The official narrative states that North Africa, especially on the Mediterranean coast, was a beautiful, fertile land with fruit trees etc 2000 years ago.
The official narrative states that the Romans clear cut the trees to grow corn (spelt in fact) and destroyed the ecosystem, much like what we are doing in the Amazon now, where a lush tropical ecosystem which is self sustaining is cut down, crops grow abundantly for 10-15 years, then cattle graze for another 20 years or so before it turns to desert and cannot sustain food crops at all.
We have maps from the 1500s showing forests and rivers where there is now desert in places like North Africa and Arabia, depending on how you interpret the information, of course.
Let's imagine that there was some kind of worldwide positive energetic technology system in operation during the 1500s when all those areas which are now desert appeared to be green. We can call this system 'The Divine Feminine.' This system operates as a terraforming energy, maintaining abundance and fertility. Or we could just say people lived in a different paradigm.
At some point, which I estimate to be around 400 years ago, something triggered the system to go into reverse and cause massive, widespread, near-instantaneous destruction including desertification and other phenomena, followed by intermittent bursts of similar activity, and maybe some slower acting long term degradations as well. Rome was really only destroyed around that time or sometime later. I can't find the information I want anywhere online quickly, but the date that has been in my mind since school 40 years ago is around c. 670 for the end of Rome. The aqueduct system stopped working then. We are now calling this i670 or j670. It could have been buried in mud at the same time, the official narrative says it was buried in mud for at least the last 300 years (correct me if I'm wrong) and was only dug out in the 1920s as far as I know.
Many people have postulated a destructive reverse terraforming technology, let's assume this was responsible. You could say instead alchemists discovered how to upset the balance of Nature in an industrial fashion.
In which case, the moving of Rome a thousand years earlier would be a great way to hide what really happened. The official narrative says North Africa was green, fertile and abundant 2000 years ago and was destroyed by the Roman overfarming. Really, North Africa was green and abundant only 400 years ago. Go ahead and fill in the details yourselves.
While writing this up and doing some elementary fact checking I found the
generally accepted date for the fall of the Roman Empire is taken from the splitting of the Eastern and Western empires at 476AD.
Working again with the thousand missing years theory, the splitting of Eastern and Western empires is same event as the reformation. Henry 8th split off the English part of it in i490. Then some decades later around c. i530 he 'Dissolved' the Monasteries, which reduced a lot of the biggest and most beautiful buildings of the Age to be reduced to rubble.
(Cf around a century later Oliver Cromwell was unable to damage the remaining cathedrals with the resources he had available.)
The Catholic and Protestant churches split in two, but in fact both continued to be owned and controlled by the same actors. Protestantism was entirely stage managed by the same actors. There is no Roman Empire, it was only ever the RCC. Or one is an extension of the other. Everything attributed to the Romans is just the enforcement arm of the church, at least from when the church was adopted. I was always told the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire was around 400AD, certainly after St Catherine, who was martyred around c. 380AD. I'm really sketchy on my Roman history, so what happened before that is rather vague to me. After browsing this forum, for a year or so I can see evidence most of the things which are said to be up to 2000 years ago could really be anywhere from only 600 to a thousand years ago, but there's lots of different things to consider there which I know very little about.
What happened after is much more clear. 1492 is the date of Cortez landing in Mexico and beginning the systematic, deliberate destruction of what was probably the most advanced civilisation in the world at the time, with a population estimated by the official narrative to be at least 200 millions. They had advanced aquaculture systems in the massive lakes around Tenochtitlan (CDMX) producing exponentially more food per acre than our modern agricultural systems are capable of. The parasites poisoned everything. It took hundreds of years to destroy this great civilisation which has been totally misrepresented in our Western history books. If human sacrifice was ever practiced in Mexico it was only after the invaders had fully taken control and poisoned and killed everything.
Wikipedia says At least 12 epidemics are attributed to
cocoliztli, with the largest occurring in 1545, 1576, 1736, and 1813. Cocoliztli is a Nahtual word meaning 'Action everywhere.' Co is the passive voice of the verb 'To Be' and is often used to mean 'Place.' The Gaelic would be 'Llan.' A plural or large quantity of anything in Nahuatl can be indicated by the doubling of a syllable, so coco means absolutely everywhere, in all places, every being. 'Liztli' is a suffix which makes anything preceding it into a verb. It's a way of verbing nouns and other things.
1492 is also the date of the creation of the Spanish inquisition and the date the last Moors were driven out of Spain.
I think the official narrative says we had cannibalism in Northern Europe including UK early 1600s, but the official narrative misses out the cataclysm which caused it, which I'm more and more sure is around c.1600
