up to the seventeenth century, was just another term for the _Holy Roman Empire_ which again was the same thing as the Eastern Roman Empire. Otto, after all, is a German name and Otto I and Otto II happened to have been Holy Roman Emperors. Maybe that's the reason the Janissaries were Christians...


How did the Ottoman Empire be ruled by Germans? The Janissaries were Christians because they were forced to conscript into this Army by force, the soldiers were young boys from the Balkans which were taken away from their lands and converted into Islam source.


> _The Janissary corps was originally staffed through devşirme, a system of tribute by which Christian youths were taken from the Balkan provinces, converted to Islam, and drafted into Ottoman service. Subject to strict rules, including celibacy, they were organized into three unequal divisions (cemaat, bölükhalkı, and segban) and commanded by an ağā._



What about the Crusades, did all the crusaders and the Muslims fought for the wrong city? There was a really long campaign for the holy city. If Jerusalem is not the one that we know today, then, why the crusaders did sack Constantinople that was close by? They took the library of it. Did they really fought in America as you are suggesting? Why Jerusalem has to be in California? Why you're naming it as a Caliphate? What Muslims were those that ruled over this Caliphate that is named California? Are you talking about the Saracens which conquered much of the North Africa and fought with the Kingdom of Spain and Portugal? They are of Semitic origin. Are you saying that they crossed the Atlantic and founded Jerusalem in California?

I'm really confused.

There are many incongruities in your thread that don't make sense and are poorly explained. I suggest you don't pull of a "Korben Dallas" type of logic, because he himself had a lazy and questionable way of reason. Highly questionable if you asked me.


----------



## emperornorton (May 31, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> My god, there are so many claims and assumptions in this thread that I don't know where to start to put the finger and correct something. Not that I mind where the real Jerusalem is, but the logic behind you claims is really weak and anyone can disprove it. I think you should really try to find solid evidence for it, because the claims are really big.
> 
> 
> How did the Ottoman Empire be ruled by Germans? The Janissaries were Christians because they were forced to conscript into this Army by force, the soldiers were young boys from the Balkans which were taken away from their lands and converted into Islam source.
> ...



Compare this bird's-eye view of Ancient Jerusalem by Braun and Hogenberg from 1575...





...to the following pictures:









Notice that even the two aqueducts on the hillside to the southwest of the city, as depicted on Van Der Haagen's 15th century map of Jerusalem, can still be seen:





Now, *if this is true* then how much history that we think we know must be false?

Latitude: 37.025   Longitude:  -119.611

View on Google Maps

You can still see the extensive ruins, city walls, etc, if you zoom in.  

The area is spilt between the following US Geologic Survey maps:

USGS CA Topographical Map Millerton Lake East
USGS CA Topographical Map Millerton Lake West
USGS CA Topographical Map Friant


----------



## BusyBaci (May 31, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> Now, *if this is true* then how much history that we think we know must be false?
> 
> Latitude: 37.025 Longitude: -119.611
> 
> ...


The maps look similar and depict the same city fort. I'm not so sure about the scale on the old map being the same as the one from google. Let's say you're right about the true location of Jerusalem. But you're open more questions on how historical events regarding Jerusalem will fit with the new location of it in California. Once you let the gene out of the bottle there is no putting it back where he was.

Because what people will do now, is that they will take Braun Hogenberg map from 1575, and try to make it fit with whatever other city in the world that is similar to Jerusalem and make the same claim.
That's why you should try to find better historical records of any sort to sustain your claim solidly. A don't mind for Jerusalem to be in America, so be it.

I'm curious to know how did you came up with this idea? Were you randomly searching for other locations corresponding to Jerusalem, or did you had other clues that lead you to that town in California? The world is a big place.


----------



## Enzu (Jun 1, 2022)

If that location is indeed Jerusalem, then the geography of the surrounding places described in the bible will confirm it.

Lebanese Cedar—The Prized Tree of Ancient Woodworking


> In the biblical world, Lebanese cedar trees were highly sought after as an excellent source of timber for ancient woodworking.... a popular building material for temples, palaces and seagoing vessels...The Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre sent Lebanese cedar, carpenters and masons to Jerusalem to build a palace for King David (2 Samuel 5:11). Likewise, Hiram provided cedars and artisans to King Solomon for the construction of his own palace as well as the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 2:3,7; 1 Kings 5:20). The Bible also informs us that Lebanese cedar timbers were commonly transported by sea. The Book of Ezra reports that timbers were hauled to the Phoenician coast and then sailed to Jaffa for transport to Jerusalem (Ezra 3:7).



What are the forests of Northern California famous for?

The Lumberjacks Who Felled California’s Giant Redwoods



Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) - Forest Research and Outreach


> The coast redwood, also called the California redwood, is the tallest living thing in the world. It also grows to great volume. One grove of trees in Humboldt Redwoods State park contains the largest measured concentration of living material, or biomass, in the world.


----------



## emperornorton (Jun 1, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> The maps look similar and depict the same city fort. I'm not so sure about the scale on the old map being the same as the one from google. Let's say you're right about the true location of Jerusalem. But you're open more questions on how historical events regarding Jerusalem will fit with the new location of it in California. Once you let the gene out of the bottle there is no putting it back where he was.
> 
> Because what people will do now, is that they will take Braun Hogenberg map from 1575, and try to make it fit with whatever other city in the world that is similar to Jerusalem and make the same claim.
> That's why you should try to find better historical records of any sort to sustain your claim solidly. A don't mind for Jerusalem to be in America, so be it.
> ...



My ideas about the location of Jerusalem were formed long before I ever saw these maps. 

However, the idea that California is the Holy Land is not new (as indeed it could not possibly be). The prolific Jesuit Padre Eusabius Kino seemed to take it for granted, in his journals, that such was the case. Major Noah, a diplomat and journalist who championed a Hebrew colonial scheme in upstate New York, identified California as the Holy Land, as did Ellen G. White, the Seventh Day Adventist prophetess, who claimed that the Biblical Jerusalem was in the town of Auberry. 

There are thousands of place-names of Biblical derivation in California. Nearly all the major cities are named for Christian apostles. There are also towns in the Central Valley named for crusaders: Raymond, Toulouse. The Gulf of California was historically known as the "Red Sea," and in my opinion the California-as-an-island phenomenon answers to the Exodus crossing described in the Bible (i.e. they cross over, the land separates from the continent, etc.) 








Many of the seals of the cities and counties of California make overt or oblique reference to Biblical themes. The Methuselah Tree is in California. The Valley of the Shadow of Death (Death Valley) is in California. Also Mount Hermon, Mount Ophir, Jacob's Corner, Carmel.  

The city of Fresno (or _Fresnes_ in the _Ancient Regime_) is named for the Ashtree, which is the blazon of the like-named tribe of Israel and you may remember that the blessing Isaac pronounced on tribe Asher was agricultural productivity.  








Again, the Holy Land described in the Bible, in both historical and prophetic terms, would seem to be located, like California, but unlike Palestine, in "earthquake territory." It is, moreover, supposed to have abundant sources of gold in its hills, which corresponds to California, but not to Palestine. And again, in terms of bears and locusts and pearls, California answers in preference to its Asian rival.

It is, in fact, much more deserving in general of the accolade "land of milk and honey." 

Finally, there are still hundreds of miles of ruined fortifications and remnants of walls zigzagging across the farm and pasture lands of the valley, which have sustained a number of granite and gravel businesses in the area for over a hundred years. There are also cities submerged in Millerton and Huntington Lakes (which are actually artificial reservoirs) whose tops peek out of the water in drought years.


----------



## BusyBaci (Jun 1, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> My ideas about the location of Jerusalem were formed long before I ever saw these maps.
> 
> However, the idea that California is the Holy Land is not new (as indeed it could not possibly be). The prolific Jesuit Padre Eusabius Kino seemed to take it for granted, in his journals, that such was the case. Major Noah, a diplomat and journalist who championed a Hebrew colonial scheme in upstate New York, identified California as the Holy Land, as did Ellen G. White, the Seventh Day Adventist prophetess, who claimed that the Biblical Jerusalem was in the town of Auberry.
> 
> ...


Now this is better evidence. I do admit, I'm impressed really. Congratulations. The thing is that sometime people use the Bible as reference when they need it to make their point, and other times they dismiss it entirely as fabrications when it doesn't suit their theory or whatever. Why don't people make their mind up about the Bible or the Koran, because this game of using whatever you need to point on to something has gone long enough and has became very doubtful? Not that I'm against your research, to the contrary, I wish for normal people like me to be more in tune with the truth, however the path that leads to it is.

I was wondering if I could do the same? Let's say something Alla-Corben Dallas type of research. You made me thing really. Thank you.


----------



## TimHonks (Jun 21, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> This is borne out in the treaty of Magdeburg of 1583


Do you have a source?  I can't find this treaty


----------



## Offerus (Jun 28, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> My god, there are so many claims and assumptions in this thread that I don't know where to start to put the finger and correct something. Not that I mind where the real Jerusalem is, but the logic behind you claims is really weak and anyone can disprove it. I think you should really try to find solid evidence for it, because the claims are really big.
> 
> 
> How did the Ottoman Empire be ruled by Germans? The Janissaries were Christians because they were forced to conscript into this Army by force, the soldiers were young boys from the Balkans which were taken away from their lands and converted into Islam source.
> ...


Often times I feel like I am more interested in finding enough pieces to the puzzle that align with my worldview, than I am with the actual truth. There is always the possibility that what one hoped to be real is completely opposite of the reality. For this reason avoiding topics that could refute all of your beliefs is the safest path. Wanting to have an open mind and having one are two different things entirely. Truth is good as long is it's not too painful.


----------



## solarbard (Aug 16, 2022)

TimHonks said:


> Do you have a source?  I can't find this treaty


https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/196926/SCAN0000.PDF


----------



## Silveryou (Aug 16, 2022)

TimHonks said:


> Do you have a source?  I can't find this treaty





solarbard said:


> https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/196926/SCAN0000.PDF


This document seems 99.9% a fake. Names, titles, dates and typology of the document (for the 16th century) don't add up. The signatures are a joke. Have you ever seen signatures from royalty of the 16th century?
This treaty is also nowhere to be found. Is there a credible link to this supposed treaty anywhere other than this fake document? I mean a link with info on the circumstances of the event and biographical informations about these mysterious characters signing the document!


----------



## ProfessorHotStuff (Aug 16, 2022)

The best case for the location of the historical Jerusalem that I've encountered is Jerash, Jordan. It contains all of the necessary Roman ruins that are said to be associated with regional capitals (Roman temples, theatre, and other official structures) which "Jerusalem" lacks.


----------



## BusyBaci (Aug 16, 2022)

Something to think about the crusades and who really was Saladin.

​
He said he is Sala-houdin and he made it sure to say it at least 3 times in the film. The word "Sala" in arabic it is interpreted as:  What does صلاة (sala) mean in Arabic?

Prayer​
Service​
Devotion​
Litany​
All of this towards Houdin or Hudija which it means the Judeans.
The word Saladin means _"Service to the Judeans"_ and there is no doubt about it from the film illustrated and produced from Hollywood above.

He was a traitor to his brother Muslims and once again we're faced with controlled opposition here, just like the Bolsheviks.


----------



## Gladius (Aug 17, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> Something to think about the crusades and who really was Saladin.
> 
> ​
> He said he is Sala-houdin and he made it sure to say it at least 3 times in the film. The word "Sala" in arabic it is interpreted as:  What does صلاة (sala) mean in Arabic?
> ...




Saladin and "Salahouddin" is a romanized version, or how a Western hears it. He clearly says Salakh - a - din in a western accent.
Sala and Salakh share a root but are not the same.
The name is Salakh - al-Din, meaning Righteousness of the Faith.

Also (k)Houdin (which he doesn't even say) does not mean Judeans. They're called Yahud. It might sound closely to a non speaker, but it's quite different.


----------



## TheImp (Aug 19, 2022)

I have always wondered how the Israelites managed to wander for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land. If this theory holds water, it would certainly make the time they spent wandering make more sense, than them just circling around an area that is basically next door to Egypt. Even as a child, I have often questioned how many places are actually what they were in "antiquity" as name changes can seemingly happen overnight and no one bats an eye. This first came about when I had to write a paper about the city of Jacksonville (Florida) in school and found out that it had been called _Wacca Pilatka_ (by the Seminoles)/_Cow Ford_ (by the British) before it was renamed around 1822. Given lots of other theories and subjects being discussed on this board, it seems many places had their names altered in this period (for whatever reason), and such changes are usually a miniscule footnote in history (if they are even widely known) or only known by longtime locals/history buffs.

Also, assuming this theory is correct (and the Christ millennial reign hasn't happened per those theories), where shall they build themselves a new temple and have an abomination in it per Revelation? It would have to replace the old temple, so one would assume it would be at/near the previous site. Does anyone have any guesses where such a site would exist in this theory? 

In my mind, California is a degenerate hellhole already, so having any place of holiness or repute that might be further defiled is a bit hard to swallow.


----------



## ProfessorHotStuff (Aug 19, 2022)

TheImp said:


> I have always wondered how the Israelites managed to wander for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land.


The most persuasive theory I've read is that Moses was essentially from a different religion than the Jews of old, so he marched them around the desert until the elders died (and their actual traditions died with them) and then trained the survivors in his preferred religion, telling them that it was theirs. This could happen on any continent. This could also explain the strange sources of water he knew about - they would planted there by confederates of his plan as he led the people round and round.


----------



## Gladius (Aug 19, 2022)

ProfessorHotStuff said:


> The most persuasive theory I've read is that Moses was essentially from a different religion than the Jews of old, so he marched them around the desert until the elders died (and their actual traditions died with them) and then trained the survivors in his preferred religion, telling them that it was theirs. This could happen on any continent. This could also explain the strange sources of water he knew about - they would planted there by confederates of his plan as he led the people round and round.



It's not just a theory, it's the actual stance of Judaism on the matter.

The story of the 40 Years in the Desert contains many theological / mystical meanings in the Jewish literature, and it's if they themselves do not treat it as a real, earthly event, but as an allegory to the purification of the people's souls before entering a holy land.
Not one religious scholar of Judaism is trying to locate the place of their wandering nor defend the story against modern critics. When they themselves don't believe it, I don't see the point in trying to locate a physical location to the story.

The story might have evolved from a real time period (of perhaps 40 years or close) when Jews did not have a home and were refugees in one or more countries, until they moved to a new place that became their home.

But looking at the basic symbolism, I tend not to even think it is anything physical:
Later in the Bible, they spend 70 years in the Babylonian captivity, where they "forget" their religion, and must be retrained by Ezra to prepare them for worshipping God in the holy land (again). So it is a motive that repeats itself.
The desert in Judaism symbolizes not an actual desert, but a spiritual desert, where a person's soul is barren of any mystical value.
In the Babylonian captivity, we're talking about Babylon, called Bavel in Hebrew, which symbolizes Confusion or Mixing-Up. The Jews are in a place of confusion, not knowing who their God is.


----------



## CatELyst (Sep 10, 2022)

ProfessorHotStuff said:


> The most persuasive theory I've read is that Moses was essentially from a different religion than the Jews of old, so he marched them around the desert until the elders died (and their actual traditions died with them) and then trained the survivors in his preferred religion, telling them that it was theirs. This could happen on any continent. This could also explain the strange sources of water he knew about - they would planted there by confederates of his plan as he led the people round and round.



Referencing the book of Numbers in the Bible, it wasn't Moses' fault that they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, but their own.  This entire scenario occurs in Numbers 13 and 14.  They mocked Moses, complained about how hard it would be to claim the promised land, and set the whole of the congregation against Moses and Aaron to stone them to death.  God intervened, then told the Israelites, "As you have said, so shall it be."  It was the Israelites who said that God brought them out to kill them in the wilderness.  So He agreed with them.  That was their punishment.  I am putting Numbers 13 here for references as well.

Numbers 13:18-33
And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this _way_ southward, and go up into the mountain:
And see the land, what it _is_; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they _be_ strong or weak, few or many;
And what the land _is_ that they dwell in, whether it _be_ good or bad; and what cities _they be_ that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;
And what the land _is_, whether it _be_ fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time _was_ the time of the firstripe grapes.
So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath.
And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, _were_. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and _they brought_ of the pomegranates, and of the figs.
The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.
And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.
And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.
And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this _is_ the fruit of it.
Nevertheless the people _be_ strong that dwell in the land, and the cities _are_ walled, _and_ very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they _are_ stronger than we.
And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, _is_ a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it _are_ men of a great stature.
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, _which come_ of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Numbers 14: 1-37
And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night.
And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
And wherefore hath the LORD brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt?
And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.
Then Moses and Aaron fell on their faces before all the assembly of the congregation of the children of Israel.
And Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, _which were_ of them that searched the land, rent their clothes:
And they spake unto all the company of the children of Israel, saying, The land, which we passed through to search it, _is_ an exceeding good land.
If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they _are_ bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD _is_ with us: fear them not.
But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.
And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?
I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.
And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear _it_, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them,
And they will tell _it_ to the inhabitants of this land: _for_ they have heard that thou LORD _art_ among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and _that_ thy cloud standeth over them, and _that_ thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.
Now _if_ thou shalt kill _all_ this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying,
Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.
And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying,
The LORD _is_ longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing _the guilty_, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth _generation_.
Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.
And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:
But _as_ truly _as_ I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.
Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;
Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:
But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.
(Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley.) To morrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.
And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
How long _shall I bear with_ this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me.
Say unto them, _As truly as_ I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:
Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, _concerning_ which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
But _as for_ you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.
And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, _even_ forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, _even_ forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.
I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die.
And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land,
Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the LORD.

Sounds like they did it to themselves.  Just my opinion.


----------



## PantaOz (Sep 11, 2022)

As an Archaeologist and Historian of Art, I really have a problem when people set up a theory and they do everything to fit the "evidence" that suits them proving those theories, and ignoring anything that goes against it. At the end all our truth will be is "what we want to believe" that somehow plays in the hands of the creators of the Great Reset!

I am not saying that it's happening in the case of Jerusalem in the USA but we need more evidence and thorough investigation. I had a friend who wrote a book about the pyramids and all the theories about the stars, and the perfectly cut stones with a laser... and I was sucked in... believed him... until I went to Egypt to see the pyramids...






What I saw was completely different from the theory! Do these stones look like laser cut to to you?





Not at all! Some of them were so badly connected that had smaller rocks fitted in between to hold the big ones steadier.





So, my suggestion is to explore the differences, provide ll the evidence that matches and does not match your theory... and be honest in the research... When I compare the photo of the Mount of Olives I took, with yours... I have to say , I could get almost identical result if I wanted or needed if the old houses were not on the way of a good photo.








I would recommend to visit the place of your research... both places... and to feel the Jerusalem in Palestine... you will see what I mean. There is some unbelievable energy there... and that is keeping still all the faiths at the same spot...


----------



## nap4 (Dec 2, 2022)

PantaOz said:


> As an Archaeologist and Historian of Art, I really have a problem when people set up a theory and they do everything to fit the "evidence" that suits them proving those theories, and ignoring anything that goes against it. At the end all our truth will be is "what we want to believe" that somehow plays in the hands of the creators of the Great Reset!
> 
> I am not saying that it's happening in the case of Jerusalem in the USA but we need more evidence and thorough investigation. I had a friend who wrote a book about the pyramids and all the theories about the stars, and the perfectly cut stones with a laser... and I was sucked in... believed him... until I went to Egypt to see the pyramids...


Regardless of the location of Jerusalem or whether we are all playing into the hands of the controllers or not, this type of investigation certainly gives a good exercise to challenge our assumptions. Sure it could be wrong in many ways but it also could be right in others. 

Who knows, maybe both you and your friend are right. Maybe the Egyptian pyramids are the fake ones and they gave us an insolvable problem. And then the Bosnian pyramids are the actual ones of historical importance, (Which they do seem to be since they are larger). 

I like the Kantian idea that the senses don't lie, only our interpretations of them do.  Because evidence doesn't hint, or suggest, or say anything. But we do. It's silent, but we always speak for it. Alternative history is about the struggle of challenging the claims to sufficient evidence. The Holy Lands are no exception. For all we know, it could be someone elses history entirely that we borrowed or patch-worked together.


----------



## JimDuyer (Dec 2, 2022)

The Tartars changed, as people do.  While in the East they were not skilled - when they moved into what is now modern Russian areas they picked up skills from the locals.  There was a Tartar outpost in northern Europe - between Finland and Sweden, as well.  Just as the Turks who now occupy Turkey were not that bright when in East Asia, but as they migrated and took over Anatolia with its long history of Greek influence and knowledge, they changed as well.   Although their morals perhaps did not change that much.
Homer, the famous Greek poet, born circa 8th century BC, and the legendary author to whom the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey belongs informs us:

Far off, where deepest beneath the earth is an abyss;
and which elsewhere he and many other poets have called Tartarus.

For all the rivers flow together into this chasm
and flow out of it again;
and each becomes such,
as the earth through which it also flows.


----------



## TheImp (Dec 2, 2022)

Gladius said:


> It's not just a theory, it's the actual stance of Judaism on the matter.
> 
> The story of the 40 Years in the Desert contains many theological / mystical meanings in the Jewish literature, and it's if they themselves do not treat it as a real, earthly event, but as an allegory to the purification of the people's souls before entering a holy land.
> Not one religious scholar of Judaism is trying to locate the place of their wandering nor defend the story against modern critics. When they themselves don't believe it, I don't see the point in trying to locate a physical location to the story.
> ...


Given current day and how easily people are confused in the span of a few years, 70 years does not seem incredible, especially if the controlling group sought to make people forget intentionally by way of diversion, intentionally bad leadership, and social scorn. I mean heck, look how big a difference there has been since the 1980s when religiosity abounded on a national scale in the US. Sure the media-backed leaders of that movement had very questionable ties, but the average believers of the era did not. And ever since that recent high point, we've seen nothing but a falling away from Christianity (so-called or true) in the general populace and outright demonization and mockery in pop culture. It had a small resurgence post-9/11, but nothing like the '80s. Add in the increasing number of time-wasting activities, the 24/7/365 bombardment of politics and general insanity, and look where we are.

So when religious beliefs are attacked from without and within on a daily basis, I can totally see people who had "faith by association" (which, let's be honest, is the majority of any religious group) losing their way, since they either didn't truly believe or were led far astray by those who they trusted to lead them. And this is easily observable over a 40 year span when a lot of information is readily at hand for people to read and communication with likeminded groups is more easily done.


----------



## TheImp (Dec 5, 2022)

Also, Jon Levi released a video that is of interest to this discussion about two weeks ago: 
_View: https://youtu.be/20oSVHucAqQ_


----------

