III.83: Such were the three opinions brought forward at this meeting; the four other Persians voted in favor of the last. Otanes, who wished to give his countrymen a democracy, when he found the decision against him, arose a second time, and spoke thus before the assembly: "Brother conspirators, it is plain that the king who is to be chosen will be one of ourselves, whether we make the choice by casting lots for the prize, or by letting the people decide which of us they will have to rule over them, in or any other way. Now, as I have neither a mind to rule nor to be ruled, I shall not enter the lists with you in this matter. I withdraw, however, on one condition---none of you shall claim to exercise rule over me or my seed for ever." The six agreed to these terms, and Otanes withdraw and stood aloof from the contest. And still to this day the family of Otanes continues to be the only free family in Persia; those who belong to it submit to the rule of the king only so far as they themselves choose; they are bound, however, to observe the laws of the land like the other Persians.

Everybody knows that one of the main causes of the War of 1812 was the impressment of American sailors by the British and French navies, but I don't think I ever heard what happened to any of them, assuming they survived their impressment. Were they returned to the US? Did they make lives for themselves in Europe? What happened to their families back home?

First question: Supposedly, Benedict IX was guilty of homosexuality, holding orgies in the Lateran palace, and of rapes and murders. How trustworthy are the contemporary sources that accuse him of these things? Is it possible that his misdeeds were exagerated for political purposes?

Second question: It seems that Benedict IX used military force on several occasions to retake the papacy after being forced out. Is there record of where he got his troops and how he afforded their maintenance?

I was told to ask this here, but is there any historical evidence that Jesus existed outside if the bible? I can't really get a straight answer out of Google OR my extremely Christian family

Also what did they think about hurricanes? Did they believe both were the spirits? Are there any instances of entire tribes being hit by these natural disasters?

In near every textbook/film I've read about that period in Roman history, a large amount of emphasis seems to be put on the death of Julia, which ended the marriage alliance. However, I can't believe that Pompey would completely abandon Caesar just because his daughter died. I know there was already some tension between the two men; is the end of the marriage alliance only talked up so much because it gave Pompey his final excuse to get out?

I was a reading a thread about how the pressures of the office tends to visibly age the person. I wondered if there was any historical references to a President wanting to leave office early (not due to outside pressure but due to job stress)?

I'm looking for material to use against those darn denier types. They always have their arguments, like the Auschwitz Olympic Swimming Pool thing, and I was wondering where I could find good material/links/proofs/primary sources to use against them - so I thought I might come and ask you lot!

These are not my words. I just would like an educated person to point out the truths and flaws if possible. Does Britain influence and control the U.S. as much as this poster claims?

"George Washington was in effect the chief intelligence officer of the USA and made the following observation (you can view the original letter which contains this quote online at the website of the Library of Congress):

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am."

"The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavored to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned."

Here we have Washington describing vast influence of the Illuminati network in the American government. But it is more than that, we also are talking about countervailing Jacobinism and an ideological war within the free-masonic lodges playing out at the highest levels.

Thomas Jefferson represents Jacobinism and seeks the Presidency as a challenger to the Federalists to which most who supported the revolution are party. Crucially, Jefferson makes himself an ally of Aaron Burr. Burr of course was a known traitor during the revolution and would later find himself charged with treason as Vice President under Jefferson. There can be no doubt that such dispositions were known to Jefferson at the outset.

From the insurgency of Jefferson we are left with the Democratic-Republican party which today monkeys about pretending to be two separate entities but in fact represents only one ideology.

The story of how this anti-American faction acquired power is a long a very interesting one and wasn't entirely successfully from the outset. Under the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, it is alleged that Meriwether Lewis (of Lewis and Clark fame) committed suicide en route to Washington D.C. He was the governor of Louisiana, a territory from which Aaron Burr would later attempt to organize secession from the USA in what is now known as the Burr conspiracy. Jefferson himself ruled it at a suicide, despite a chunk of Lewis's skull disappearing. This is of course the signature of the masonic group Skull & Bones (famous for stealing Geronimo's skull from his grave) and not only is the death unquestionably a murder but the identity of the assassinating group is clear.

Why is Lewis important? His family was intermarried with the Washingtons and critical to the westward expansion of the USA. This is a project that was viewed as critically important to what I'll call the pro-America faction, but vigorously opposed by European noble interests which the American project was attempting to topple. We see many later manifestations of these efforts, including but not limited to Burr's secession plot; the Mormons made close alliance with British intelligence and fought a bloody conflict against our government, the British supported the south's secession in the Civil War, and so on.

Not long after Jefferson's presidency we have the Captain Morgan affair. It's quite famous and people can look it up if they are not familiar. The TL;DR is that a dissident mason was killed and quite a scandal erupted. There are protocols for killing masons within the rank that break the rules and their initiation vows include this condition. Thus the death of a mason is not inherently controversial, but where controversy exists represents a revolutionary faction using violence to acquire control over the whole.

In the wake of the Morgan scandal, many Americans quit their association with the lodges. This represents an exodus of the pro-American faction and with the exodus you get the emergence of a short-lived Anti-Masonic Party that briefly put up candidates for national election. Here is a turning point in American history where the anti-American faction that now rules has not yet established dominance over broader society or the government, but has secured control over the largest secret society in existence and thus set the stage for a complete takeover.

Andrew Jackson emerges during this period. He was a proud member of the Scottish Rite and hand picked by Aaron Burr as a candidate for president. Jackson is intimately connected to the ails of the modern presidency. A major political controversy of the time is the National Bank. Jackson wants it shut down, but Congress supports it. Jackson, unable to acquire the consent of Congress, takes executive action to cripple the bank by withdrawing all US funds. This represents the first real presidential insurgency to the power of congress and is the precedent upon which eventual assassination of US citizens without charge or trial would ultimately derive.

As a result of Jackson's attack on the soundness of the economy by undermining the ability of the National Bank to function, the US is thrust into arguably the worst depression in it's history. This economic climate is precisely what enables the eventual Civil War. It even is responsible for the believability of the modern myth that the south's secession was motivated by tariffs or other economic matters. Indeed the economic situation was horrendous and very important, but of course not the motivation for the Civil War. Nor was slavery, as Lincoln himself stated, but rather the war was fought at the behest of those loyal to the British who sought to undermine the government.

Over the course of the next 100 years you see a waxing and waning of influence between the pro and anti-American factions. Presidents who supported the economic and nationalist policies initiated under Washington in support of a cohesive nation like Lincoln, McKinley, FDR, and JFK would face untimely demise at the hands of assassins.

Ultimately this story arrives at a place we're all at least somewhat familiar with. The OSS is established by freemasons with known anglophile tendencies, including members of Skull & Bones, in close consultation with British intelligence. The OSS morphs into the CIA which ends up taking on the responsibility of managing the world drug trade (a trademark of the British Empire: opium wars) and utilizing the profits to firmly establish a secret government that now exists.

The Bush family is intimately connected with British Intelligence. Bush's closest friend, Will Farish, happens to be the personal host of Queen Elizabeth II when she visits America. At this point in the story one can firmly state that the American government has fallen squarely under the authority of the crown.

With the American government now captured by a hostile foreign force, questions which plague many people make a lot more sense. Why is our government militarizing the police? Why does DHS warn that Americans who talk about the constitution are the number one security threat? Why does the posture of the American regime seem to be oriented against it's own populace rather than outside threats?

Well, that's quite obvious now isn't it. We are the outside threat to the British crown which has recaptured the US government.

Now that you are equipped with sufficient historical fact to appreciate that the government is run by a monarch, it becomes much easier to believe in larger designs, or conspiracies, at work. The Declaration of Independence is little more than a conspiracy theory about the designs of the British monarch after all, one which we all accept as having been true today.

If anyone wants more than this extraordinarily brief synopsis, I recommend reading How the Nation Was Won by Lowry or Treason in America by Chaitkin for starters, preferably in that order, or you can message me for further discussion."

That is, there are no actual street names. How did this come about, and why?

It seems like an odd gesture to do to represent approval.

So his name is " Cassiodorus" (Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator) born around 485. What should I be carefull about? Im writing something like this for the first time!

Should I just go ahed and explain that he was bron into a rich family and that he has been working as a Abbot for a time before he went into politics?