This dedicated to my Latin teacher, Pina Jardine.

In highschool I spent quite a bit of time studying Roman history.

Far more than most teenagers, in fact.

I was one of the top Roman history and literature students in the country, winning ribbons in both categories at the JCL events in 1979-80.

and derivatives as well.

I won first place in grammar and decathlon at the 1979 and 1980 national conventions, making me the top Latin student in the nation in those years, but I also scored top-five in literature and history.

bad boy of the latin club (mileswmathis.com)

I ended up double majoring in Latin and philosophy, with a minor in history, in college, graduating summa cum laude.

But of course, as I studied all these things, I didn't think to question any of them.

No one thinks to question mainstream history when they are 16 or 18, or we didn't in 1980.

So, I understand when people don't want to question what they have spent so much time learning.

It is an investment in time and energy and belief that is hard to let go of.

I have delayed looking at Roman history for that reason.

they were too close to my heart.

What About Mark Twain? – Library of Rickandria

I had been fooled and it is hard to admit that.

But I have hit Chomsky and Twain and now it is time to hit Roman history.

I have made a few minor stabs at it in previous papers, but here I will go deeper.

I previously told you that I now think the Romans were Phoenicians like the rest, and we will see much more evidence of that.

Where did ALL the Phoenicians Go? – Library of Rickandria

The founding of Rome goes back to 753BC, and the story of Romulus and Remus, who were famously left in the woods and suckled by a she wolf.

But in The Aeneid, Vergil takes it back much farther, telling us Rome was founded by descendants of Aeneas, namely by his son Ascanius, also known as Julus.

This is where the patrician family (gens) Julia came from, as in Gaius Julius Caesar.

That is why the first emperors of Rome were called Julio-Claudians.

They were from this family as well, going all the way back to Aeneas.

Aeneas came from Troy, and was a member of the royal household, the cousin of the famous priest Laocoön.

If you want to win a fiver in a bar, bet someone they can't pronounce that name.

It is pronounced Lay-awk-oh-wan.

It sounds Native American, not Trojan.

Anyway, Aeneas' great-uncle Laomedon was the father of Priam, King of Troy.

We are told that Aeneas married his cousin Creusa, one of the 50 daughters of Priam, but there is actually no evidence of that.

Virgil is basing that part of his story on previous texts, including the Iliad, but there is no indication Ascanius was with Aeneas and his father Anchises when they left Troy, or even when they arrived in Carthage.

We also know nothing about Creusa, other than that she allegedly died before they left Troy.

She is no more than a ghost in the story.

Livy tells a different story than Virgil, which is that Ascanius didn't appear until later, and he suggests Ascanius' mother was a native of Italy named Lavinia.

So, in some stories Ascanius didn't appear until after Carthage, which is suggestive.

Dido, queen of Carthage, who was a Phoenician.

So why did no one ever float the idea that Ascanius was the son of Dido?

That would seem to be a natural suggestion, but— very conspicuously—no one has ever suggested it.

Everything is suggested, except that.

It is very obviously buried, which is clue by itself.

But why would Virgil and Livy both go out of their way to bury it?

Because if Dido was the mother of Ascanius, then, by the matrilineal rules of the Phoenicians and Jews, the top Roman lines were Phoenician.

You will say that I have previously shown the Trojans were also Phoenicians, but that isn't admitted by the mainstream.

However, the mainstream admits the Carthaginians were Phoenicians, so it has to keep your eyes off the idea of Dido as mother of Ascanius.

One could argue—and I am arguing—that hiding this idea is actually Virgil's primary motive in publishing The Aeneid.

What do I mean?

Well, the meeting with Dido is of course the highlight of The Aeneid, with everything either leading up to it or away from it.

But the way it is told is both cryptic and overly dramatic, making it very suspicious to a historian. 

As you know, Dido fell in love with Aeneas and wanted him to stay.

But up to then Aeneas had been very set on finding Italy.

Women can be very persuasive, and Aeneas was on the cusp of agreeing to stay when Juno and Venus stepped in.

Venus was Aeneas' mother and Juno was the goddess/overseer of Carthage.

It was her favorite city.

Venus wanted Aeneas to go on and found Rome in her name, so she was actually against the love affair for once.

Juno wanted him to stay, because she didn't want to lose to Venus again.

She had just lost the judgment of Paris, when he voted for Venus instead of Juno.

Venus had offered him Helen, remember, while Juno had offered him the kingship of all Europe and Asia.

That's the set-up, but neither Virgil nor anyone else has explained how the goddesses solved it. 

Venus must have convinced Juno to let Aeneas leave Carthage, so what bargain could they have made?

To achieve it, Venus would have to give up something and Juno would have to get something, right?

What would Juno get that would convince her to let Aeneas leave?

She would need a piece of that pie, right?

And how could Venus give her a piece of that pie?

Think about it and get back to me.

The only answer is that Juno's line would also get a piece of the founding of Rome via her queen Dido.

the lines of both Venus and Juno.

Why else would Aeneas and Dido couple in the cave?

Juno wouldn't agree to that as her payment, since a childless tryst among mortals would mean nothing to her.

Only a child from her queen Dido would mean anything to her.

That is the logical reading but notice how Virgil sets it up but then spins you off the obvious answer.

He not only never bothers to tell you what Juno got out of the deal; he does everything he can to keep you from asking that question.

He buries this part of the story under mystification and clouds and then buries it further under the whole funeral pyre smoke and fireworks.

In the off chance the idea occurred to you that Dido might have been impregnated in her coupling with Aeneas, that idea is quashed by the fiery death of Dido.

There doesn't seem to have been nine months in between the tryst and the suicide, so you are put off the idea that a child might have been born in the meantime.

I put you back on that idea.

But why would Virgil wish to bury it?

they love to hide.

They have prospered by living in the shadows since the beginning of the Persian Empire in about 550BC.

The Phoenicians want you to believe they went extinct soon after, ceding their language and tradition to the Hebrews.

They don't want you realizing they were crouching behind all classical nation-states and empires, as well as all post-classical ones.

and smiths.

They don't want you realizing they own everything and always have.

It doesn't fit the notion of democracy they have been selling for hundreds of years and fits the notion of socialism even more poorly.

Rome wasn't socialist or democratic, but just like now the rulers were ruling the plebes with lies of justice and fairness.

Their writers were hired to create the patriotic and the pious, and to engender respect for the rulers.

That could only be done by selling the masses a sexy and cinematic fiction, which is what The Aeneid was.

It kept the scent off the Phoenicians and kept it on Rome as an independent nation with local roots.

And, since Rome was still feuding with Greece at the time, having just thrown off Greek rule in the preceding century, the links to Troy were spun as anti-Greek.

Greece was the great enemy of Rome, just as it had been the great enemy of Troy.

The same goes for Carthage, which Virgil had to spin as the enemy of Rome, not its ancestor. Rome threw off Carthage's and Greece's influence much like we threw off England's.

Meaning, it didn't.

We never really threw off England's influence, though wars were manufactured to make it look like we did.

That's because we were the same people as England, and still are.

Colonists, remember?

But the appearance of independence had to be manufactured for reasons of trade.

People prefer the fiction of local rule, since without it there is no patriotism.

With no patriotism there is no respect for local rulers, and without that there is no hope of willing governance.

Without willing governance, productivity falls, and with it trade.

---

A learned reader pointed out something VERY interesting that I missed.

According to Ovid, Dido had a sister named Anna, later Anna Perenna.

Anna Perenna - Wikipedia

Listen to her story and tell me if it jogs anything in your head.

After the death of Dido, Anna fled Carthage to get away from Pygmalion, going to Malta.

She then went to Italy and just happened to be shipwrecked in Latium, where she soon wandered into Aeneas' town.

By then Aeneas was with Lavinia, who got very jealous of Anna.

Hmmm.

Jealous why?

We aren't told but can guess.

Dido appeared in a dream to Anna and told her to run away into the fields, where she fell into the river Numicus and became a river nymph.

When Aeneas died, he wasn't buried next to Lavinia, he was buried next to the river, i.e. next to Anna.

His mortal parts were washed away, and he became the god Jupiter Indiges.

Jupiter Indiges - Wikipedia

As such, we may assume he was reunited with the now immortal Anna.

Wow.

Are you seeing what I am seeing?

If not, remember the old sister trick, as in Sharon/Patti Tate, Nicole/Denise Brown, etc.

We now see exactly how Juno accomplished the birth of Ascanius, since she faked the death of Dido, who then changed her name and pretended to be her sister.

She followed Aeneas to Italy, where she became Aeneas' second hidden wife (or only wife—Lavinia may be a ghost*).

the sister never existed.

The other half of the trick is a phantom.

Ovid pretty much admits that in many places.

First, he has Anna go to Malta.

Why?

Only to flash the Phoenician link to you again.

Then as now, Malta was a center of Phoenician influence.

Next, he has Anna arrive in Latium via a shipwreck, or an act of the gods. . . namely, Juno.

Then Dido appears to Anna in a dream, making Anna and Dido the same person for that moment.

Dido is acting through Anna.

by fire.

She was cremated.

Which of course makes it impossible to identify the body afterwards.

Just like now.

They still use this trick to hide bodies and make identification impossible.

See JFK, Jr., for instance.

So, Ovid is telling you pretty much to your face that the mother of Rome was a Phoenician.

Anna/Dido was the mother of Ascanius, not Lavinia, which is why Lavinia was jealous.

---

With all that in mind, let's take a closer look at Julius Caesar.

As is befitting an artist, I will first look at his image as depicted on coins and in sculpture.

We will start with a colorized rendering of the Tusculum bust, said to be the only one created while he was alive.

Although it may be a fake, let's take a look at it anyway. 

He looks very Jewish, doesn't he?

That may just be an accident, so let's look at some others.

 That's the so-called Green Caesar, because it is sculpted in green slate.

Green Caesar - Wikipedia

That looks more genuine to me.

The Romans liked a lot of detail and didn't mind making their sitters look wrinkled or old or ugly.

We are told that is from about 100 years after he died, though they don't say how they know that.

But whatever the case may be, the sculptor certainly didn't play down the Jewish look or try to hide it.

It is much worse here than in the Tusculum marble, and he even looks shifty.

I think the ear is broken.

That is a line drawing of a standard coin of Julius Caesar.

So, we see the same thing again.

Which reminds us that the “Roman nose” is just cover for the Jewish nose.

They are both large and long, with a bump at eye level.

That is another one from the 1st century BC, and it confirms the other two.

and a very large nose.

I had previously thought that the noses were wrecked on so many old sculptures only due to the fact they stuck out.

If the sculpture falls forward, the nose will take the hit.

We have also been sold the story that soldiers liked to take pot shots at noses of sculptures.

But there is a third possibility.

The noses may have been lopped on purpose by their own people, to hide what I am showing you.

In later centuries and millennia, Phoenician noses could be toned down by portrait painters, but in these thousands of existing sculptures of antiquity, it was harder to hide.

The noses were a giveaway.

And in the case that soldiers, or other later people were taking potshots at sculptures, the noses may have been targeted as Phoenician or Jewish as well.

They attacked what they saw as the most obvious sign of the oppressors.

Wikipedia dismisses the story of Aeneas as mythology, instead telling us Caesar was descended from the Albans of Alba Longa.

But they are basing that on zero archaeological evidence, as they admit, so it is just a variant story.

Regardless, it is said the early Romans under Tullus Hostilius destroyed Alba Longa, so it is not clear how Alba Longa could have been a generator of the top Roman lines.

Also making no sense is the claim that lack of archaeological evidence is due to the level of destruction of Alba Longa.

But the mainstream story as told by those such as Livy is that the Battle of Alba Longa was between two sets of triplets, the Curiatii and Horatii.

Horatii and Curiatii - Wikipedia

How much destruction can three people do on the foundations of a city?

The story is that after this loss, the king of Alba Longa sold out the Romans to the Etruscans, angering Tullus, who razed the city to the ground.

But again, if that is so, then the top Albans could hardly become the top Romans.

Normally, when you raze a city to the ground, you also kill all its top people.

It makes no sense to raze a city and then invite its aristocracy to join you.

Liberty, Liberation & Aristocracy in Satanism – Library of Rickandria

Tullus wasn't angry at the buildings of Alba Longa, was he?

He was angry at its ruling class, which had betrayed him and broken their treaty.

So, we see those at Wikipedia still misdirecting on this 2700 years later.

the Phoenicians.

Caesar was not named that because he was born by Caesarian section.

He was called that because an ancestor had killed an elephant in the Punic Wars.

The Phoenicians called the wars “Caesai”.

This is why Caesar's coins often depict elephants.

Wikipedia also tries to downplay Caesar's family, telling us that by his time they

Except that they then admit in the very next sentence that Caesar's uncle was Marius, the top general who was Consul a record seven times.

When he defeated the Cimbri in 101BC, one year before the birth of Caesar, he was dubbed the third founder of Rome.

Although the allies of Marius lost the Civil War after his death to Sulla, his family was not purged by Sulla.

If it had been, this would certainly have included the young Julius. 

Sulla made himself dictator in 82BC, just 38 years before the murder of Caesar, so Caesar's career was actually a spin out of this old Civil War between Marius and Sulla.

It can be read as a battle of gens Julia against gens Cornelia.

Along with Sulla, the Scipios were Cornelii, as were the Lentuli and Rufini.

Sulla was a Rufini, meaning red hair.

The Scipios were also known to have red hair, being called Rutilus.

This may also point us at the Phoenicians, who we know had red hair in some lines.

And if this is true, then the story about modern Jews getting the red hair from southern Russia would be shown to be false.

The Romans couldn't have gotten their red hair from the Khazars, for instance.

This would lead me to guess that Brutus and Cassius were connected to the gens Cornelia.

And in fact, we find one of Brutus' names was Caepio, which he got from his adopted father.

This would link him to gens Servilia.

But he was already linked to that family through his real mother Servilia.

They were linked to gens Cornelia through previous marriage.

What most people don't know is that Caesar was alleged to be sleeping with this Servilia, mother of Brutus.

Which may explain the hostility there from Brutus, without any talk of politics.

The other possibility this brings up, which is never broached, is that Servilia may have been a spy from gens Cornelia, sleeping with Caesar in order to get information.

She may have been feeding information to his enemies, including her own son.

We will keep that possibility in mind as we proceed.

Caesar had just defeated a Cornelia in 46, that being Metellus Scipio, a supporter of Pompey. 

And it appears that Pompey was also linked to the Cornelii by blood.

The Civil War would not end with the death of Caesar, it would only end with a truce between the two gens, and their intermarriage.

By the time of Augustus, the Cornelii were already part of the dynasty, and they got there through Caesar's extended family.

Caesar tried to do it himself, through his wife Cornelia and daughter Julia, but that didn't work. 

Julia married Pompey, which was a good start, but then died in childbirth.

Octavian was adopted by Julius Caesar, but he was from gens Octavia, which gained prominence in around 230BC with Octavius Rufus.

Octavia gens - Wikipedia

Which again means “red”. 

If all these red Phoenicians were related, this means the Octavii were related to the Cornelii. 

Which would indicate once again that Julius Caesar was promoting them through marriage and adoption even while defeating them in the Civil War.

You also have to remember that the given reason Caesar adopted Octavian was that Octavian's mother was Caesar's niece.

This Atia was the daughter of Caesar's sister Julia Minor.

So, the first emperors of Rome were not just Julians through adoption, they were Julians by blood through Atia.

This promotion of the Cornelii by Caesar may also have been in response to his being spared by Sulla back in 82.

He was spared because he was already married to Cornelia, a daughter of Cinna.

If he hadn't been married to a Cornelii, he would certainly have been killed.

As it was, he was only forced into hiding.

Sulla eventually allowed him into the army in faraway Asia, where he served with distinction. 

After Sulla's death, he returned to Rome at age 22.

he was actually a rather silly character in person, having a famously high-pitched voice, and arms that fluttered when he spoke.

It is also interesting to learn he had been appointed as a priest of Jupiter at age 16.

he was probably even gayer than normal for an aristocratic Roman.

Jewish Control of Gay Rights – Library of Rickandria

Which, as with the ancient Greeks, is actually saying a lot.

Do we have any proof of that?

Well, yes.

We have lots of stories that have survived, including his gay relationship with the King of Bithynia, Nicomedes.

Many stories and songs were written about the couple, even calling Caesar the queen of Bithynia. 

Somehow word was leaked—and has survived— that Caesar was the bottom in that pairing, which is kind of funny, given how he is portrayed in history as such a tough guy.

and many others.

Many famous men of history were not only bottoms, but they also liked being humiliated and whipped.

Next, we get the famous pirate story, which we should now know is faked.

We have seen similar manufactured stories in the bios of most famous Phoenicians, it being the standard way to make them look tough.

Think of Winston Churchill's cock and bull story of being captured as a prisoner of war in Pretoria and escaping.

Or Teddy Roosevelt's few weeks as a Rough Rider, or Jack London's trip to Japan, where he whipped the big Swedish sailor.

Caesar was allegedly captured by pirates, who demanded a ransom.

He told them to double the amount, since they had underestimated his importance.

It was paid and he was released, after which he gathered an army and pursued them.

Once he caught them, he had them all crucified.

This is all according to Plutarch, who loved to make stuff up, to put it nicely.

Before becoming a historian, Plutarch had been a priest of Apollo at Delphi, making him a professional conman on the level of Billy Graham or Pat Robertson.

At age 29 Caesar was elected tribune, and at 30 he was already quaestor (state treasurer).

We aren't told what his qualifications for those positions were, other than being from a rich family.

Notice he is, as usual, supposed to be both very rich and very poor in these years.

He is supposed to be poor because Sulla cancelled his dowry and confiscated all his property and accounts.

But he is supposed to be rich since his family was able to ransom him for 50 talents.

When Cornelia died, he immediately married another Cornelii, Pompeia, the granddaughter of Sulla, guaranteeing his continued preference despite the “fall” of the gens Julia.

At age 36, possibly due to this marriage, he was elected Pontifex Maximus, chief priest and head pedophile of Rome.

Although he was just a curule aedile running against powerful senators, he won easily.

How?

We aren't told.

I guess his combined Julia/Cornelia families outbribed the senators.

At age 37 he was appointed governor of Western Spain, probably to get him out of Rome before his families bought the consulship for him.

This only worked for two years, since Caesar was back in Rome by 60BC, when he was indeed handed the consulship.

For what?

For nothing, as usual.

Simply for being a top Phoenician and having two legs he could stand on.

All he needed beyond that was ambition.

They admit Caesar won the consulship because he had the support of two of the richest men in Rome, Pompey and Crassus.

They formed a triumvirate and took over most business in central Italy, choking out all competitors and opponents, including Caesar's other consul Bibulus.

With the help of the billionaire Crassus and the general Pompey, Caesar bought himself the governorship of Illyricum, Transalpine Gaul, and Cisalpine Gaul, giving him untold wealth and the command of four legions.

So, we are up to 56BC and Caesar has done little but gather things into his pile.

But to pay Crassus and Pompey back for their support, he was expected to pillage France and Britain to the best of his abilities.

Unfortunately, Crassus died in 53 and Pompey's wife Julia, daughter of Caesar, died in childbirth.

Caesar tried to set him up with another wife from the Julian family, but Pompey decided to marry Cornelia Metella, a Scipio, instead.

Wikipedia admits she was from a family that was “a political opponent of Caesar”, confirming my analysis above.

This brought the war of the Julians and the Cornelians back into play, breaking the First Triumvirate.

We know this was a bad move by Pompey, since Caesar had all the seasoned soldiers of the north, while Pompey had only the local fair-weather boys.

Caesar may have been a poof, but he was a smart and cagey poof who knew how the wind blew.

He knew that as soon as Crassus and Pompey granted him those four northern legions, he was as good as invincible back home.

All he had to do was stay alive and not get captured by the German and French locals like Vercingetorix.

Speaking of Vercingetorix, I am no longer prone to believe all the stories of derring-do told by Plutarch, Caesar, and others about Caesar's conquests in Gaul.

We are supposed to believe the Gauls had huge armies capable of fighting Rome to a standstill, but that doesn't really scan.

Why would these wild woodsmen have large standing armies?

Plutarch tells us Caesar fought against three million tribal soldiers, killing a million and capturing another million.

According to him there were 300 tribes, and the Romans destroyed 800 of their towns.

Even mainstream historians don't believe that.

with little or no resistance but minor guerrilla warfare.

But if he did seriously fight anyone, it wasn't local tribes, it was his Phoenician cousins who owned the trading centers on the north coasts of Europe.

They are the only ones who could have afforded to maintain armies.

It looks like he mostly steered clear of that, since the Roman legions preferred to roam further south, well away from the northern coasts.

After all, Caesar wasn't in Gaul to conquer territory, as for settlement by Romans.

This was about pillaging and raping.

So, when you read stories about how brave and disciplined the Roman legions were, remind yourself they were just thieves and murderers, working for pay from billionaires.

Don't allow yourself to be fooled into thinking there was any honor there.

Next, we are supposed to believe Caesar conquered Egypt at the request of its queen Cleopatra, but that is another fable.

No real conquering was necessary since Egypt had been ruled by Phoenicians since the time of Alexander.

Remember, the pharaohs at that time were Ptolemies, who were Macedonian.

They didn't even speak Egyptian.

They lived separately in Alexandria, which had been built by Alexander just a couple of centuries earlier.

The Ptolemies spoke Greek, but they admit Cleopatra also spoke Hebrew.

Why would she speak Hebrew in 50BC?

Now you know.

Rome had been talking about absorbing Egypt long before Caesar came along.

Crassus had proposed it in 65, but Ptolemy increased tribute to prevent it.

But by the time of Caesar, Ptolemy had sucked his treasury dry through tribute and profligacy, and he was living on loans from Roman bankers.

So, the tribute was meaningless.

In 58 Cleopatra's father Ptolemy XII was driven out of Alexandria and was living on Pompey's estate outside Rome.

Pompey reinstalled him in 55, since he was considered a good way to soak Egypt without taking it outright.

When Ptolemy died, he owed Rome and its bankers almost 18 million drachmas.

Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy XIII then became co-rulers, but since Ptolemy was stupid and venal, Cleopatra rejected him and tried to rule without him.

To save himself, he forged alliances with powerful Romans like Pompey.

Although that seemed the smart thing to do in 50, it soon backfired on him when Pompey lost to Caesar in Rome.

Pompey fled to Egypt, but Caesar followed him there.

So, Caesar actually didn't have to conquer Egypt at all, he only had to defeat a few Romans who had allegiance to Pompey.

As a preventative, Ptolemy ended up murdering Pompey and sending his head to Caesar, but that also backfired, since Caesar was disgusted by the act.

Upon arrival, Caesar deposed Ptolemy and elevated Cleopatra to acting queen (though her little brother was given a co-chair as a nod to tradition).

Ptolemy XIII supposedly drowned trying to flee by boat, but that is doubtful.

While in Alexandria, Caesar allegedly kept Cleopatra as his concubine, and she later had his child. 

We are told she was the most beautiful woman in the world, but that isn't true, either.

Just your average Jewish girl with a long face, a big honker and frizzy black (or red?) hair.

That was sculpted while she was still alive, so it possible she sat for it or that it was a copy of a work she sat for.

That is a reconstruction of her from that sculpture and other sources.

I would say it is fairly accurate, though the eyes are too pretty and exotic.

She actually had bug eyes rather than uptilted Egyptian eyes.

Here she is on one of her own coins.

Note the large hook nose.

And what is that on the reverse?

An eagle?

Nope, a phoenix.

I will be told the Ptolemies often used the eagle on their coins, including the double eagle.

Except that, the double eagle is again proof this was a phoenix, since the ancient phoenix was often depicted with two heads.

It isn't a double eagle, is a phoenix with two heads.

Indicating once again we are dealing with Phoenicians here, not Macedonians or Greeks.

Herodotus admitted the phoenix looked almost exactly like the eagle, but no one ever got that clue?

Why Is Herodotus Called Both the Father of History & the Father of Lies? – Library of Rickandria

No one ever noticed the clue that Cleopatra was speaking Hebrew in the Egyptian court?

All the Ptolemies were probably speaking Hebrew at home, like the Phoenicians still do.

The Phoenician language at the time WAS Hebrew.

Is the English Language Really Reversed Hebrew? – Library of Rickandria

Hebrew is just neo-Phoenician.

Caesar was “appointed” dictator in 48.

That is the way the history books put it.

But you can't be appointed dictator.

Who would appoint you?

Jupiter?

Dictators aren't appointed, by definition, but the historians have to put it that way to make you think they can.

It acts as part of their sale of Hitler's appointment as a dictator, and Mussolini's appointment, etc.

When Gloria Steinem isn't telling you Hitler was elected, guffaw, the “real” historians are telling you Hindenburg appointed him as chancellor, then conveniently died, making Hitler a de facto dictator.

All complete crap, since Germany never worked like that.

When a president dies, his chancellor doesn't become dictator.

A new president would be elected, as in 1932 when Hindenburg was elected.

We are told that Hitler's cabinet passed a law joining the presidency and the chancellorship, but the cabinet had no authority to do that, and we have no evidence they did anyway, other than the word of historians.

We are then told Hitler organized a plebiscite (vote), by which 90% of the voters agreed that Hitler should be the Fuhrer.

And you believe that?

I don't.

Do you think they have the vote tallies stored somewhere?

Of course not.

It's more Nazi fiction.

But my point is, the story about Caesar is similar Nazi/Phoenician fiction, since dictators aren't appointed.

Caesar took over by a military coup, so why not just say that?

Curiously, we find that when Caesar returned to Rome in 45 from the East, the first thing he did was draw up his will, making Octavian his heir.

This was in September, just six months before his assassination.

Brutus was named second in the will.

All this is very strange, since Caesar was only 54 at the time, and in perfect health.

Octavian was an in-law and Brutus was only the previous son of his concubine.

Caesar had four wives and supposedly numerous concubines, including Cleopatra, but no children with any of them except Julia?

If Cleopatra's son Caesarion really existed, why would Caesar pass over his son with a queen in order to adopt a non-blood relative?

To me, this is just more proof Caesar was very gay, and that he had never actually slept with any of these women, including Cleopatra.

Maybe he married his wives for money, but a man at that time could normally get children out of his concubines.

But not one?

This also indicates Octavian wasn't just his adopted son, he was probably his lover.

We appear to have an Alexander-Hephestion thing going on here, with Caesar stepping aside to let the younger man take over.

Tellingly, Antony told us that himself, saying Octavian had gotten to be heir through sexual favors as a boy.

Remember, in 47 Octavian would have been 15, and at his prettiest.

But the biggest clue may be the timing of the will.

it was faked.

Another clue in that direction is that Caesar spent very little time in Rome or Italy after 46BC.

He had already invested local power in his lieutenants like Antony, so he could have easily disappeared to one of his homes in Asia and no one would be the wiser.

The only thing Caesar didn't account for, and couldn't, was the fact that he had to choose between Octavian and Antony.

They were both probably top lovers, but only one could be the heir.

This of course led to Antony's revolution, and eventually his death.

Antony's crime was that he was 20 years older than Octavian, and so lost his looks first.

---

As you know, the assassination famously took place on the Ides of March, March 15.

Why?

We are told it is because the conspirators found it to be an auspicious date.

However, we now have a different explanation, given to us by the Dido/Anna story above.

Anna became Anna Perenna, who became a favorite deity of the Romans.

Her festival was held in her grove on the first mile marker of the Via Flaminia, on the first full Moon of the year.

And when was that?

Well, according to the old Roman calendar that was. . . the Ides of March.

So, the date is pointing back to Anna, “sister” of Dido, who just happened to be the ancestor of Caesar in direct line.

Anna/Dido faked her death in both stories, so the writers of the Caesar script thought it would be clever to fake his death on that date.

---

More indication the assassination was faked is the way it is still sold by mainstream (Phoenician) historians.

At Wikipedia, on the page for Caesar's assassination, they have a section on the three causes of it.

This is the first section on the page.

But it is ludicrously weak and makes no sense.

Caesar allegedly failed to rise for senators visiting him.

So what?

The senate had long since been bypassed and everyone knew that.

Caesar could have gotten up and farted in the face of each senator one by one, and it wouldn't have made any conceivable difference.

Two tribunes allegedly removed a wreath from a statue of Caesar, and he deposed them for it. 

Again, so what?

Caesar had been doing much worse things for years, including banishing and killing people, so again this just looks like a poorly manufactured story.

At Lupercalia Antony placed a diadem on Caesar's head, and Caesar removed it.

We are told Caesar was testing his popularity, to see if he could crown himself king.

But he was already dictator for life and held all power.

So, what he called himself was beside the point.

Just a few years later the Emperors were calling themselves gods, and no one took offense, least of all the Senate.

So, the fact that historians have always been trying so hard to sell this assassination is indication it is fake.

If it was real, the real story would suffice.

The truth sells itself and does not need manufactured fairy tales to embellish it.

The next section at Wikipedia is even worse, though again it sticks pretty close to written history. 

We are told there were around 60 conspirators, and that they even considered propositioning Antony.

Really?

We are told Trebonius had already approached Antony a few months earlier, but Antony declined.

That makes no sense. Antony was Caesar's second in command.

Approaching him to be in the conspiracy would have been the stupidest thing imaginable, since it would have gotten immediately back to Caesar.

lack of a guard. 

We are supposed to believe a few middle-aged senators with knives would be able to bypass Caesar's guard, made of trained soldiers.

You are supposed to believe Caesar was walking around by himself, with no other protection than a toga, but that is ridiculous.

Things didn't work that way, not in 1986, not in 1968, not in 1865, and not in 44BC.

Caesar was allegedly murdered in the Senate, at the base of the Curia of Pompey, in the Theater of Pompey.

That is just more fiction, meant to be ironic.

In the story, Caesar was alone, with absolutely no guard.

Antony had been with him but was diverted by conversation at the door of the Senate. 

Impossible, since no dictator for life ever travelled without a guard.

It would be suicide.

Caesar's wife Calpurnia had a dream he would die and warned him.

He almost took the warning but decided to ignore it.

A soothsayer named Spurinna also warned twice, once several days earlier and once on his way to the Senate.

He ignored her both times.

The problem there is that a soothsayer wouldn't have had the name Spurinna, since it was a noble name.

See Titus Spurinna, later a consul and friend of Pliny.

false.

Fake.

You are being told this story is a fake, right to your face.

So, we may assume Caesar faked his death, and was in on the story.

Maybe he retired to Capri.

That was a joke, and I hope you got it, but I am partly serious.

Caesar's boys like Octavian and Antony were no longer boys.

Antony was almost 40 and Octavian was 18.

You will say 18 is young enough, but these guys like them young, and the older they got the younger they liked them.

Remind yourself of the aged Socrates chasing after young teen boys.

Eighteen is OK, but 15 is better, and 12 is even better.

The most powerful man in the Roman Empire could have whatever he wanted, and at age 55 we may assume he wanted the youngest prettiest boys.

Perhaps he preferred to be out of the limelight as he did it, which is why he faked his death and left Rome.

He was ready to retire and lose himself in debauchery.

It wouldn't be the first time.

There is a second possibility, I would say a more remote one.

Gays in their 50s may undergo a midlife crisis, and one outcome of that may be the one I just described.

But another one may be the opposite, where the man yearns for a stable relationship.

So, it is possible Caesar returned to his first love, Nicomedes, who by that time had given up his kingdom to Rome and retired himself.

We are not given a date of birth for Nicomedes, but he was probably around 70 by then.

That was old for the time, but not unheard of.

One thing in support of this theory is that Caesar was a bottom, and bottoms are more likely to marry older men.

Tops are more likely to chase boys.

And we have more signs of the fake.

Mark Antony finally arose from somewhere two days after the assassination and declared none of the conspirators would be prosecuted.

What?

Yes, after a time there would be another Civil War, but it wasn't declared by Antony.

It was declared by Brutus and Cassius.

I guess Brutus wasn't happy about being first alternate heir.

He was sent by the Senate to Crete to cool off, and as protection for him, but he instead went to Macedonia and raised an army.

For some reason the Senate supported him, as well as Cassius in Syria.

In Rome Cicero turned the locals against Antony, sealing his own fate.

By raising these armies, Brutus and Cassius angered Octavian, who had now reached Rome, buoyed by his huge inheritance.

He declared them assassins.

When he came into the Senate, Octavian walked in with a large guard, and the Senators were allegedly shocked.

Yeah?

They had just murdered Octavian's father a few feet away, but they are shocked he would come in with a guard?

I have never understood why historians—if they are going to tell us stories—don't come up with believable ones.

Undeterred, Brutus and Cassius decided to raise money by sacking large parts of Asia, just as Caesar had done in Gaul.

Octavian and Antony allied against them and defeated them at Philippi.

Brutus allegedly fell on his sword to commit suicide, and Octavian allegedly threw his body (or head) overboard into the Adriatic.

Not believable, so Brutus probably escaped to wealth in the East somewhere.

As for Cassius, he allegedly killed himself with the same dagger he stabbed Caesar with, on his birthday, October 3.

So that is convenient.


Again, not believable, so Cassius probably joined Brutus in some satrapy in Persia.

OK, so let's return to Cleopatra, to finish off her story.

As you know, after Brutus and Cassius were dispatched, Octavian and Antony came to loggerheads, with Antony fleeing to Egypt for support from Cleopatra.

We are told they proposed her son Caesarion as heir of Caesar, but there is no chance that is true.

That allegedly comes out of Antony's will, which Octavian allegedly stole from the Temple of Vesta and then read publicly.

So, we can be sure it was a forgery.

Antony would never have proposed Caesarion as heir of Caesar, knowing it would be unpopular in Rome.

At any rate, the two navies met at Actium, off the coast of Epirus, in 31BC.

Antony and Cleopatra were routed but sailed out the rear of the contest in their fast ships with purple sails.

Yes, that was PURPLE sails, as in Phoenician.

The Phoenicians were allegedly extinct by then, but somehow, they kept building ships for Egyptian queens and top Roman admirals.

Tellingly, the remaining Egyptian fleet with its allies wasn't defeated.

Most of the Egyptian side defected to the Roman side and was forgiven.

Hmmm.

Herod of Judea offered to resign his kingship due to his loyalty to Antony, but Octavian forgave him, too.

Not believable.

Also, not believable that the governor of Syria, Quintus Didius, was able to burn Cleopatra's remaining fleet as it sat in harbor.

How do you burn an entire fleet sitting in the water without anyone noticing?

After some delay, Octavian set out to capture or kill Antony, and where do you think he went first?

Ptolemais in Phoenicia.

How's that for a clue?

Since Phoenicia was supposed to be completely gone by 64BC, if not earlier, they often call that place Ptolemais of Canaan.

Either way, it later became Acre, the site of many more Phoenician Hijinx.

After being defeated at Alexandria, Antony allegedly killed himself and was put in Cleopatra's tomb.

That was on August 1, aces and eights, Chai.

Cleopatra killed herself nine days later, on August 10, which also happened to be aces and eights.

Caesarion allegedly ruled 18 days before being killed on the orders of Octavian.

For myself, I don't believe Caesarion ever existed.

As for Antony and Cleopatra, most likely they were allowed to flee to the East, to Judea, or to palaces in Libya.

Since Egypt was completely absorbed by Rome at that time, there was no further threat from them.

They couldn't have raised an army of 50, much less a fleet.

That is confirmed by the treatment of their children, who were seen as no threat.

There were no Egyptian loyalists left to draw from, so Antony and Cleopatra didn't need to be killed.

As with Brutus and Cassius, faking their deaths was good enough.

That is supposed to be Cleopatra and Caesarion in the temple of Dendera, but it is obviously misattributed.

We can tell it is from a far earlier period just from the style.

he is too big.

He was born in late 46 or 45 and died in 30, so he would be at most 15.

But it is unlikely artists would be making monuments to him while his mother was being chased around the Mediterranean by the Romans, so we would expect a monument to come from an earlier time, when he was still a child.

Octavian allowed Antony and Cleopatra's daughter Cleopatra Selene to live, and even took her back to Rome.

She ended up becoming queen of Numidia and Mauretania, which were other Punic (Phoenician) colonies of North Africa—west of Carthage—that had recently been absorbed by Rome.

So, another hint that those Phoenicians became Romans.

Numidia under the Romans actually took over Carthage and moved its chief city to Iol, now called Cherchell.

Cherchell - Wikipedia

I will be told that the daughter was allowed to live since women weren't considered dangerous.

Like her mother?

But Cleopatra's two sons with Antony were also taken back to Rome and disappeared from the record.

They weren't killed, that we know of, but nothing is known of them.

Strange.

As usual, the leading account of the life of Cleopatra comes from Plutarch, so it is basically worthless.

Plutarch didn't write history; he wrote fiction and propaganda at the behest of his Phoenician masters.

ANCIENT SPOOKS – Part I: The pun factor in spookery – Library of Rickandria

Even mainstream historians admit he is the least reliable source ever.

Surprisingly, there is a book called The Alexandrian War, written by an officer of Caesar, and he has almost nothing to say about Cleopatra.

Also, surprising that we get almost nothing on her from Egyptian documents.

I guess the Egyptians didn't realize she was their queen?

 

and Strabo.

As one last clue, do you know who Josephus was?

That's him, real name Yosef ben Matityahu.

Could he be an ancestor of Benjamin Netanyahu?

Possibly, since Matityahu was a noble from Jerusalem, being of the priestly class.

Making him what we now call a Kohen.

He came from the Hasmonean dynasty on both sides, and they were the rulers of Judea up to 63BC, when the Romans took over.

Nero appointed Josephus military governor of Galilee in 66AD.

He continued to be a Roman lacky, hated by his fellow Jews.

They still hate him.

Senseless, since he was a prominent Phoenician, doing the bidding of his masters.

The wars of the time, like all wars, were manufactured to create the illusion of separation where there was none.

JEWISH BANKSTERS’ WAR ON AMERICA & THE WORLD – Library of Rickandria

The Jews and Romans were both Phoenicians, so any conflict was created for profit.

Like now.

Compare it to the fake conflict between the US and Russia, which has driven both economies for over 75 years.

Power of the Purse: The Origin of Money – Library of Rickandria

---

* Writer Ursula K. Le Guin admitted as much in her 2008 novel Lavinia.

She told us there that Lavinia was no more than a creation of Virgil.

You will say that just means Lavinia was mythological, not historical, which we already knew, but I take it as more than that.

I think she is telling us Aeneas and Dido were based on real historical persons, while Lavinia is wholly fictional.

And Le Guin would know, being Phoenician herself.

Her father was a Kroeber and a Mueller and her mother a Kracaw (Krakow).

They admit she is Jewish through her father's lines, but she is also Jewish through her mother.

Le Guin came out of Berkeley, where her father was a famous anthropologist.

They were close to the Oppenheimers, including Robert.