Nous parlâmes du genre bio-dynamique truqué des bipèdes logés à l’Elysée, château conçu pour abriter les dames galantes de la Cour, phénomène d’une autre époque, sans fonder notre argument sur des faits irréfutables. Ci-joints, les dits faits.
Le κίναιδος et son ἑκτρωμα : La Saga Macron
Ceux qui ont voté pour ces monstres de la nature gagneraient plus à les voir tels qu’ils sont, que d’essayer de les faire paraître ce qu’ils n’ont jamais été.
“You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour.” Dixit Aristoteles. Where does one find courage or even honour nowadays? I can only see slavery, modern progressive slavery. For tis not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.
Last time around, the citizens of the Parisian State elected, by a modern and legal “majority” of 17% of legal voters, an illiterate homosexual married to a fraud and a trans-sexual. They will soon vote for another president. Whomever is elected does not rule. The military keep control over all military strategy, and weaponry, and gangsters enjoy the control of both local politics and all relevant policies.
Here they are for you .
f) The “Byzantine Empire” : quid pro quo.
49. Between 330 and 1453 Constantinople New Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire and then continued to be the Βασιλεύουσα ( Queen of All Cities ), with the same name until today. The Osmanli or Ottoman Empire and the Kemalic regime, call Constantinople, Istanbul, originating, according to professor Steven Runciman and any intelligent linguist, from the Greek : εἰς τὴν Πόλιν ( in the City ). The Queen of All Cities was never the capital of any “Byzantine Empire”. The European part of the Osmanli Empire was called “Rumeli” in Turanic languages, meaning : “Land of the Romans.” Even the Arabs, Persians, Indians, Japanese or Chinese or even the Muslim Osmali conquerors of the Roman Empire of New Rome were not aware of any “Byzantine Empire”. The occidental invention and ideological falsification of the so-called Byzantine Empire never existed except in Frankish conquered western Europe. Those who preach such nonsense are either uncultured liars with a hidden agenda – byzantinologists (?) such as “professor” Mango of Oxford – or else, brainwashed victims of the religious creators of this “Byzantine Empire” that never existed. Those who hide the Roman reality of this Empire are agents, haphazardly, of Charlemagne’s Frankish propaganda, who, in 794, decided that Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, or the Empire of the Romans, is a “Greek” Empire – as if this term and predicate meant something disparate or antagonistic! – in order to invalidate it in the eyes of the enslaved West Romans in conquered Gaul, Italy and Western Iberia. Ere long, ideologically enough, in 1557, this “Greek” Empire turned into Hieronymus Wolf’s “Byzantine Empire” – in his bad to, at best, mediocre translations from the Greek language in Corpus historiæ byzantinæ – to puzzle further and confuse scholastic scholars and other philosophical idiots. Later in time, the tiny and insignificant Modern Hellenic State, a Western protectorate and client State, obviously differed from the Greek Empire invented by Charlemagne in 794. This resulted in a clear distinction between Hellenes and Greeks in international law, believe it or not. Hellenes are the citizens of modern Hellas, the Greek State at the tip of the Haenus or Greek Peninsula ( Balkan in Turanic ), and the Greeks are … Greeks according to Western Powers, even if, until today, they continue to call themselves Romans in their native languages. The four Roman Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, for instance, call themselves Roman in Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Turkic, Farsi and Arabic. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are Roman in Coptic, Aramaic and Arabic, but Greek in European Languages, due maybe to French and British occupation upon World War I. Only Constantinople New Rome was exempted from such ideological treatment, as the Βασιλεύουσα was never occupied by the British or French. The latter Western imperialist powers faithfully apply Charlemagne’s lie of 794 to the Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Singularly enough, letters sent, in 1823, from Italy to the first capital of the liberated from Osmanli rule Peloponnese were addressed to Napoli di Romania ( Ναύπλιον Ῥωμανίας ) in order to distinguish it from Napoli d’Italia ( Νεάπολις–Παρθενόπη Καμπανίας ).
What if anything is a Byzantine if not the citizen or inhabitant of Βυζάντιον, or Βυζαντίς, the city founded by the mythical hero Βύζας, facing the established city of Χαλκιδών, on the Βόσπορος ( the Straight of the Bull ). The city of Βυζάντιον became, ad litteram, Nova Roma, the City of Constantine, Κωνσταντίνου Πόλις, the capital city of the Imperium Romanorum ( Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων ) the Empire of the Romans.
The “Byzantine Empire” is an incantation or a conjuration; an ideological falsification of history, and has never existed ! Ipso facto. However, occidental idiocy added the following adjectives and insinuations to the list of negative uttering : byzantine now means complex, complicated, intricate, tortuous, and to make a secret plan to do something wrong, harmful, or illegal.
e) During the 7th century BC the unassimilated Greek Latins of Alba Longa argued that the Greek Latins of Rome were no longer pure Greeks due to the fact that they intermixed with barbarians and other slaves and dependants in that region.
32. About 500 BC, there were “about fifty” Roman gentes, many of which had a population numbered in the thousands. A Patrician member of the senate lead each one of these gentes. All members of the gentes learned and embraced their laws ( νόμοι ) and rules ( προστάγματα ) of conduct from childhood; these laws and rules were kept in sacred books, away from prying eyes.[22] Their slaves and dependants spoke a form of Italian that developed into a Latin dialect mingled with Greek. It was these non Greek speaking dependants of Rome who finally forced the Romans to record these laws in written form.
33. The Romans produced a text of laws in proto-Latin in about 450 BC as a result of violent protests of these dependants and slaves, for these slaves and other dependants were not aware of the laws according to which they were being judged and ultimately punished by Roman magistrates. Faced with these revolts, the Roman Senate sent a delegation to Athens to explore all possibilities. The denouement was met in a set of 10 texts on bronze tables that finally became the “The Code of Twelve Tables.” Table 11 forbade the marriage between members of the gentes and the rest of the population of Rome, in other words, between those of Greek origin, and barbarians.
34. The determinant factor was that, for centuries, the Greek colonies were being slowly absorbed by barbarians among whom they lived. The Greeks’ idea was that the gentes had to remain pure and unsullied, for the sake of their Gods, in order to become aware of the sacrifices of their priests, as the boding be heeded, in pursuance of the Gods to acquiesce their decisions on legal, social and especially military matters.
35. In 445 BC, the tribune of the Plebeians, Gaius Canuleius, proposed a bill concerning the intermarriage of patricians and plebeians. The patricians did not like mixing their blood and subverting their principles inhered through the gentes and their families. The tribunes cautiously proposed that it should be lawful for some of the consuls to be elected by the plebs. Later, as many as nine tribunes proposed a new bill giving the people the possibility to elect consuls either from the plebs or the patricians. “Gaius Canuleius had a great plan! He was aiming at adulterating the gentes and undermining both public and private life strata. Confusion would ensue as origins and social distinctions are expunged. No man would be able to recognise neither himself nor his kindred. The gentes adjured: what was the object of promiscuous marriages, if not that plebeians and patricians might mingle together almost like beasts?”[23]
36. The “Decemviri Legibus Scribundis Consulari Imperio” had forbidden the intermarriage of Patricians and Plebeians; the simple reason was, they thought, that the Plebeians had neither the auspices of the Gods, as interpreted by Tiresias, the seer of Thebes, nor were they born of the first gentes. At this, the plebeians blazed with indignation and revolts. Hence the Conflict of the Orders between the Patricians, descendants of the original Greek gentes, and the Plebeians, of indefinite ancestry. [24]
39. According to Roman tradition, Rome was founded by the Latin twins: Romulus and Romos. Tullus Hostilius (672-640 BC), the King of Rome, made overtures to the King of Alba Longa, Mettius Fufetius[25], to unite the Latin and Roman peoples in order to cement stronger defense and ties in every other respect. They did not agree on who should become the leader. Mettius argued that “it is a fact that the Albanian race was unadulterated since the founding of the city, and one cannot point to any race of mankind , except the Greeks and Latins, to whom we have granted citizenship; whereas you have corrupted the purity of your body politic by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines,[ 26 ] and others in great numbers, so that the true-born element among you is a tiny fraction, in comparison with those of alien race. And if we should yield the command to you, the base-born will rule over the true-born, barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the native-born.”[27]
40. Livy, who wrote in Latin, reports this controversy as a quarrel between two Greek-speaking Latin States of the very same Trojan race. Subsequent to an interregnum, after Romulus and Numa Pompilius, the third king of Rome was Tullus Hostilius. “This monarch, writes Livy, was not only unlike the last, but was actually more warlike than Romulus had ever been.” Tullus manipulated circumstances in such a way that he trapped the Albanian envoys into admitting that they had instructions to declare war should restitution be denied to them. To this Tullus replied: ‘Tell your king that the Roman sovereign calls the Gods to witness that they may invoke malediction and all the disasters of this war on the guilty nation.’ With this answer the Albanians returned to their city, and both sides prepared for civil war, as if fathers were arrayed against sons; for both were of Trojan ancestry, since Lavinium [28] had arrived from Troy, Alba from Lavinium, and the Romans from the line of the Albanian kings. Still, no battle was fought, and when only the buildings of one of the cities had been destroyed, the two peoples merged into one.”[29] The differences between the Greek-speaking-Latin Albanians and the Greek-speaking Latin Romans had been finally settled not by war, but by a contest between Albanian triplet brothers on the one side, and Roman triplet brothers on the other side.[30] The Romans won, and so demolished the buildings of the Latin Capital of Alba Longa and transported the whole population of Albanian Latins to Rome and thus reunited both Latin peoples, once more, into one nation. The six patricians of the six gentes [31] of Alba Longa were added to the Roman Senate. The most famous member of the Albanian gens of the Julii was Julius Caesar. So whether the falsifiers of Roman history like it or not, Julius Caesar belonged to a Greek-Trojan-Latin gens/γένος.
41. Read the indexes at the end of the original texts of Roman history of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassos, both of whom give us a continuous narrative, where such names as Latins, Romans and Sabines abound, and you shall be able to trace true historical reality. Since 1954 however, in sharp contrast to original historical sources, we have writings of contemporary ‘specialists’ who deliberately circumvent, if not falsify original Greek and Roman sources, claiming that archaeology must be given prevalence over surviving written sources.
42. One of the best examples of such a crooked and ideological method is to put such names as “Latium, Latins” side by side, in the index and proceed, with the assumption that we have a geographical area the original inhabitants of which remain unknown. The use of archaeology is thus necessary, they pretend, in an attempt to uncover the layers of peoples who inhabited the area. And so, Latium becomes an area of archaeological study, as though one is not sure who lived in this area during antiquity. “The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume VII. The Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome” (published in 1954, pages 312 to 857) is an example of the use of such an ideological method. On page 956, “Latium, Latins” begins with “Aeneas…”; one tends to assume that the actual title is “Aeneas and Latium, Latins” So one turns to page 363, chapter XI, VI : The Foundation Legends” where Hugh Last of Oxford concludes that “the legends which grew up round the origin of Rome have so slight a value as evidence for the history of the city that they can claim little space: all that is needed is to make their irrelevance plain.” The question is whether the honourable writer is researching the sources and evaluating them, or distorting them in order to fit into the realm of 18th century British, French, German and, not in the least, Russian ideologies to make History fit their political plans to reorganise the maps of Europe and the Middle East, and give ideological variety to Father Charlemagne’s charlatanism of 794.
43. Roman historians, however, narrate a completely different History. Dionysius summarizes the reports of the Greek origin of the Romans, quoting Romans, as follows: “But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato (who compiled, with the greatest care, the ‘origins’ of Italian cities) Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say that they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia [ 32 ], and that they migrated many generations before the Trojan war.”[ 33 ] Livy asserts the same when he denotes the controversy between the Albanians and Romans that led to the destruction of Alba Longa, which in turn, led to the assimilation of the Albanian Latins in the Roman Nation. Everything else is ideological deception.
44. Ultimately, all Greek-speaking Latins and Greek-speaking Sabines joined the Roman Nation that was divided into Patrician gentes, and tribes of non-Greek origin, led by Tribunes, with the Latin language having merely become the scriptural medium of Roman legislation. Romans at large still spoke and were educated in Greek and not Latin. Latin was never spoken by any people at any time in history, whereas Greek is still spoken by some twenty million people today!
45. Starting in the 7th century and up to the 5th century BC, “…the plebes were being stirred up again by their tribunes, who postulated that the best political institutions for free men is freedom of speech (ισηγορία). They demanded all affairs, both private and public, be carried out according to voted laws. For, there did not exist, as of yet, among the Romans, an equality of rights, nor were there written principles of Justice.” This led to the adoption of the Code of the Twelve Tables. The Consuls of the Patricians and the Tribunes of the Plebs deliberated mainly in Latin, with Greek being used when the speaker spoke no Latin, as the Greek language was the common language of culture, education and daily intercourse of the gentes. This was the case up to the Frankish papacy of 1046, and the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066. Even today : when one wants to prove deep culture and sound education, learning and mastering Greek is the fundamental constituent of the entreprise.
46. As we have already noted, the population of France in 1789 included 2% nobility, 13% franchised middle class and 85% villains and serfs.[ 34 ] The latter 85% were enclosed within slave camps and guarded from escape by some 40,000 castles. These serfs and villains had been isolated from each other for so many centuries that they ended up speaking their own local patois of which some 35 are recorded and still spoken locally. This reality forced 85% of the population to learn and adopt the language of their former oppressors. There had to have been a very serious reason why the Frankish military kept so much of the population isolated from each other. It seems that the best explanation of this military phenomenon of the Franks until 1789 is to be found in the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals of 850.[ 35 ] These forged documents supported a Church structure that put the Frankish bishops directly under the control of the Pope of Rome and his curia, both of which were still Roman nationals, and therefore under the rule of the Roman Empire and its Roman Emperor in Constantinople New Rome. At the time the Franks accepted these Decretals as genuine and argued that they were valid locally only within the Roman Empire, a difficult argument to maintain when a small number of Franks were ruling over a far superior number of Romans. Soon enough, the Franks made their final decision to act decisively. The result was their final takeover of the Papacy by enthroning, from 1012 to 1046, their own lackeys. They consequently and permanently got rid of Roman Popes and their curia and controlled the Pope of Rome and his curia.
47. While the Norman Franks were in process of expelling the Roman army from Southern Italy and of helping the Italo-Franks wrest the Papacy from the Franconian emperors, their Duke William of Normandy invaded England with Pope Alexander’s blessing in 1066. He had his Lombard friend, the “Blessed Saint” Lanfranc, the pope’s teacher, installed as the first non-Roman /Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, and together they replaced all native bishops with Franks. All Celtic and Saxon bishops and abbots were dismissed en masse[ 36 ] and sentenced to prison to die premature deaths by torture and starvation.[ 37 ] The new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were in turn killed by the people whenever opportunity presented itself.[ 38 ] Indeed the Saxons and Celts celebrated the death of Lanfranc in 1089 by launching their third and most severe revolt against the Teutonic intruders.[ 39 ] The most famous of the Saxon revolutionary leaders against the Normans was Robin Hood. He had become ill and was taken by Little John to a nunnery where someone recognised him. The Norman nun who was curing him by bloodletting converted this cure into an assassination by letting him bleed to death. Little John and his men escaped to Ireland to continue their war against the Normans.[ 40 ] That Robin Hood and his men were fighting against bad King John in favour of good King Richard is an interesting and clever fable indeed. In any case, Norman reforms through military might turned into ‘crusades’ in both East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant Reformation and met with little success among the East Romans.
48. This tradition of murderous bishops, clergy and monks found their ‘theologian’ in Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. In his “De Laude novae militiae ad milites Templi” [ 41 ] he argues that the Knight Templars “that kill for religion, commit no evil, but rather do good for their people and themselves. If they die in battle, they gain heaven; if they kill their enemies, they avenge Christ. Either way, God is pleased.” [ 42 ] The Inquisition represented the highest ‘theological’ form of Frankish criminality. Tens of thousands were condemned and put to death for the satisfaction and in the name of God, or so the Teutonic Franks – depraved Popes, intemperate bishops, greedy princes and rapacious kings – preached. Ideologically, this all culminated with the jocund “Contra errores Graecorum, ad Urbanum IV Pontificem Maximum” of 1263 ( just a few years upon the sack of Constantinople and New Rome by the crusaders who, as a token of their tradition and Belief, defecated on the Holy Table of the Church of the Holy Wisdom of God [ Αγία τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφία ] before running off to Venice, Old Rome and elsewhere in Frankia with anything they can carry ) by – yet another – ‘Saint’ Thomas Aquinas, during which time, the substantive : ‘Greek’ started its semantic vocation as : ‘cheater, trickster and deceiver’, and that of ‘Roman’ started its new semantic parthenogenesis as utterly and completely separate from its Greek origins and reality, in order to establish the new ideological and religious powers of dictatorial and depraved Popes and kings.
[ 22 ] Diosysius, RA X.I-IV. Livy, AUC III. IX-XI. 459 B.C.
[ 23 ] Livy, Ibid, IV, 1ff.
[ 24 ] Livy, Ibid, IV, vi.1-3
[ 25 ] The quoted source used by Livy calls both leaders kings. I, XXII
[ 26 ] A Greek race but not a pure one.
[ 27 ] In the year 459BC Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, X.2-5. Livy, AUC, III, ix-x, 5
[ 28 ] The first town built by the Trojan refugees under Aeneas with permission from Latinus, King of the Arcadian Aborigines. Livy, AUC, I.i.1-6.
[ 29 ] Livy, AUC, I, xxiii, 1-2.
[ 30 ] Livy, AUC, I, xxiv ff.
[ 31 ] Livy, AUC, I, xxx, 2. Julii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii. Dionysius, RA, III, xxix,7. Ιου�”ίους, Σερουι�”ίους, Κορατίους, Κοιντι�”ίους, Κ�”οι�”ίους and �”ερανίους.
[ 32 ] Greece.
[ 33 ] Dionysius, RA, I, xi, 1ff.
[ 34 ] See footnote [ 9 ].
[ 35 ] John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, pp.20-32.
[ 36 ] For documented sources of the details of the murder of the Celtic and Saxon Bishops and abbots and their replacement by nobles from the Frankish realms of Francia, i.e. Gallia, Germania and Italia see Auguste Thierry, Histoire de la Conquête de l’ Angleterre par les Normands, Paris 1843, vol. 2, pp. 147 (1071-1072), 215-219 (1075-1076), 284, 313-314, 318 (1087-1094); vol. 3, pp. 35 (1110-1138), 214-215 (1203 ).
[ 37 ] Ibid. voI. 2, pp. 55;’ 66 (1068 ) 111,145,184 (1070-1072 ), 215 (1075-1076), 240-242 (1082), 313-316 (1088-1089); vol. 3, pp. 35, 44, 47 (1110-1140).
[ 38 ] Ibid.; vol. 2, pp. 232, 236 (1080); vol. 3; pp. 27, 36-37; 39 (1110-1138), 55 (1141-1142); vol. 4, p. 349 (1387).
[ 39 ] Ibid., vol, 2, p. 315. Robin Hood led a phase of this revolution until he was recognized by Norman nuns who let him bleed to death while curing him by bloodletting.
[ 40 ] 1189-1194. Accuse des ballades qui nous ont été conservées ne raconte la mort de Robin Hood; la tradition vulgaire est qu’il périt dans un convent de femmes; où un jour, se sentant malade, il était allé demander des secours. On devait lui tirer du sang, et la nonne qui savait faire cette opération, ayant reconnu Robin Hood, la pratiqua sur lui de manière � le tuer. (Percy’s Reliquides of ancient english poetry, vol. I, p.198, 6e cdd.)
Ce récit, qu’on ne peut ni affirmer ni contester, est assez conforme aux moeurs du XIIe siècle; beaucoup de femmes dans les riches monastères, s’ occupaient alors � étudier la médicine, et � composer des remèdes qu’elles offraient gratuitement aux pauvres. De plus, en Angleterre, depuis la conquête, les supérieures des abbayes et la plus grande partie des religieuses étaient d’ extraction normande, ainsi que le prouvent leurs statuts, rédigés en vieux francais (Regula monialium Beatae Mariae de Sopwell, in auctuario, additamentor, ad Matth. Paris, t I,p. 261) : cette circonstance explique peut-être comment le chef des bandits saxons, que les ordonnances royals avait mis hors la loi, trouva des ennemis dans le couvent où il était allé chercher assistance. Après sa mort, la troupe dont il était le chef et l’âme se dispersa; et Petit-Jean, son fidèle compagnon, désespérant de se maintenir en Angleterre, et poussé par l’envie de continuer la guerre contre les Normands, se rendit en Irlande, où il prit part aux révoltes des indigènes Ainsi fut dissoute la dernière troupe de brigands anglais qui ait eu un objet et un caractère politique, et qui mèrite par l� une mention dans l’histoire.
[ 41 ] Migne, P. L.182, .921-940.
[ 42 ] As summarized in The History of Feudalism, edited by David Herlihy, 1970, p. 282-283.
[ 43 ] The text is as follows: “Toujours entendu que, seront considérés dès-� -présent commes Hellènes, et prendront rang dans la catégorie de ceux qui profiteront du droit d’émigration:-1)Tous les Grecs natifs du Territoire Ottoman, qui ont émigré avant le 16 Juin, 1830, et qui ne sont pas retourné en Turqie pour s’y établir: 2) Les Grecs � qui le droit d’émigration a été accordé par le Protocole du 16 Juin, 1830, et qui ont émigré entre la date du dit Protocole et le 9 Decembre, 1835, jour où la Carte de la frontierè a été remise � la Porte; pourvu toujours qu’ils aient rempli les conditions requises � cet égard par le présent Acte.” State Papers 1836-1837, The Foreign Office, vol. 25, p. 792.
[ 44 ] C. M. Woodhouse, “Modern Greece, A Short History,” Faber and Faber, p. 122.
[ 45 ] See footnote [ 9 ].
[ 46 ] As far a we know from dialogue with Jews the cure in question was part of Old Testament Hassidic tradition and evidently is still so.
18. Etymology clearly divulges the Greek origin of the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines. The claim that Rome is simply a geographical denomination, that may be Etruscan, is unsubstantiated if not sheer nonsense.
19. In Greek, Ρώμη, Rome, means : power, force, health, fighting army and speed tactics.[18]
20. Ρώμη, Rome means : health and bodily strength, power, might and force in Greek, from the Homeric verb : 1) ρώομαι, meaning : “I move with speed or violence, I dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors.”[19]
21. Ρώμη also stems from the Greek passive verb: 2) ρώννυμι : to strengthen, make strong and mighty, and to put forth strength, have strength or might.[20]
22. The closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, in Greek : ρέω meaning : “Ι flow, run, hasten.”
23. Of all the uses of Latin verbs, both active and passive, there is none that even comes close to the meaning and etymology of Ρώμη!
24. Further, the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) which dictionaries translate into : citizen. But the Romans had a word for citizen : civis ; in Greek : πολίτης. The simple words quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek : κοῦρος, κούρητες meaning : young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, “young men, esp. young warriors,” Iliad 19. 193, 248.[21] Logically therefore, the Romans, Latins and Sabines originally called themselves first “warriors” and later “citizens.”
25. It is from the original military structure of the Roman army of κούρητες that the first government was fashioned into thirty curiae of 1000 men, each grouped into three tribes.
26. Just like the rest of the Greeks, Romans, Latins and Sabines were sea-faring and warring sailors who came to Italy, by sea, from Greece and Ionia. Like the rest of the Greeks, at their weddings, they chanted in chorus : Θαλάσσιος! (courageous warring sailor!) to the groom.
27. Of the seven hills of Rome, the Quirinalis collis, the hill of Mars, was where the Sabines settled. It was from that same hill that the Roman warriors of Romulus stole their wives. Quiris meant both spear and God of War for the Sabines. Their war god was Κοῦρος, in their original Greek language. Mars came to be much later in time.
28. According to Roman tradition, Romulus did not die. He ascended to heaven since he was the Quirinus (Kοῦρος), the God of War.
29. Consequently, it is a matter of fact that the Romans, the Latins and the Sabines identified themselves as Greeks. They spoke Greek and lived according to Greek social, military, cultural and religious ancestral traditions.
30. Γένος, or those born of the same land, is one of the three words – the other two being : γλῶσσα and θρησκεία – used to identify the Greeks from foreign tribes and nations. The Latin word is exactly the same: gens. However, neither γένος nor gens is a linguistic equivalent of “race”! It was this very linguistic stipulation, gens, which the barbaric and primitive Teutons – 
whether Franks, Saxons, Vandals, Vikings, Gauts or other Germans – used to designate their races and their own nobility, as contrasted to the conquered and subdued West Romans, whom they reduced to slavery and called villains and serfs, right up to the French Revolution of 1789.
31. Beginning at about the 11th century, and in sharp contrast to the serfs and villains of 1789, the ancestors of the revolutionary middle class of 1789 were those Romans who had escaped the slavery camps and forts of their Frankish lords and châtelains (castellani or fortress dwellers). They began building fortified towns at about the period that these same châtelains and castellani were, in turn, becoming independent from royal power. As of the 11th century, the kings and dukes started offering protection to these independent towns by installing their extortioner garnisons within their walls. Ancient maps mention “Frankish Quarters” where these garnisons quartered within the fortified citadels. The king or duke was paid handsomely for this protection, since the descendants of these franchised (set free and adopted Franks ; whence the expression : free and franc ) towns developed into wealthy middle class havens and markets. In due civil war course, this made the King of Frank-Reich (the Empire of the Franks) or France, pour les intimes, the most wealthy Mafioso in Europe, and France became a tremendous mafiosità of over twenty million serfs and villains. Ultimately, one can safely state that the French middle class and the serfs and villains of 1789 are direct descendants of imperial Romans, of Elder Rome as well as New Rome.
Notae :
18 ] H. G. Liddell and R. Scot, “Greek-English Lexicon,” look up “Pώμη”
[ 19 ] Ibid, look up “ρώομαι”
[ 20 ] Ibid, look up “ρώννυμι”
12. According to Cicero, one of the first Romans to write in Latin was the Sabine Claudius (gens), Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. His speech to the Senate, in Latin, was against making peace with Pyrrhus, the Greek king of Epirus.
13. The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).
14. One would logically ask : what language did the Romans speak, read and write before Latin if not Greek? Why are all occidental commentators so very silent about this issue ?
15. All of the aforementioned occidental commentators agree on the general outlines of Roman beginnings (Ursprung), as this is revealed through the existence of the official Roman “sacred tablets” (Ιεραί Δέλτοι) or annales maximi [15] mentioned by the first annalists. However, the original annales have been lost, and we only have what historians and annalists mention, due to the uncertainty of the events and figures, and the confused state of the Roman calendar prior to the Julian Reform.
16. On the basis of unreliable Cato fragments, the Gallo-Roman French revolutionaries of 1789 reckoned that the Romans and Greeks were one and the same people, as one group of French revolutionaries were called the “Catonistes à la Robespierre”, at which revolutionary time, the overwhelming majority of Gallo-Romans were re-gaining control of the land, plundered, for so many centuries, by a tyrannical Teutonic Frankish minority of just about 2% of the population.[16] Enthusiasm for Greco-Roman antiquity and hatred for Papal Christianity, used by the Frankish conqueror to completely debase 85% of the population, led to the establishment of a new revolutionary natural religion, overriding Papal Christianity.
In spite of Cato’s popularity during the French Revolution, only fragments of his work were and still are publicly known. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the only historian we know of who differentiates between Greek and Roman sources regarding Roman chronology and the henceforth tendentious falsifications, very popular since the sacking of Rome in 390 BC. The stories concerning the founding of Rome are the most tendentious anomalies entertained through misinterpretations, cognomina and anomalies ever since the fourth century BC. Despite both Cato and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, they all agree to efface the Greek origins of Rome, its peoples and its empire. The chronological scheme is supposed to be based on the Ιεραί Δέλτοι, i.e. sacred tablets,[17] or the Septimontium. The only outcome is the utter ridicule concerning the founding of Rome, and the first five centuries of its historical existence. In short, according to occidental ideology of history, nothing happened before Julius Caesar, and the Romans suddenly spake Latin out of the historic blue!
17. Livy reports a short but accurate summary account of the foundation annals. He takes for granted that Rome was founded as a Greek city and nation. He wrote his history in Latin, whereas the historic annals were written in Greek. Those who wrote in Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was Lucius Cassius Hemina who started writing the annals of Roman history in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use of appropriate Greek texts and speeches at their disposal, which they would have had to translate; those who wrote their histories in Greek, simply copied the Greek texts directly from the annals. Since the primitive Romans were Greeks, why should the official annals be in what we now call Latin? As mentioned earlier, the primitive Latins and Romans were a combination of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians and Lacedaemonian Sabines. Just as it is clear there has never been any Roman Gods, religion or Mythology; the Gods were Greek, as were the people who believed in them. We can even state there has never been any kind of Latin or Roman culture, architecture, music, science or anything pertaining to advanced civilisation. Everything was Greek; and educated Romans learned, spoke and wrote in Greek. Only second rate political figures and annalists wrote in Latin.
Notae :
[ 15 ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These “Ιεραί Δέλτοι”(sacred tablets) are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome’s beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions quoted by Dionysius as follows: 1) “Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albanians (Αλβανοί) sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name.”
[ 16 ] In preparation for the convocation of representatives of the clerical and lay nobility and of the middle class the king ordered a counting of the total population of about 26,000,000 which resulted in the following breakdown: nobility 2%, middle class 13% and villains and serfs 85%. For these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Staël’s book, Considérations sur La Révolution Française, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquier, La population française aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris (Que sais-je?) 1979. Madame de Staël (1766-1817) was the daughter of Louis XVI’s Finance Minister Jacques Necker (1732-1804). These figures are also in DICTIONNAIRE GENERAL de la POLITIQUE par M. MAURICE BLOCK, NOUVELLE EDITION, TOME PREMIER, PARIS 1873, p. 1023
[ 17 ] Just quoted.
10. The first four Roman Statesmen, annalists and historians wrote in Greek, namely :
11. The first judicial text in primitive Latin was the Leges Duodecim Tabularum (Code of the Twelve Tables) promulgated in 450 BC solely for the plebeians. The Greek Γένη (gentis) abided by their own secret laws, which they learned and memorized from childhood. These laws were exclusively interpreted by Pontifices, Quindequimi, Augures and Epulones, all of whom were Greek priests who guarded the Φιάλη, Δίσκος, Libations and Sibylline Books. This is why the tradition of Roman public laws in Latin resulted from the cooperation between the consuls of the gentis and the tribunes of the plebeians. Many of the plebeians were fluent in Greek. Thus, they became part of the administration of the Greek speaking world.
1. We shall name Greek-speaking peoples those of ancient Greek cultures and dialects, and we shall name them Greeks as an ethnic group. Among them were the Romans, whose Latin language was still a recognizable Greek dialect during the time of Augustus Caesar (27 BC-14 AD). The rhetorician Quintilian (c. AD 35-95) regards “Aeolic” Greek as closest to Latin.[5] This was mentioned during the time of Augustus Caesar by the Greek historian of “Roman Antiquities,” Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 or 55 BC-c. 21 AD). He writes : “The language spoken by the Romans is neither utterly foreign (βάρβαρον) nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it were, the greater part of which is Aeolic ; the only disadvantage of this intermingling of various nations is that they fail to pronounce their vowels and sounds correctly. However, they preserve beyond any doubt their true Greek origin.”[6] Further, the Latin alphabet, is an utter copy of the alphabet used in the city of Chalkis, on Euboia, in Greece.
2. Primitive Greek Latins, whose capital was Alba Longa, were conquered by the Romans and were thus absorbed into the Roman nation. Then, in 85 BC, all Italiote tribes allied to Rome and serving in the Roman army were called Latin. These Italiotes had revolted demanding Roman citizenship. Instead of becoming Roman citizens, they had to settle with being called Latins. Later, in 212 A.D. during the reign of Emperor Caracalla (211-217), these Italiote Latins became Romans.
3. Οriginally, after the Trojan War, the Latins were a Greek-speaking tribe that lived South of the Tiber River, and whose capital was Alba Longa, the citizens of whom were called Albanians (Αλβανοί). These primitive Latins were composed of the following tribes:
These Greek-speaking Arcadians, Pelasgians, Lacedaemonians, Dorians and Trojans constituted what became the Latin Nation of Alba Longa and Rome. The Trojans were refugees from the Trojan War headed by Aeneas. King Latinos of the Aborigines accepted these refugee Trojans into his tribe and gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas. Those tribes who united through marriage, called their land Λάτιον/Latium, in honour of Latinos, and called themselves Latins. Their capital was Alba Longa. According to one mythological tradition, Rome was founded by the twin Albanian brothers, Romulus and Romos (Remus); during the same period, some of the Lacedaemonian Sabines joined this new Roman nation.[7]
4. “Historians” seem to obliterate the very existence of these five primitive Greek-speaking tribes who united and branched off into Albanians and Romans. These erudites maintain that the Roman language is non Greek Latin. This is so in spite of the Roman sources that describe Greek as the first language of the Latins and the Romans. It seems that Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 was based on Western clergy hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans, enslaved to the Franco-Teutons, from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly upholds Charlemagne’s Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871, he writes to the Emperor of the Romans at Constantinople, Basil I (867-885) that “…we arrogate the Government of the Roman Empire according to our Orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be Emperors of the Romans due to their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the Capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman Nationality, including the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language.”[8]
5. A sophisticated version of Charlemagne’s Lie is based on the finds of modern archaeology according to which the origin of the Romans remains unknown simply because the Romans themselves had forgotten who their ancestors were. In a subchapter “2. The Early History of Latium” The inhabitants of ancient Latium, so goes this thesis, had no recollection of their immigration to the country. Roman writers, in a vain endeavour, reconcile this native tradition[9] with random speculations of Greek historians, turned the Latins into a conglomerate of Aborigines, Ligurians and Sicels. Under the light of modern research, they appear to be one of the youngest of Italian peoples.”[10]
6. Let us contrast this claim with Roman historical reality and the process through which Rome became the ruler of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of all the Greek speaking Italiotes. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines[11] who settled in the area later known as Rome came from Achaia, Greece, many generations before the Trojan War.[12] The Aborigines had settled together with the Greek Pelasgians of Italy, who had been partially decimated by a mysterious sickness.[13] Porcius Cato’s mentions the history of the Pelasgians in Italy, and their union with the Aborigines, in his “De Origines”; and later, Dionysius adduces the same. These Aborigines, Pelasgians, Trojans and Dorians constitute the ancient Greek-speaking Latins whose capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek speaking Latins of Alba Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome, on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of Italy who had settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. As we know, the Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece.[ 14 ] The Romans slowly subdued the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines and absorbed them into their political system.
7. Some of the Danubian Celts entered Northern Italy, and began pressing upon the Etruscans, who turned to Rome for help. The Celts, however, overran the Roman forces who tried to stop them, defeated the main Roman army in battle, and entered Rome in 390 BC. They occupied the whole of the city except the steep Capitoline Hill. The Romans had placed there all of their youth, treasures and records. The older population remained in their homes. After receiving a substantial ransom of gold, the Celts withdrew. In order to better protect Rome, the Romans subdued the rest of Northern Italy. The Romans also incorporated into their dominion the Greek Italians of Magna Graecia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. These were the Roman territories in 218 BC.
8. The Punic Wars under the leadership of Hamilcar, and especially of Hannibal, became the biggest threat to Rome since the Celtic occupation. Hannibal invaded Italy itself with his famous elephants, with Macedon as an ally. Macedon had conquered Rome’s traditional Greek allies. Rome went as far as Spain to uproot the Punic strongholds there, and finally burned Carthage itself. The Romans crossed over into Greece to liberate her Greek allies from Macedon, and ended up conquering the Macedonian Empire and incorporating it into the Roman Empire. The Romans turned Greek democracies into oligarchies. They also helped Galatian and Cappadocian allies of the Greeks and liberated them from King Mithridates VI of Pontus (121/120-63 BC). This resulted in the incorporation of Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia into the Roman Empire. Consequently, the Mediterranean Sea became the central lake of the Roman Empire.
9. It was the Greek Romans of Italy who finally united all Greek and Latin speaking tribes into one nation.
Notes :
[ 5 ] Institutio Oratoria, 1, 6, 31
[ 6 ] Roman Antiquities I, XC.1.
[ 7 ] Plutarch’s Lives, Romulus, XVI, “Now the Sabines were a numerous and war like people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them, since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless.”
[ 8 ] John S. Romanides, “Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine,” Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p. 18.
[ 9 ] Could refer to anything in the preceding pages 1-30.
[ 10 ] M. Cary, A History of Rome, London 1963, p. 30.
[ 11 ] Evidently called “the original dwellers” by those who arrived later in the area of what became known as the seven hills of Rome which area had been uninhabitable because volcanic.
[ 12 ] “But the most learned of Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Semporonis and many others, say they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and migrated many generations before the Trojan war.” as quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, I, XI. It is in the light of this that we read Livy’s remarks about the Aborigines in his “From the Founding of the City,” I, 5-II, 6.
[ 13 ] Dionysius, Ibid I, xvii-xxx, 5.
[ 14 ] Plutarch’s Lives, Romulus, XVI.
[ 15 ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These “hierais deltois”(sacred tablets) are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome’s beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions quoted by Dionysius as follows: 1) “Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albanians (Αλβανοί) sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name.”
[ 16 ] In preparation for the convocation of representatives of the clerical and lay nobility and of the middle class the king ordered a counting of the total population of about 26,000,000 which resulted in the following breakdown: nobility 2%, middle class 13% and villains and serfs 85%. For these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Stahl’s book, Considérations sur La Révolution Française, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquier, La population français aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris (Que sais-je?) 1979. Madame de Stahl (1766-1817) was the daughter of Louis XVI’s Finance Minister Jacques Necker (1732-1804). This total is also taken from DICTIONNAIRE GENERAL de la POLITIQUE par M. MAURICE BLOCK, NOUVELLE EDITION, TOME PREMIER, PARIS 1873, p. 1023
Mettius Fufetius, the Latin King of Alba Longa, claims that the Romans of Tullus Hostilius (672-640 BC), the Latin King of Rome, are no longer pure Greeks, whereas his Albans are still pure Greeks. Within this context we shall study
The joke is on the fibbers, such as the ψευτο-Πολίτης muppet Cyril Alexander Mango, former Oxford professor and “Byzantinologist”, he thinks. Why and for which reasons, would you ask?
Because the primitive Romans of Latium were a union of such Greek speaking tribes as: Pelasgians, Aborigines, Sabines and Trojans. This is the football we are passing on to the gormless specialists in Roman, Greek and so-called Byzantine History to play around with.
In other words, wonky Charlemagne was an illiterate usurper, a political fraud and a Teutonic liar – just like the States that hold him in good historic esteem : the Westeners of Europe, such as France and Germany, to name but two tyrannical States – but he, with the help of his Frankish clergy, knew the truth : the ancient Romans were indeed Greek speaking. This will be our subject in the coming days when we shall consider history unintermittently, learn the truth and have fun !
