7#qjvm^DJXXXX d n xxxxx !MUNITED TO MODERN TECHNOLOGY, THE SICKNESS OF RELIGION IS LEADING TO ECOLOGICAL SUICIDE, HAPPINESS AND GLORIFICATION ARE ENGAGED IN THEIR PRIMORDIAL COMBAT, AND THE SCIENCE OF FALSIFYING HISTORY FOR CONTROLLING OTHERS IS STILL QUITE BUSY. by John S. Romanides Table of contents 1. The task before us, the Overall Key to this study and its Five specific Keys. Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789. a) 85% of the population of France were slaves when Her Revolution began in 1789. b) The official census of the population of France just before the Revolution completely contradicts the claim that the Gallo-Romans and Franks had become one nation. This is especially so since these serfs and vilains became French in 1789. c) Was it by their First Crusade that Teutonic barbarians began carrying their hard won cultural and political dominion overseas? d) The Sealed Letters of the King of France united the nobility and the middle class in demanding the rule of law agreed to by elected legislative assemblies. e) But the nobles and middle class were divided over whether to have a British type Parliament with two houses, one of Lords and one of Commoners, or one mixed one. f) The Catonistes la Robespierres. g) Outmaneuvered by Napoleon, the New Charlemagne Key Two: a)The primitive Greek Romans. b) The first Roman historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. WHY? c)The Sabine Claudius Appius Caecus and Porcius Cato were the first to write prose and history in Latin. Key Three: The Judaio-Christian Romans. Key Four: The sickness of religion based on the quest for happiness and its cure based on glorification. (see sections 3, 4, 6, 30, 33). Key Five: The struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks. 2. Those who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why? 3. The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion. 4. The Five keys to the Bible. 5. Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine. 6. The sickness of religion within Franco-Latin Christendom and Orthodoxy today. 7. Sociology, religion and criminality. 8. There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Roman Orthodox Church. They are Latin and Greek speaking Roman Fathers of the Church. 9. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks. 10. The real Latins of Roman history. 11. Why "Byzantine"? 12. The final version of Roman history. 13. More about the sickness of religion and the falsification of history. 14. The cure of the sickness of religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine. 15. The Final Official history of Rome. 16. Terms indicating the Greek background of the Latins, Romans and Sabines. 17. Equality based on the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain. 18. Charlemagnes strategy required that real Romans be Latin speaking. a) Frankish Defensive Needs. b) The Real Latins and The Franco-Latins. c) More about the Frankish need to falsify history 19. Because of their complete slavery to Augustine the Franks and their spiritual descendants never understood the Roman Fathers and still do not understand them. 20. Augustine (354-430) and Ambrose (340-397). 21. The rise of the Lie of "Byzantine" history and Balkanization. 22. Roman and Franco-Latin Popes of Rome. 23. Local and Ecumenical Councils. 24. The method underlying this part of the paper. 25. Historical context. 26. Robin Hood Orthodox martyr? 27. Roman Christians and Roman Greeks. 28. The West Romans in bondage to the Franco-Latins. a) Killer Bishops. b) What happened to apostolic succession? 29. What is western civilization? 30. The sickness of religion. 31. Modification of the usual understanding of human nature. 32. The Council of Orange (529) rejected Augustine's understanding of Rom. 5:12. 33. Synods as associations of neurological clinics for curing the sickness of religion: (a) Heaven and Hell; (b) Paul's window on the Church; (c) Neurobiological clinic; (d) Not of the world but in the world; (e) Theology and dogma; (f) The Mysteries; (g) Prophets and intellectuals; (h) Prophets and Franco-Latin Popes; (i) Prophets and Fathers; (j) The Lord of Glory and the Ecumenical Councils; (k) "Do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thes. 5:19); l) The charisma of translation. 34. Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity and the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils. 35. Synods and civilizations. 36. Conclusions Select Bibliography. UNITED TO MODERN TECHNOLOGY, THE SICKNESS OF RELIGION IS LEADING TO ECOLOGICAL SUICIDE, HAPPINESS AND GLORIFICATION ARE ENGAGED IN THEIR PRIMORDIAL COMBAT, THE SCIENCE OF FALSIFYING HISTORY FOR CONTROLLING OTHERS IS STILL QUITE BUSY. by John S. Romanides 1. The task before us, the Overall Key to this study and its Five specific Keys. The turns of historical events described in this study is part of a primordial conflict between centers for the cure of the sickness of religion and centers for the propagation of the sickness of religion. In other words the transformation has been from Old and New Testament centers of the cure of the sickness of religion by the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification into centers for the pursuit of the fantasy of happiness now united to modern technology, is driving the world to ecological suicide. A time of such an destruction was debated between God and Abraham (Gen. 18;23-33). The latter had gotten up enough courage to ask Yaweh how many just ones must exist in Sodom in order to avoid the destruction of the city. Abraham began by asking Will you (Yahweh) indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Abraham began bargaining with God for fifty righteous, then for forty five, then for forty, then thirty, then twenty, then finally ten. In the Old and New Testaments the just ones are those who are undergoing the cure for the sickness of happiness by means of the purification and illumination of the heart on their way to glorification. This tradition of cure was that which was being abandoned by every heresy condemned by the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils. Indeed the Roman Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 condemned the heretical teachings and practices of Barlaam the Calabrian not knowing that they were the teaching and practices of Augustine. Herein we have the difference between the Roman Orthodox tradition and the Augustinian Franco-Latin tradition. But how did this difference come about? The basic reason for this development was that Charlemagnes (742(3)-814) newly established Palatine School knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. This first Frankish school knew completely only Augustine and therefore used him as the key to its theology and dogmas. In this way Augustinian Platonism captured the foundations of Carolingian thinking and action. Augustines work Beata Vita (the Happy Life) became the chief cornerstone of Carolingian Civilization, now called Western Civilization. This corner stone was transferred to the Papacy when it was captured by the Franco-Latins during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated between 1009-1046 making this new Frankish Papacy the center of this happiness seeking Civilization.. This fact is graphically demonstrated at the very end of the service of the Beatification of a candidate for sainthood when the Pope shouts at him, You are Indeed Happy. There is no way of dealing with the reality of Christianity today except in terms of the Franco-Latin falsification of the history of the Roman Empire. That this is the only route to follow is clear from the very fact that the dogmas and canons of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils were, from 325 AD to 1341, incorporated into Roman Law. To get at this reality we are obliged to deal with the falsification of this historical reality by the Franco-Latins since the time of Charlemagne (742(3)-814) on the one hand and by the Russians since Peter the Great (1672-1724) on the other hand. The latters Latinization of the Russian Church was transferred with the cooperation of the British and French Empires to most of the Orthodox Churches within a dissolving Ottoman Empire. Rather than supporting Churches as centers for the cure of the sickness of religion, these Three Empires supported instead the transformation of these Orthodox Churches into centers for the spread of the sickness of religion. John 17 is the par excellence prayer of Christ for the unity of His disciples and their disciples in the cure of the sickness of religion by means of their glorification by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit which is the culmination of the purification and illumination of their centers of their personalities in their hearts. This prayer of the Lord of Glory Incarnate has nothing whatsoever to do with divided Churches which have not the slightest inkling of the cure of glorification in question. Most Christians, Jews and many Moslems who live in or derive from the former territories of the Roman Empire have Roman ancestry. In contrast the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility came into the Roman Empire as conquerors of the West Romans whom they transformed into their serfs and vilains and their middle class. The descendants of these conquerors are on the whole the royalties and nobilities of Europe. In other words those West Europeans who are not members of these royalties and nobilities are at least mostly descendants of conquered Romans. Moslem Arabs came into Roman territories via the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. Then Moslem Turks began conquering Roman provinces via Armenia and Cappadocia and finally Constantinople New Rome itself in 1453 followed by the capture of great segments of Eastern Europe. This had been made easier by the conquest of Constantinople New Rome by the Franks in 1204. The Romans expelled the Franks from their capital in 1261, but were so weakened by the Frankish occupation that the Turkish conquest of 1453 had become easier. During the time of these conquests by Franks, Arabs and Turks many Romans had become Moslem but hardly anyone joined the religion of the Frankish Pope of Rome. But the Romans who did not choose to become Moslems were allowed to remain Christians, whereas the Franco-Latins each time forced bishops upon the Romans as a matter of historical policy. West Romans had no choice when Franco-Latin nobility and bishops were forced upon them and forcefully transformed them into their slaves as serfs and vilains. This was part of the process of being converted to Frankish Christianity which forcefully took over the Roman Orthodox Churches of Elder Rome between 1009 and 1046, of Southern Italy in 1071 and of England in 1066-1070. It was only in Spain and Portugal that the Roman Orthodox Church was surviving under the Umayyad Arabs and by agreement were called Melkites i.e. the Rum Orthodox who belonged to the Roman Emperor in New Rome. When the Goths re-conquered Spain they purified the country as the Normans had done in England. The Spanish Inquisition was the most barbaric of all such accomplishments. In sharp contrast to this Franco-Latin enslavement of West Roman society by removing Roman bishops and putting it under Latin ones, both Moslem Arabs and Turks did not transform conquered Romans into their slaves. On the contrary they appointed the Roman clergy as leaders of Roman society which became a very important source of taxes. The Umayyad Arabs of Spain accepted the Roman Emperor as the Chief of the Rum (Roman) Orthodox and the Abbasid Arabs did the same within their Empire. Of the five Roman Patriarchates of The Roman Empire, i.e. 1) Elder Rome, 2) Constantinople New Rome, 3) Alexandria, 4) Antioch and 5) Jerusalem, that of Elder Rome was captured by the Franks during a struggle which broke out in 983 when German Emperors began trying to impose Franco-Latin Popes on the Papal throne. This struggle reached its climax in 1009 or 1014 when the German Emperor appointed turncoat Romans who grabbed the lucrative Papal throne in exchange for adding the Filioque to the Creed. Finally the German Emperor Henry IV replaced this breed of Roman Pope by a Saxon German as Clement II on Christmas eve 1046 and have been Franco-Latin since. Being Franco-Latin since 1047 the Papacy and its bishops continue to call themselves Roman Catholics. In this way they have been playing at being a Roman Papacy and Church since. During this time they reduced most of their conquered West Romans to slavery and kept the free East Romans from West Roman view under the cover of the names Greeks and heretics. When the Empires of Great Britain, France and Russia gained influence or occupied parts of the Ottoman Empire they managed to get the Orthodox Churches of the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem to call themselves Greek in English and French. Thus the Orthodox Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continue to call themselves Roman in Greek, Arabic and Turkish, but were obliged or tricked into calling themselves Greeks in the English, French and Russian languages. The re-union of all the descendants of the Romans throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand in their ancient Roman identity may be a possibility to be looked at with some interest and usefulness. This re-union of the Roman Orthodox world is at the same time each ones cure of the sickness of religion and is at the same time the power which will slam down the brakes on the happiness mongering fiends who are destroying society and nature. Within the above context the two Overall Keys to this study are: a) the primordial conflict between happiness and glorification and b) the use of the falsification of history to enslave others. These two overall keys are broken down into the following Five Keys: Key One: The French Dark Ages. Key Two: The primitive Greek Romans. Key Three: Greek Romans and Christian Romans. Key Four: The Struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks. Key Five: the Biblical foundation of the cure of the neurobiological sickness of religion, especially based on 1 Cor. 12-15:11. We will not deal with these parts in consecutive order. The reason for this is that the vision of history of both the pagan Romans and Christian Romans has been so adulterated by Franco-Latin propaganda that we are obliged at times to mix these parts together. Key One: The French Dark Ages up to 1789. 0a) 85% of the population of France were still slaves when Its Revolution began in 1789. These 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves belonged to either the smaller group of vilains or to the larger group of serfs. A little before the outbreak of the French Revolution the King of France had ordered a census of the population as part of his preparation for convoking the Estates General which was composed of 1) the Higher Clergy, almost all of them noble, 2) the lay Nobility and 3) the Middle Class. The total of this Estates General would be composed of an assembly of 300 members of each group for a total of 900. The census thus taken revealed approximately the following results: 1) The Nobility numbered 530,000 or Two (2%) Percent of the population, 2) the Middle Class numbered 3,445,000 or Thirteen (13%) Percent of the total and 3) the Serfs and Vilains numbered 22,525,000 or Eighty Five (85%) Percent of the population. The grand total was some 26,500,000. The slave population of vilains and serfs numbered some 22,525,000 and were guarded from escape by the castellani (chtelaines) of some 40,000 fortresses. The Middle Class revolted at the start of the Assembly Constituante demanding a total of 600 members (which finally became 700) to counterbalance the 600 Clergy and Lay nobles. Their revolt paid off making a grand total of 1,200 or 1,300 seats, Noble and Middle Class, the latter of which finally included 38 farmers and only one real vilain. This single vilain was supposed to be representing 22,525,000 Gallo-Roman slaves, i.e. vilains and serfs. There was not one serf delegate to represent the serfs. One can clearly see from these statistics why the history of the France up to 1789 was considered the tail end of the Dark Ages and of the Ancient Regime. b) This official census of the population of France just before the Revolution completely contradicts the claim that the Gallo-Romans and Franks of France had become one nation. This is so especially since these serfs and vilains became French in 1789. This 1789 figure of 85% serfs and vilains, guarded from escape by the castellani (Chtelaines) of 40,000 castles, completely belies the claim of modern historians that the Franks and Romans of Merovingian Gaul had already become one nation going into the age of the Carlovingian Franks which officially began in 751. This position about the fusion of the Frankish and Gallo-Roman races is supported by such British Noble Historians as Sir Samuel Dill in his book Roman Society in Gaul in the Merovingian Age, Macmillan, London 1926. It is also supported by such American specialists as Gerald Simons and the Editors of Time-Life Books in their volume entitled BARBARIAN EUROPE, 1968. In his introduction to this volume Prof. Karl F. Morrison, of the University of Chicago, observes that, For a long time, it was usual to think of the six centuries that followed (i.e. the Teutonic conquest of the West Romans) as an age of gloomy and static barbarism. We know now that it was instead an age of great challenges and magnificent achievements, a time when the most essential elements of Western civilization-and indeed the very ethnic composition of Europe-hung in the balance...By the mid-11th Century the die was cast. Europe had passed from a conglomeration of wandering tribes to stable kingdoms, and it was on the verge of carrying its hard-won cultural and political dominion overseas, through the Crusades. c) Was it by their First Crusade that Teutonic barbarians carried their hard won cultural and political dominion overseas? Indeed the First of these Crusades was the Norman conquest of England in 1066 by William the Conqueror. He and his bishops condemned all native Saxon, Irish, Welsh and Scottish bishops as heretics and schismatics and sentenced them to life in prison where they died of torture and starvation. These native bishops of England were condemned because 1) they had not accepted the Popes who had been forced upon the Papacy by the German Emperors after 1014 and because 2) these bishops of England had been abiding by the faith of the Seventh (786/7) and Eighth (879) Roman Ecumenical Councils. Both these Roman Councils were condemned by two Frankish Councils, that of Frankfurt (794) against Icons and that of Aachen (809) which condemned those who refuse the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Roman Creed of 381. From its very birth Frankish theology and dogma came into existence as an attack weapon against the Roman Empire. During the first of these Frankish doctrinal attacks against the Roman Empire in 794 the very the first Frankish theologian in history, Rabanus Maurus (776-856), was 18 years old and during this second doctrinal attack in 809 he was 33 years old.. Rabanus had been a student at Charlemanges Palatine School directed by the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (735-804). It was this Alcuin who evidently composed the Libri Carolini which calls the Imperium Romanum pagan and heretical. Then the Franks realized that it is not good policy to degrade the name Romania in this way since this was the name of the Papal States, but also South Italy, being attacked by the Arabs, was also called Romania because still part of the Roman Empire of New Rome. So Charlemagne decided to call the Roman Empire by the name The Heretical Greek Empire in order to exclude Papal Romania from this accusation of heresy and thus promote the lie that the Roman Papacy sided with him. So from its very beginning Frankish theology and dogma was simply an anti Roman weapon disguised under the name anti Greek heresy. The fact remains that 85% of the population of France were still slaves in 1789. These slaves were neither not yet even French, nor even anywhere near to participating in these great achievements of Western Civilization. For in 1788 the gloom and the barbarism of the Dark Ages were still working against them and began dissipating only in 1789 when they were freed from slavery and made part of this nation of Franchised Gallo-Roman by becoming the middle class along with the noble Franks. The very verb Franchised (Affrancie) means that one has become free by becoming a Frank who were alone free until the middle class began to be created about the 11-12th century and in 1789 when the free peasant class began to be created. They are still called peasants, but no longer serfs and vilains. The nobles themselves were either nobles of the sword, descended from the original conquerors, or nobles of the robe, Franks by royal adoption. d) The Sealed Lettersof the King of France united the nobility and the middle class in demanding the rule of law agreed to by elected legislative assemblies. The nobility and middle class enjoyed relative freedom and wealth when compared to the serfs and vilains. Yet they lived in fear, however, that someone may manage to get the king, or the king may on his own initiative, issue a Royal Sealed Letter naming a certain individual. This individual would be taken into custody by the police and made to disappear. In other words the King had a similar power over the individual members of the nobility and the middle class as the nobles had over their serfs and vilains in the heyday of Feudalism. Lady Germaine de Stael, the daughter of the French Kings Finance Minister Necker, writes the following about these letters: The sealed letters permit the royal power, and consequently the ministerial also, to exile, to banish, to deport, to imprison for life, without judgment, any individual whoever he may be. Such a power, wherever it exists, constitutes despotism itself: It must need be annihilated the day when the deputies of the nation will be reunited in France. One can see why the French Revolution began as a common struggle of the nobility and the middle class against the absolutism of the kings power. The French historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874) gives some interesting details in this footnote below about this tradition of Royal Sealed Letters in his Histoire de la rvolution franaise. e) But the nobles and middle class were divided over whether to have a British type Parliament with two houses, one for Lords and one for Commoners, or one mixed one. Having a single house parliament in mind the middle class schemers, led by the Abbot Emanuel Sieyes and inspired by the medical doctor Jean Paul Marat, both of whom wrote classical works against the British type democracy.  Inspired by these two men the middle class held out in their demand for the additional 300 seats and won. The middle class leadership knew in advance some of members of the clergy and the nobility who will join them against the adoption of the British model. f) The Catonistes la Robespierres The danger of real Roman history for this Frankish establishment, as well as for the Empire of Great Britain, is demonstrated by the use of the Roman historian Porcius Cato during the French Revolution. 85% of the population were Gallo-Romans. There was even a movement of the Catonistes la Robespierreswho, like their leader, had their own Roman idea about the future of not only of France, but also of the liberation of former territories of the Roman Empire occupied by not only Teutonic conquerors of Western Europe, but also by Moslems in South Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In Cato the Gallo-Roman revolutionaries had in hand the ancient genealogy of not only the Gallo-Romans now in revolt, but also that of most former Roman citizens of the Roman Empire also enslaved to other royalties and nobilities, both Christian and Moslem. In other words Romans must be in revolt not only against the Franks in France, but everywhere in Western Europe, including the Papal States, and against Islam. The Government of Robespierres even supported plans to provoke a revolution of East Romans within the Ottoman Empire coordinated by an underground movement established in Constantinople New Rome with branches in key places of Rumeli. One reason underlying this development was that The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon was being translated into French under the loan name (Leclercq de Sept-Chnes) of King Louis XVI himself, as the French Revolution was about to begin. Reading about their own history in Gibbons masterpiece the Gallo-Romans realized that the heretical Greeks (now baptized Byzantines) Empire of Frankish propaganda is in reality their own Roman Empire. It was the solution of this very dangerous threat that the French and Russian Empires, joined by the British Empire, were obliged to find a solution. Indeed the problem was compounded by the fact that Ottoman Eastern Europe was officially called Rumeli (land of the Romans) and Romania in Greek and Latin and that all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem world were and are still called and call themselves Romans. They call their Church Roman Orthodox in Arabic and Turkish. But then the Russians, French and British managed to get illiterate Orthodox to believe, or even force them to accept, that the Arabic and Turkish name Rum means Greek. The East Romans, Arabs and Turks had always refused Charlemagnes decision of 794 that the Romans East of Italy must be called Greeks in their own languages. But being on the whole illiterate, Arab speaking Orthodox fell for the French, British and Russian lie that the name Rum means Greek and that these Rum are their enemies. The Russian Empire established 120 schools in the Middle East to teach the Rum there that they are not Rum but Arabs. But the real Arabs are Moslems and knew well the Romans they had conquered. The Arabs knew well that what the Vatican and Protestants wanted was to get the Arabs accustomed to the idea of the existence of Arab Christians. The problem was partly solved by Balkanization imposed by the three Empires of France, Russia and Great Britain who replaced Romans with Romanians, Serbians, Bulgarians and Greeks. The exact same principle has been applied to the Arabs. g) Napoleon, the New Charelemagne. The Greco-Romanizing Catonistes la Robespierres were finally outmaneuvered by the Tuscan Frank Napoleon who dreamed about the reinstitution of the Empire of Charlemagne. At the ceremony of his coronation as emperor he had placed two large statues in the portico of Notra Dame, one of Clovis and another of Charlemagne. Not only did he call himself Charlemagne, but even his spies in the field referred to him in their missiles by the Turkish code name Son of Charlemagne, i.e. Carolosmanoglou. Napoleon had a theory that the ancient Greeks still survived in places like Sparta. There was a community of them is Corsica who were his friends. One of them, Dimo Stephanopoli, was a botanist who had been sent in 1797 with his nephew Nicolo to the South Balkan area by the French government in search of a rare herb for medicinal purposes. Now as the general of the Army of Italy Napoleon sent Diimo and his nephew back, but this time to meet with the leaders of the underground Roman revolutionary society in the port of Maratonisi.  Some of its key leaders came to this port town from Albania, Macedonia, Crete and nearby Leibadia. One of the key leaders not present was Regas Feraios who was a member of Napoleons staff during his negotiations with the Austrians which ended with the treaty of Campo Formio in Oct. 17, 1797 which ceded to France the Ionian Islands, chief of which was Corfu from which the French would pass over to Turkey to begin the revolution. The Romans at Maratonisi suggested that only 6,000 French troops were all that were needed, the Roman secrete army would do the rest. .But in the mean time Regas had been captured with five companions by the Austrians at the port city of Triest in December 1797 as they were preparing to embark to begin the revolution against the Turks. Regas and his collaborators were arrested by the Austrian police in Triest about to embark loaded with their revolutionary pamphlets on their way to begin the revolution. They had a boy companion with them who was set free because of his youth. For years as he grew old no one believed him that Regas had been a collaborator in touch with Napoleon. The problem was kindly solved for by C. M. Woodhouse quoted in the footnote. The French Consulate was not allowed to see Regas even though the latter was a French subject. General Bernadotte, under the command of Napoleon in the army of Italy and the future king of Norway and Sweden, was slated to replace Napoleon as the general of the army of Italy. Instead he was sent to the surprise of evreyone as French Ambassador to Vienna January 1778, i.e. shortly after the capture of Regas and his companions. He finally left this post in Vienna April 14. It would have been his responsibility to support the planed Roman revolution against the Turks crossing over from the Ionian Islands into Turkey. It was Benardotte who adived Tsar Alexander how defend Moscow against Naoleon and was at the battle of Waterloo with his Norwegan and Sweedish army waiting his turn to pounce on Napoleon. There was something about Napoleon which evidently made him enjoy working for the downfall of his one time commander. As it turned out the Naoleons Greeks as Maratonisi turned out to be Romans who sang songs and danced about their Land of the Romans (Rumeli) inhabited at one time by the ancient Greeks. The revolutionary leaders at Maratonisi called themselves the genos (gens) of the Romans ( Y ). Dimo and his Nephew sailed to Corfu and arrived there as the Ionian Islands were being taken over by the French army as part of the settlement at Campo Formio while Austria was compensated with the Republic of Venice. Josephines son Beauharnais had come to Corfu for the incorporation ceremonies by which the Ionian Islands became part of the French Republic and indeed on the feast day of St. Spyridon, the patron saint of the Island, Dec. 12, 1787. Dimo and his nephew left Corfu with the same warship with Beauharnais. He debarked at the small port of Manfrentonia to travel to Naples and they went on to Venice. However Napoleon had left Milan, so they tried to catch up with him but ended up seeing him in Paris. Dimo reported to Napoleon personally in writing what he knew Napoleon had wanted to hear, i.e the Greeks were waiting to welcome him as their liberator. However, the text of said song recorded told Napoleon otherwise. The botanist Dimo brought back proof that Napoleons Spartans turned out to be a bunch of Romans. Evidently Napoleon already knew this from his specialists, but also from the Austrians who had been making official translations whereby the Greek name for Romans () was being officially translated into German as Griechen according to the lie of Great Father Charlemagne. Regas and his companions were finally turned over to the Turks for execution. The Austrians carefully covered up the traces of Napoleons involvement in the affair of Regas. Napoleon refused to be sent to Ireland with a small French army to organize an Irish army to invade England. Instead he asked and was sent to conquer Egypt. His advisor on Ottoman affairs, Adamntius Koraes, the future Father of the Neo-Hellenism of Greece, sent an appeal on his behalf to the said army, ready to liberate Rumeli from the Turks, to send fighting men to Egypt to help the glorious French army there. At the same time he argues in this same appeal that the Romans of Rumeli are not really Romans, but descendants of the Ancient Greeks who simply call themselves Romans because of so any centuries under Roman and Turkish rule. Yes indeed they were so, because the primitive Romans were indeed a collection of Greek speaking tribes but called themselves by the Greek name Romans and their capital Rome. This the Catonistes la Robespierre had understood very well. Key Two: a) The Primitive Greek Romans : b) The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why? c) The first Roman Historians who wrote in Latin. a) The very existence of the primitive Greek Romans has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagnes Lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Romans. It seems that Charlemagnes Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagnes Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I (867-885) that we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy . The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language. Let us contrast this Frankish nonsense with historical reality and the process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines who came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War. These Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the Greek Pelasgians of Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness. Porcius Catos inclusion of the history of the Pelasgians in Italy and their union with the Aborigines in his De Origines, repeated in detail by Dionysius, is the only mention of them that this writer is aware of. These combined Aborigines and Pelasgians united with some Trojans who migrated to their land and together they became 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 been settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. The Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece. The Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system. Some of the Danubian Celts entered Northern Italy and began pressing upon the Etruscans who turned to Rome for help. But these Celts overran the Roman forces who tried to stop them and drove down toward Rome and 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 themselves 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 This was the extent of Roman territories in 218 BC. 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 and with Macedon as an ally. Macedon had conquered Romes traditional Greek allies. Rome went as far as Spain to uproot Punic strongholds there and finally burned Carthage itself. The Romans had 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. Rome also came to the aid of her Galatian and Cappadocian allies by liberating them from King Mithridates VI of Pontus (121/120-63 BC) which resulted in the incorporation of Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia into the Roman Empire which now reached almost to the Caspian Sea. In this way the Mediterranean Sea became the central lake of the Roman Empire. It is to be noted that it was the Greek Romans of Italy who finally united all Greek speaking tribes into one nation which had become Latin speaking also. b) The first four Roman annalists wrote in Greek. They were Quintus Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Gaius Acilius and Aulus Postumius Albinus. As we will see, the first text in primitive Latin was the Code of the Twelve Tables promulgated in 450 BC solely for the plebs. The Greek gentis abided by their own secrete laws which they memorized from childhood. 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 plebs. In time so many of the plebs had become fluent in Greek that they became part of the administration of the Greek speaking provinces. c) According to Cicero one of the first Romans who wrote in Latin prose was the Sabine Claudius, Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. He delivered a speech in Latin to the Senate against making peace with Pyrrhus, the king of Macedon. The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC). So what language were the Romans speaking and writing before this except Greek? All the above agree with each other on the general outline of Roman beginnings. The reason for this is that they based themselves on the official Roman sacred tablets (hierais deltois) which the first historians simply repeated. In other words they were themselves annalists. However, nothing is preserved from these tablets/annals except as repeated in the Roman historians. But, not much of their works has survive, or else may be hidden to facilitate Charlemagnes Lie. d) Cato and the official pagan state religion of France based on natural revelation and the optional religion of the so-called supernatural revelation of the Franco-Latin Papacy. During the period between July 27, 1793 to his execution on July 28, 1794 Robespierre secured the virtual rule of the country both politically and religiously. The first reason for his own fall was his part in the fall and execution of Danton. But the second main reason for his own fall was that he gave his enemies the weapon they needed to destroy him by his official institution of the religious feast day of the Supreme Being along with other minor feast days. All educated Frenchmen knew the distinction between natural revelation and supernatural revelation being taught in their schools. All Robespierre did was to make natural revelation of the ancestors of Gallo-Romans the official State Religion and supernatural revelation of the Vatican optional. Although most probably almost all the members of the Convention agreed with him theologically, they used this a pretext to bring about his fall. From Cato the Gallo-Roman revolutionaries realized that the Romans and Greeks were the same people. Now the overwhelming majority of Gallo-Romans were re-gaining control of the land occupied for so many centuries by a tyrannical Frankish minority of only 2% the population. The enthusiasm for Greco-Roman antiquity and hatred for a Papal Christianity used by the Frankish conqueror to completely debase 85% of the population led even to establishing of natural revelation l conqueror getting control of In spite of this only fragments of Cato are publicly known. But since Dionysius of Halicarnassus used the same annals as the aforementioned Roman historians one must use Dionysius to reconstruct these lost or hidden sources. Dionysius makes a clear distinction between Greek historians who do not use Roman annals and the Roman historians (and himself) who do. The trick used by some historians, who want to efface the Greek foundations of Roman history, is to mix the hearsay Greek tradition about Rome and the 3 Roman variations on the tradition about the founding of Rome found in their own hierais deltois, i.e. sacred tablets,  which were evidently made of a hard material, and then to heap ridicule on the mixture they themselves create. Only a short, but accurate summary account of the foundation annals are reported in Livy who takes for granted that Rome was founded as a Greek city and nation. Evidently this is so because he wrote his history in Latin, whereas the annals were evidently in Greek. Those who wrote in Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was the annalistic history of Hemina which laid the foundations for writing Roman history in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use of all the Greek texts, like speeches, at their disposal. Whereas 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. The primitive Latins and Romans were a mixture of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians and Lacedaemonian Sabines. Key Three: The Judaio-Christian Romans Judaism began spreading itself throughout the Hellenistic world becoming the breeding ground of early Christianity within the Roman Empire. Orthodox Christianity took roots within Judaism to finally become the official religion of the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine the Great (306-333). This act of Emperor Constantine created an intense reaction among the pagan Romans because of their identity as a Greek Civilization. Thus began the controversy between Greek Romans and Christian Romans. From this time on the name Greek came to mean pagan right up to the Hellenic Revolution of 1821 which was carefully planned by the British, French and Russian Empires. Key Four: The sickness of Religion based on the quest for happiness and its cure based on glorification. (see sections 3,4,6,29 and 32) From the viewpoint of the cure of the sickness of religion there was an identity between 1) those Jews who followed Christ and 2) the convert Greek Roman Christians who joined the practice of the cure of the sickness of religion. We will deal with the cure of the Neurobiological sickness of religion by comparing it with Augustines reintroduction of a Neo-Platonic form of this sickness of religion into all the traditions which have followed his interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, especially that of the Medieval tradition of the Franco-Latins and that of most Protestants. Then we will return to this cure again to show how it flows out of St. Pauls epistles, especially in 1 Cor. 12-15:11. Key Five: The Struggle between Romans and Carolingian Franks We begin at this Key Four in order to lay the foundation of this study by beginning with this struggle between the Carolingian Franks and Romans which began in earnest during the 8th and 9th centuries. This finally resulted in 1) the capture of the Roman Papacy by the Franco-Latins between 1009-1046 and 2) in a tremendous dose of Carolingian anti-Roman propaganda in the fields of Church, political and ethnic history because these Franks used everything at their disposal to not only subdue the Roman nation but also to drive it into non existence. 2. Those who hate Romans call themselves Romans. Why? The Franco-Latin Popes took over the Papacy definitively during a struggle which began in 983 and was consummated in 1046. They even called themselves Roman Popes in order to fool their West Roman slaves into believing that they still have a Roman Pope. But the reality of the matter is that these Franco-Latins, who played and are still playing the part of Roman Popes and Roman Church leaders, had in reality an intense hatred for their Roman slaves in Western Europe and the free Romans and their real Roman Emperor in New Rome. This hatred is described as follows by the Lombard bishop of Cremona Luitprand (922-972) who was involved in the movement to get rid of the real Roman Popes and replace them by force with mostly Tuscano-Franks and Lombards who became the main sharers of the Franco-Latin Papal dignity since. Luitprand writes, WeLombards, Saxons (of Germany), Franks, Lotharingians, Bajoarians, Sueni, Burgundians, have so much contempt (for Romans and their emperors) that when we become enraged with our enemies, we pronounce no other insult except Roman (nisi Romani), this alone, i.e. the name of the Romans (hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine) meaning: whatever is ignoble, avaricious, licentious, deceitful, and, indeed, whatever evil. Here Luitprand knows very well that he is not writing to Greeks in the East, but to Romans in the East. However, this same Luitprand, like all Franco-Latins since 794, have been telling their West Roman serfs and vilains that there are no Romans, nor Roman Emperors, in the East, but only a bunch of Greek heretics. This is the background of the 19th and 20th century Russian, British and French policies of converting the whole Western part of the Ottoman Empire, called Romania or Rumeli (i.e. Land of the Romans) into such nations as Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Albanians and even Slavic Macedonians. Is the partition of Cyprus between Turks and Romans (who began calling themselves Hellenes in order to unite with Hellas) part of this plan or maybe part of another plan? All the above has been done in spite of the fact that the primitive language of the ancient Romans was Greek, as we will see. The Russians, French and British paid special attention to destroying the Greek language which had been the language of unity among the Romans, not only in antiquity, but in the Balkans also, by replacing it with survivals of local dialects. The Franco-Latin nobilities of Britain and France, with the Russians tagging along with their Panslavism, had to guarantee the complete disappearance of the Roman nation according to the decision of Father Charlemagne. 3. The key to the Bible is the cure of the sickness of religion. In John 17 Christ prays for unity in the cure of glorification, not for divided Churches. We also begin with the key to the Bible which is the cure of the sickness of religion. This sickness from the very beginning took over the society of the Carolingian Franks. This is in sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks who were Orthodox Christians, as we shall see. The Carolingians knew only Augustine till the 12th century. So the difference between these Frankish races is that the one supported the cure of the sickness of religion and the latter group became the great supporters of the causes of the sickness of religion which their Neo-Platonic form of Christianity has been. That religion is a sickness with a specific cure is known from the tradition of the Old and New Testaments. However, that this sickness and cure exists in the Bible is known only to those who know that it is there and know how to use the Bible as a guide to said cure. For this reason the Bible is a closed book to all others, even to most Jews and Christianstoday. This means that Jews who accept the Old Testament alone, or Christians who accept both the Old and the New Testament, yet are not in the process of being cured under the guidance of one already cured, i.e. glorified (1 Cor. 12:26), automatically and unknowingly distort these books into supports for the sickness of religion, rather than its cure. Many such students of the Bible become Fundamentalists and at times quite dangerous. On the other hand the critical Biblical scholar, who uses whatever tools he has at his disposal to understand the Bible, cannot complete his task unless he knows the existence of the sickness of religion and its cure, and indeed in a Bible which is supposed to be his specialty. This holds especially true for those Orthodox scholars who do not know that an Old and New Testament term for theosis is glorification. One key to this study is that religion is a neurobiological sickness. It stems from a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. The spirit of man in the heart should be spinning in a circle praying when in its normal state of communion with the uncreated glory (shekina), i.e. the uncreated reign (basikea) of God. This uncreated glory or reigning power of God is everywhere present saturating all of creation. Like the rest of creation all humans are already in communion with this glorys creating, providential, ruling and even purifying energy at various levels. However, few go on to participating in the illuminating and glorifying energy of the glory of God. The reason for this is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) The reason for this is that the spirit or the noetic faculty of each one usually begins to unfold itself out of its natural circular state during infancy into a straight line and sticks itself to the brain causing a short-circuit. In this way this spirit in infants, while always anchored in the heart, becomes enslaved by means of the brain to the shortcomings of its parents and its general environment since all thoughts in the brain originate thence. It seems that the reason why neurologists have not yet found a center for religion in the brain, as far as I know, is that it resides in this short-circuit between the heart and the brain and not in any part of the brain itself. It is this short-circuit which creates the fantasies of religious convictions, as well as other signs of a disorded mind, from mild to serious, including acute criminality and barbarism. 4. The Five Keys to the Bible What is missing in the work of such Biblical scholars and especially of those who work within and under the weight of the Franco-Latin Augustinian tradition, are the following five keys: 1) That the very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim there is no God except Yahweh means. Not knowing this fundamental first key one cannot know the second key: 2) That there is a clear distinction between Biblical terms which denote that which is uncreated and that which is created. Not knowing this context one cannot know the third key to Biblical terms: 3) That it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him. In other words there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated. Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification. An integral and essential part of knowing these foregoing three keys is the fourth key: 4) That the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages the transformation of selfish happiness seeking love into the selfless love of ones own crucifixion which is glorification. This glorification, therefore, is not only that of the Lord of Glory Incarnate, but also that of all prophets and apostles (sent ones) before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory. These four keys become the fifth contextual key of cure. 5) That the expressions about God in the Bible are not intended to convey concepts about God. They act only as means to guide one to the purification and illumination of the heart and finally to glorification by the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Lord (Yaweh) of Glory which is to see Him by means of His uncreated glory or rule and not by means of ephemeral created symbols and concepts about Him as is the case in the Augustinian tradition. In John 17 Christ prays for the cure of the glorification of His disciples and their disciples, not for divided Churches. Indeed not for traditions which have not the slightest idea what the cure of glorification is. 5. Nothing of the above can be found in Augustine In sharp contrast to these five keys are the 5th century writings of bishop Augustine of Hippo (354-430) which survived the capture of his city by the Vandals in 430 AD. Augustine died during the siege on August 28, 430. Augustine writes that his Archbishop of Carthage Aurelius had commanded him to present his book De Trinitate to him for examination but we have no record of the result of this action. Both Arius and Eunomius were condemned by the First (325) and Second (381) Ecumenical Councils respectively for teaching that the Messenger Logos Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush is a creature. Augustine, of course, believes that the Logos is indeed uncreated. However, he came up with his own innovation that the whole Holy Trinity appeared to Moses and the prophets by means of such an angel or angels which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then passes back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished. Evidently Archbishop Aurelius heard about this and possibly also Augustines teaching about original sin and predestination and wanted to see for himself. Augustines writings found their way to parts of the West Roman provinces. St. John Cassian (circa 360-433), former ascetic in the deserts of Egypt and then deacon of the Patriarch of Constantinople St. John Chrysostom, challenged Augustines teaching about original sin and pre-destination without mentioning him. The teachings of Augustine on these points were condemned by the Council of Orange in 529. Augustines writings completely captured the 8th century Carolingian tradition which knew basically only Augustine until the 12th century. At that time the Franks acquired a translation of St. John of Damascus Book on the Orthodox Faith which they simply understood within their own Augustinian categories. By the 11th century the Franks had taken over all of Western Europe, except Spain, by either conquest or diplomacy. The Spanish Romans under Arab rule were still under the direct surveillance of the Roman Emperor of Constantinople New Rome. The Umayyad Arabs of Spain and the Abbasid Arabs of Damascus and then Baghdad called their Roman Orthodox subjects Melkites, i.e. those who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome Constantinople. According to this Augustinian tradition God supposedly brings into existence creatures to be seen and heard and which He passes back into non-existence after their mission of conveying messages and visions has been accomplished. Higher than this revelation by means of such ephemeral creatures are, according to this tradition, the concepts which God supposedly injects directly into the human intellect. Biblical scholars who either accept this tradition or believe that this is actually what the Bible is saying, unknowingly contribute to the concealment of both the sickness of religion and its cure and so the correct reading of the terms used in the Bible to denote the difference between what is created and uncreated. What is worse, the adepts of such interpretations of the Bible think that the biblical writers themselves believe that God can be expressed with words and indeed conceived by the human intellect, not perfectly, but at least approximately. In sharp contrast to this type of tradition is that of the Fathers of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. Only those prophets, apostles and fathers who have reached glorification, both before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory, can know what glorification means and how to lead others to this cure and thus to the correct distinction between the created and the uncreated in the Bible. Therefore, both fundamentalist and non fundamentalist biblical scholars, who have been victims of Augustinian and Carolingian presuppositions, become prone to misunderstandings of what they read in the Bible, especially when terms and symbols denoting glorifications which produce prophets are alluded to. A classical example is 1 Cor. 12:26. Here St. Paul does not write, If one is honored, but If one is glorified, i.e. has become a prophet. To be glorified means that one has seen the Lord of Glory either before His incarnation or after, like Paul did on his way to Damascus to persecute the Incarnate Lord of Glorys followers. Another example is the phrase kingdom of God which makes it a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is amazing is that the term kingdom of God appears not once in the original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the rule or reign of God is the correct translation of the Greek Basileia tou Theou, Vaticanians, Protestants and even many Orthodox today, do not see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see Gods ruling power, was fulfilled during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e. as the source of Gods uncreated glory and basileia i.e. uncreated ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and covered the three of them during the Lord of Glorys Transfiguration. It was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from Its Egyptian slavery and lead It to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text does not speak about the Basileion (kingdom) of God, but about the Basileia (rule or reign) of God, by means of His uncreated glory and power. At His Transfiguration Christ clearly revealed Himself to be the source of the uncreated Glory seen by Moses and Elijah during Old Testament times and who both are now present at the Transfiguration in order to testify to the three apostles that Christ is indeed the same Yaweh of Glory, now incarnate, Whom the two had seen in the historical past and had acted on behalf of Him. The Vaticanians have, or used to have, a tradition of identifying their Church with the earthly kingdom established by Christ with the Franco-Latin Pope as the Vicar of Christ, Emperor and Bishop of Rome. Neither Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible. But what is worse, many of them allow themselves to look upon others as either among Gods chosen ones (like themselves), or else not chosen and therefore destined to hell since all have supposedly inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve. Also, they continue with Augustine, that a certain number of those who have inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve are, like themselves, among the ones chosen by God for salvation without any merit of their own. God chooses them, in spite of their inherited guilt, to replace that number of angels which had fallen. Because of this paganism, Franco-Latin Christianity was destined to lose ground before the onslaught of modern science and democracy. Chosen ones can never be part of a democracy. Augustinian Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as He loves the saint. God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the faithful (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words hell is a form of salvation although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain inoperative in their final actus purus happiness like the God of Thomas Aquinas. The question at hand is not, therefore, whom God loves and saves. God loves all and God saves all. Even human doctors are morally obliged to cure all patients regardless of who and what they are. From this viewpoint hell is indeed salvation, but the lowest form of it. One either chooses or one does not choose to be cured from the short-circuit which makes one religious. The one who chooses cure exercises himself like an athlete who follows the Lord of Glorys directions for purifying his heart. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. One cooperates with Christ in the purification of ones heart and in acquiring the illumination of the unceasing prayer in the heart. This allows love to do away with self-centeredness and selfishness, but at the same time increases ones dedication to destroying the work of the Devil. When God sees that one is ready to follow the cure which will make him selfless He guides him into the courtyard of glorification and takes him from being a child to manhood, i.e. prophethood (1 Cor. 13:11). One begins with sick love concerned with ones own salvation and graduates into selfless Love which, like Saint Paul, would forego ones own salvation for that of others. In other words one either chooses cure or refuses cure. Christ is the Doctor who cures all His patients to that degree of cure they accept, even that of hell. 6. The Sickness of Religion of Augustinian Christendom and within Orthodoxy today. The sickness of religion is caused by a short-circuit between the heart and the brain. This is what causes fantasies which distort the imagination and in varying degrees cuts one off from reality. The cure of this short-circuit has three stages which will occupy us in some detail later. They are: 1) the purification of the heart, 2) the illumination of the heart, which repairs this short-circuit which produces fantasies, of which both religion and criminality are by products, and 3) glorification, which makes one uncreated by grace and by which one sees the uncreated ruling power of God which is a simple energy which divides itself without division and saturates all of creation being everywhere present, though not by nature, and ruling all of creation. The Bible calls this the glory and rule of God and those who reach glorification prophets and sent ones (apostles). What is sick is the spirit of man in the heart which in the early Christian tradition came to be called the noetic faculty, not to be identified with the intellectual faculty of the Hellenic tradition whose center is in the brain. In its cured state within the heart the noetic faculty allows the brain to function without fantasies of which religion and criminality are by products. In this cured state the noetic faculty prays without ceasing while the brain goes about its normal chores. This unceasing prayer of the noetic faculty keeps the short-circuit between the brain and the heart in repair without impairing the imagination now free from fantasies which are the main tools by which what is called the devil makes his slaves. Thus we have noetic prayer in the heart and intellectual prayer in the brain which is the foundation of the prophetic tradition of both the Old and New Testament. This was the center of the apostolic Church which became the Orthodox Christianity of the Roman Empire. This tradition of cure survived in Orthodox monasticism quite strongly within the Ottoman Empire. It was only during the drive of the Empires of Russia, Francia and Britain for the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire that they obliged the Orthodox States they created from its ruins to accept the reforms of Peter the Great as one of the essential conditions for gaining their support. In other words, without realizing it, these three Empires concentrated their attack on the cure of the sickness of religion, whose center had for centuries been Orthodox monasticism. This was replaced by a so-called Westernization, which had been accomplished in Russia, which simply meant that Orthodoxy was being condemned to becoming a religion like Vaticanism and Protestantism. The clearest New Testament outline of this cure of the sickness of religion is to be found in St. Paul 1 Cor. 12-15:11. Here we have the key to his epistles which become clear only within this context. St. Paul was a Pharisee who stemmed from the same tradition as the Hasidim whereas Christ and His apostles evidently belonged to a parallel tradition with the same Old Testament foundations which makes the New Testament intelligible. We call religion a neurobiological sickness since it stems from a short-circuit between the nervous system centered in the heart within the spinal column which circulates the spinal fluid, and the blood system centered in the heart which pumps blood throughout the body, including the nervous system. The cure of this sickness of religion is accomplished by repairing said short-circuit between the two hearts which pump blood and spinal fluid which allows them to function normally. In this normal state the various fantasies, religious and otherwise, produced by said short-circuit between the brain and the heart disappear and with them ones fantasies also disappear, including that of religion. The Bible calls this neurological energy the spirit of man which the Fathers came to call the noetic energy. What is especially interesting is the fact that both religion and criminality stem from the same short- circuit and its fantasies. When being cured one believes either that which he himself sees and which certain others see, only on the condition that they train their charges to see for themselves. The method of cure is like seeing for oneself what specialists are trained to see by means of instruments what cannot be seen by the naked eye, not only in the next life, but especially in this life. The Bible calls this glorification. When one is glorified the rest rejoice (1Cor. 12:26) because he has become a prophet who has seen and participated in the uncreated glory of God which has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. This is why a prophet can guide others to the cure of glorification, but cannot describe the uncreated experienced in glorification. The basis for this restoration of normalcy is that the one who sees has himself been restored to normalcy which is to see the uncreated force which creates and governs all of creation. The one cured actually sees above normal seeing from time to time seeing the glory and rule of the Creator. When not in the state of seeing the short circuit in question is kept under repair by the unceasing prayer in the heart while the brain functions normally. The Old and New Testaments call this force the glory and reign of God which is everywhere present dividing itself without division and saturating all creation. Also those who have seen it and guide others to the cure of their short-circuit are the prophets both before Pentecost and after Pentecost. Although not having access to todays electronic microscopes these prophets experienced the fact that there is no similarity whatsoever between the Creators glory and reign and His creation. Although this is true for the natural human faculties, there is some similarity of this Glorys manifestation, as a simple energy which divides itself without division and is present everywhere, to the way cells divide themselves and multiply in biological beings when seen by the electronic microscope. The real difference is that Gods creating glory and reign does not change or die nor is it composed of matter. In any case the Platonic idea that material and spiritual forms are copies of immutable and immaterial forms were correctly rejected by all those who had had an experience of the Glory of God. We recall the Four Keys described above. Within their context there are two general types of terms in the Bible: 1) Those terms which apply to the uncreated and cannot be conceived by comparison with ones experience of created reality. Such terms are God, Lord (Yaweh), Spirit of God, Father, Logos, Messenger of God Who calls Himself God, Messenger of Great Council, Son of God, King of Glory, rule or reign of God, Glory of God, etc.: and 2) those which represent created reality and which are understood as such. Terms denoting the uncreated are not to be understood within the context of what one may understand by comparing these terms with what one knows from created reality. The sole purpose of terms denoting the uncreated is to play the role of leading to the purification and the illumination of the heart and then to glorification during which said words and concepts are abolished and wherein only love remains (1Cor. 13:8). Augustine never understood these two distinctions, nor the four keys previously discussed. Franco-Latin Christianity and doctrine began its first essay into theology and doctrine with the Palatine School established by Charlemagne at the end of the 8th century. This school knew only Augustine because its organizer the Saxon Alcuin (735-804) evidently knew only Augustine thoroughly. Augustine was not a Father of an Ecumenical Council, nor was he familiar with any Father of an Ecumenical Council. One is given the impression that he was taught by Ambrose who supposedly baptized him. However, the basic doctrinal differences between Augustine and the Fathers of the Church are exactly the differences between himself and Ambrose. Nor did Augustine have the slightest idea of the keys by which Jews and the Orthodox Fathers were interpreting the Bible. He simply knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. This is exactly why Vaticanists and Protestants still do not understand the theology of the Ecumenical Councils. When the Franco-Latins finally became familiar with the texts of the Ecumenical Councils they simply enslaved them to Augustinian categories. They had acquired the text of Dionysius the Areopagite which was translated by John Scotus Eriugena which confused them because of the translators theology. It was only in the 12th century, as we saw, that these Franks acquired a Latin translation of St. John of Damascus summary of the Patristic theology and doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils, but as always until today, understood him within Augustinian categories. Neither the Franco-Latin Papacy, established between 1009 and 1046, nor Augustinian Protestants, have ever been able to see these distinctions in the Bible and so remained unaware of their existence. This means that before the advent of modern Biblical criticism the Vaticanist and Protestant understanding of Biblical inspiration was not much different from the Moslem belief that the Koran is uncreated. That of course has changed, but the end result has remained the same. 7. Sociology, Religion and Criminality Since fantasies produced by said short-circuit are at the basis of all sociological and historical phenomena, including everything from religion to criminality, one can not make a clean cut separation between society and religion, or abnormal and so-called normal behavior within human society. All peoples and societies suffer from this same short-circuit. Many Orthodox Christians and Jews are not actively involved in their traditional cure of the sickness of religion which is supposedly the foundation of their beliefs and practices. For this reason they are sometimes capable of outdoing others in cruelty and barbarism. In any case the idea that religion per se is good and necessary for society is absolute nonsense. There are historical cases wherein there were and still are those who believe that they will have special privileges in their heaven for killing and enslaving others and who will have wives in heaven for their gratification. We have at least two societies which had been historically and to an important degree based on this cure of the sickness of religion. They are the prophets of the Old Testament accepted officially by the Jewish State and the apostles and prophets of the Old and New Testaments and the prophets since called Fathers of the Church as accepted officially by the Roman State. What divides them is the Incarnation of the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory. Both had accepted the OT prophets and some Jews and many Romans and other peoples accepted also Christ and the apostles within this context of the cure of this sickness of religion. However, those Christians who followed heresies condemned by Roman Ecumenical Councils were in each case re-transforming the faith of the Bible into pagan forms of Christianity based on the sickness of religion instead of its cure. Perhaps the greatest of the pagan forms of Christianity is that of Augustine. His erroneous teachings about all of humanity being responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve and his doctrine of pre-destination based on his teaching about original sin and his psychopathic Platonic mysticism, had gone undetected in the East until the 15th century. But in Roman Gaul the Council of Orange (529) condemned his teaching about inherited sin and predestination. Finally, the Roman Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341 in Constantinople also, but unknowingly, condemned some of Augustines heresies. His other heresies were never known nor understood in the East. Indeed, the said Ninth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople (1341) condemned the heresies of Barlaam the Calabrian about revelation and the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification not realizing that his teaching belonged to Augustine. Indeed the Fathers of this Council claimed that the Devil inspired Barlaam to invent this new heresy. What is of interest is the fact that in each case of the appearance of a specific heresy it was simply one more product of the sickness of religion. Perhaps the same is true of Judaism. It was on such grounds that the Fathers of the Church easily defeated heresies based on this sickness of religion. However, what is even more interesting is the fact that many Orthodox who have inherited the Orthodox form of Christianity of the Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils are at present in a state of confusion. This confusion began especially with the reforms of Peter the Great based on the deliberate Westernization of the Russian Church which was in reality its Augustiniazation. These Russian reforms became the key by which Emperor Alexander I of the Russian Empire and Napoleon I of the Frankish Empire, joined a bit later by the British Empire, began their policies of breaking up the unity of the Roman Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. They attacked the common language of the Roman Orthodox, which since the time of the Ancient Romans had been Greek, by claiming that all who spoke Greek were not Romans, but Greeks. This is the Charlemagnian Lie of 794 which was adopted by the Franco-Latin royalty and nobility which still guides not only European policies, but also that of Americans who have been enslaved by British historiography. At the same time these three powers used the various dialects which survived from older times to build linguistic enclaves which became Hellenes, Serbians, Bulgarians and Rumanians, to which they added Albanians and now even of all things Slavic Macedonians. This process called Balkanization began to be applied in 1821 and is still being applied. The very same principles were and are being applied to the whole Arab World. This Westernization of Orthodoxy was imposed on all the Orthodox States which arose out of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. This began with the establishment of the State of Greece in 1827, followed by Bulgaria in 1878-79, Romania in 1879-1880, Serbia in 1882 and was completed in 1923 with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire itself. Each case of the establishment of a State was accompanied by the foundation of a State Church. State Theological Schools were also established to make sure that the work of Peter the Great may take root and take over. Prior to this development the monasteries had been the training ground for producing leaders specialized in curing the sickness of religion. However, said theological faculties became the basis of transforming Orthodox Church leaders and theologians into victims of the sickness of religion who have been transforming the Orthodox Church into a religion. Quite interesting is the fact that the Turks called the European part of their Ottoman Empire Rumeli, i.e. Land of the Romans. The reason for this is not only the fact that the Ottomans conquered what was left of the Roman Empire and her capital, but also because all Orthodox Christians within the Moslem world, from Spain to the Middle East, called themselves Roman Orthodox and were and are still called Roman Orthodox by the Arabs, Turks, Persians, etc. However, during the 18th century the Russians, the British and the French actively propagandized the Lie of Charlemagne that Romans who spoke the Greek language are not Romans, but Greeks. In this way they finally succeeded in convincing, or conning, even the Neo-Hellenes, the Neo-Bulgarians, the Neo-Serbians, the Neo-Rumanians and then the Neo-Albanians and Neo-Macedonians, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople-New Rome is not Roman, but Greek. This in spite of the fact that this Ecumenical Patriarchate never called nor calls itself Greek, but only Roman in the Turkish and Greek languages. In the light of this, even a casual reading of the Encyclopedia Britannica will reveal with what hatred the Russians, French and British describe the Phanariote Romans of Constantinople who helped the Ottomans to rule Rumeli, i.e. the Balkans, as the hated and corrupt Greeks. But even till this day the Roman Orthodox of Turkey call themselves Romans in both Turkish and Greek and are called Romans by the Turks. The magnitude of the Charlemagnian Latin versus Greek Lie has been saturating Franco-Latin history writing since 794 and must be dealt with accordingly, that is, as an outright lie. One must begin by assuming that Franco-Latins are experts at telling historical lies in order to carefully separate their telling lies from their telling the truth. Much of Roman history writing is still controlled by the Franco-Latin nobility who are still faithful to their Father Charlemagne and his lies about the Roman Empire which are still going strong in the non-existent fields of Byzantine history, civilization, theology, etc. which are Roman and not Byzantine. 8. There are no Greek and Latin Fathers of the Orthodox Church. They are Latin and Greek speaking Roman Fathers of the Church We begin with the fact that there are no Latin or Greek Fathers of the Church. All Fathers of the Church within the Roman Empire are Greek speaking and Latin speaking Roman Fathers of the Church with their localities attached to their description. The Carolingian Franks literally invented the distinction between Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church. Why? In order to cover up the fact that they had no Father of their Church until Rabanus Maurus (776-856). So they simply broke the Roman Fathers in two and began calling them Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church. In this way they simply attached Rabanus Maurus and his successors to their so-called Latin Fathers of the Church. But the Fathers of the Church who wrote in either Latin or Greek or in both Latin and Greek, were neither Latins nor Greeks, but were simply Roman Fathers of the Church. 9. Greek Romans and Christian Roman. What is absolutely amazing is the fact that in the Roman tradition since Constantine the Great the real Romans had made a clear distinction between Greek Romans and Christian Romans. The name Greek Roman simply meant Pagan Roman. St. Athanasius the Great, the Roman Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote a book called Against Greeks which simply means Against Pagans. So the Frankish title Greek Fathers of the Church means in the Roman language simply Pagan Fathers of the Church. In his Libri Carolini Charlemagne calls the Empire of Constantinople New Rome Imperium Romanum and pagan. Then in 794 he dropped this Frankish custom and called this Empire Greek. One reason why he did so was that the Christian Romans themselves were calling each other Greeks meaning pagans. It is this Roman usage of the name Greek which Charlemagne transformed into both a non existent nation and a heresy. Since 794 this has become a Frankish dogma of history which is not a simple and harmless habit, but a very well organized conspiracy promoted by the nobilities attached to the Vatican and to the King of England as the head of Free Masonry. We use the term Franco-Latins for the mostly Teutonic members of the medieval royalty and nobility of Western Europe who called themselves Latins. We call them by this term Franco-Latins in order to distinguish them from the two groups of real Latins of Roman history, the primitive Greek Latins who became Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212AD. Not having the sources of Roman history available and wishing to cut off their conquered West Romans from the East Romans, the Franco-Latins, since the time of Charlemagne, were misled into believing and promoting the position that the early Latins or Romans were Latin speaking, a basic historical fallacy which everyone today accepts. All my writings have been taking for granted that the Romans had fallen so much in love with Hellenic Civilization that Rome itself saw the light of History speaking Greek. Therefore, I had placed the historical appearance of Rome as a Greek speaking city within this Carolingian Frankish understanding of Roman history, as a supposedly Latin speaking people who began speaking Greek also. We repeat what we already said. The entourage of Charlemagne either invented, or came to believe the tale that Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Old Rome in Italy to New Rome-Constantinople and thus supposedly and deliberately abandoned the Latin language and nationality in favor of the Greek language and nationality. 10. The real Latins of Roman history Constantine the Great was not Latin, he was Roman. As we saw the first Latins in history were a Greek speaking people who were conquered by the Romans, whose language was also Greek. These Latins were absorbed into the Roman nation and eventually had become a name held in honor by their descendants, i.e. the family of Julius Caesar. But the Latin name was revived as a result of the Italian Wars during 91-83 BC. One group of Italians fought for complete independence from Rome while a second group revolted demanding Roman citizenship. The first group were simply defeated, while the second group had to be satisfied with the Latin name instead of the Roman name. These Latins finally received the Roman name and became Romans in 212 AD This happened 95 years before Constantine began to rule in 306. Not only was Constantine not a Latin, but those born Latins in 211 were probably all dead in 306. Roman sources of history eventually began to become available to these Franco-Latin barbarians. Instead of correcting their misunderstandings of Roman history, they became specialists at manipulating the Roman sources in order to force them into obeying Charlemagnes Lie of 794. As we saw, Constantine the Great and his successors had supposedly abandoned the Latin language and nationality in order to speak Greek and become Greeks. According to the Cambridge Medieval History vol. IV, Part I, 1967, p. 776, Constantine the Great was a Roman Emperor between 306 and 324 and a Byzantine Emperor between 324 and 337. True to noble British tradition Part I and II of Vol. IV are now called the Byzantine Empire. Both these volumes publish J. B. Burys Introduction to the original volume IV published in 1923. Bury there writes that We have, however, tampered with the correct name, which is simply Roman Empire, by adding Eastern, etc.The historian Finlay put the question in a rather akward way by asking, When did the Roman Empire change into the Byzantine? The answer is that it did not change into any other Empire than itself. In spite of these words of J. B. Bury the new two volumes IV, which replaced his single volume The East Roman Empire, are called the Byzantine Empire anyway. WHY? 11. Why Byzantine? Why is the Byzantine Empire, which never existed, now so essential to the British, French and Russian policies of divide and conquer? One can see the key clearly in the London Protocol of August, 31, 1836 which was signed by the representatives of these three Empires upon the occasion of the completion of the maps delineating the frontiers between Hellas and the Ottoman empire. Many of the Romans who fought in the War of Independence, which began in 1821, ended up outside of the liberated areas now called Hellas. This Protocol lists two groups of Greeks who now have the legal right to migrate to Hellas, because they are now legally Hellenes. However, historically the terms Greeks and Hellenes mean the same ancient people. The one is the Latin term for Greeks and Hellenes is the Greek word for Greeks. In sharp contrast is the fact that in the Turkish and Greek languages of the time these Greeks are called Romans. However, these Romans were being called Greeks by the Franco-Latins since 794. Charlemagne and his advisors decided to call the Free Romans Greeks in order that the West Romans may come to believe the Romans of the Roman Empire are not Romans but heretical Greeks. So the French text of the Protocol in question reads as follows: It is well understood that the following are now understood to be Hellenes: 1) The Greeks.and 2) The Greeks Here are the two terms which reflect the problem which had to be solved. The Turkish translation of the two terms are clear. The Greeks are in Turkish called Romans-Rumlar and the Hellenes are in Turkish called Hellenes-Younanlar. However, this is not the essence of the problem. In order to secure the support from these three Empires, who simply wanted to divide and conquer, the Romans had to not only call themselves Hellenes, but they had to pass a law that the Hellenic Revolution was not only a liberation from the Ottoman Empire, but also a liberation from the now fallen Roman Empire which the British, French and Russians began calling the Byzantine Empire. This is why the Carolingian Greek Empire which came into the existence in the Frankish imagination in 794, had to become now the Byzantine Empire. Why? Because to say that Hellenes were liberated from Greeks would have caused even jackasses to burst out laughing! During the celebration of Greek Independence Day on March 25 the BBC tried to pass off the position that the Turks had liberated the Hellenes from the Byzantines. But it backfired. I reported this in one of my books. Even Arab sources are being contaminated by an invasion of the term Byzantine as the translation of the Arab name for Roman which is Rum. Charles Issawi, Professor of Political Science in the American University of Beirut, translated and published in his book An Arab Philosophy of History, Selections from the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun of Tunis (1332-1406). Here he translates the Arab term for Roman which is Rum into English by the term Roman up to the death of Roman Emperor Heraclius in 641. He then translates the same name Rum with the term Byzantine for the rest of Khalduns Book. 12. The Final Version of Roman history The reader is encouraged to see volume VII of The Cambridge Ancient History which is entitled The Hellenistic Monarchies and The Rise of Rome, 1954, (pp.312-864) to see for himself that the word Aborigines, which is one of the two backbones of Roman history, is no where to be found. Nor is the role of the Pelasgian Greeks in Roman history mentioned. Both historians, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (dates not known exactly ) who wrote in Greek and Livy (59BC-17AD) who wrote in Latin, begin their histories of Roman reality with the Aborigines. Dionysius gives us much more information than Livy. But Dionysius also gives us a lot of information about the Pelasgian Greeks in Italy and how they were decimated by sickness and how their reduced numbers joined the Aborigines to become one people. Dionysius quotes Porcius Cato as the authority on the Pelasgians in Italy which means Dionysius is not inventing facts about Pelasgians in Italy. This means that these Pelasgian Greeks were also part of the racial background of the Romans and therefore are part of Roman history. But they, like the Aborigines, are not mentioned in the above The Rise of Rome, nor in Roman histories and encyclopedias known to this writer. To have found something about Pelasgians in Italy and their relations to the Aborigines would have been at least some indication that the Lie of Charlemagne may be loosening its grip on historical writing. The following are reported by the Roman historian Livy in his Ab Urbe Condita, i.e. From the Founding of the City and by the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities. Both report the ancient Roman tradition that the first Latins resulted from a union between the Greek speaking tribe of Italy called Aborigines and the Greek speaking Trojan refugees from the Trojan War. These Aborigines lived in Western Italy in the area South of the mouth of the Tiber river and were early dwellers on the site of Rome. They had been there many generations before the Trojan War. At the time of the arrival of the Trojans under Aeneas the king of the Aborigines was Latinus. The Trojans had landed on the shores of the land of the Aborigines in search for a homeland. These two Greek tribes decided to become one people by consummating a marriage between King Latinuss daughter Lavinia and Aeneas. The two tribes decided to call themselves Latins. The Aborigines had originated from Achaia, Southern Greece, and the Trojans of Aeneas had come from Illium, Asia Minor. The Trojans of Aeneas and Antenor had gotten permission from the Achaian conquerors of Troy to find a homeland elsewhere. The lives of Aeneas and Antenor and their peoples had been spared because they were against the war with the Greeks. Thus the Trojans headed by Aeneas and Antenor left Asia Minor in search of a new home. The Trojans under Aeneas ended up in Western Italy South of the Tiber and the Trojans under Antenor ended up in Eastern Italy at the mouth of the Po river. When leaving Asia Minor Antenors Trojans were accompanied by the Eneti who settled with some of Antenors Trojans in the area they called Enetia in Greek and Latin and which the Italians call Venetia. These two keys to Roman history, that of the Aborigines and that of the Trojans, are contested by all historians whose orientation to history was and still is shaped by Great Father Charlegmane (768-814). He was not only an ignorant barbarian himself, but his entourage and his successors for many centuries were no better. The reader may study their successors to see for himself if they are today any better. First we must describe the Carolingian Frankish misunderstanding of Roman history and then the motives why the errors of this misunderstanding are still perpetuated. The only way that Orthodox Christians may realize the background and context of their situation is to understand the falsification of their past history by the Franco-Latins. Before 794 the Franks called our Empire Imperium Romanum. In 794 this very same Empire became Imperium Grecorum. Then in the 19th and 20th century this very same Empire became a so-called Byzantine Empire. Why? In 1453 it was the Roman Empire which fell to the Ottoman Turks and not a Greek or Byzantine Empire, as pointed out clearly by Edward Gibbon and J. G. Bury. At the time of Charlemagnes rule all free West Roman Orthodox, including even the Irish, were still praying for their Imperium Romanum whose capital was Constantinople-New Rome. In 794, in order to stop these prayers, Charlemagne initiated the practice within his own territories of restricting the name Imperium Romanum only to the recently established Papal States by calling the free part of the Imperium Romanum in Southern Italy to the borders of Persia the heretical Imperium Grecorum whose real Emperor of the Romans became in the Frankish fiction the Imperator Grecorum. Evidently his barbarian mind believed that these prayers for the Imperium Romanum became efficacious only for the Papal States still called Romania and now incorporated into his Francia. This became especially so when he coerced Pope Leo III (785-816) to crown him Emperor in exchange for exonerating him from certain accusations. However, Pope Leo crowned him Emperor of the Romans. But Charlemagne never used the of the Romans part of this title since his Roman subjects were not Franks, i.e. Free (Franchised), and also because he wanted his title to be accepted by the real Roman Emperor in the East. In spite of the availability of more than enough ancient Roman sources to correct the above series of inaccuracies, there is still a well organized conspiracy against the restoration of historical truth in these matters. One would think that the sources themselves would be allowed to speak for themselves to let the students of history decide for themselves. But instead, these sources are carefully manipulated by those who fear what? a reunion of all those who have a Roman background into using their overwhelming numbers politically? It is obvious that the overwhelming numbers of those who are neither members of Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities nor Moslems living within the former territories of the Roman Empire are mostly descendants of former Roman citizens who were enslaved by Teutonic, Arab, Slavic and Turkish conquerors. Those Romans who became Moslems became either Arabs or Turks and were integrated into the Arab and Turkish tribes and nations. The Romans who remained Orthodox Christians in Islamic territories were not only protected by Islamic Law, but were officially called Melkites Rum (Romans), i.e. Romans who belong to the religion of the Roman Emperor in New Rome. The Moslems never considered the Roman Orthodox among them as members of the Franco-Latin Popes religion which Moslems still call Francji. However, those Romans who were conquered by the Teutonic nations were reduced to slavery and became the serfs and vilains of Franco-Latin Feudalism. Within this system of slavery the serfs and vilains did not have a king or emperor. What they had were Franco-Latin owners who were members of Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities under the religious jurisdiction of Franco-Latin Popes. This system was perfected after the process of expelling the real Roman Popes (begun in 983) was completed in 1046. If the reader wishes to see a perfect example of Franco-Latin forgery of history he should turn to the very large chapter on the history of the Papacy in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1957, to the three sections entitled The Franks, the Donation and Coronation, (pp. 203-204), The 9th Century (pp. 204-205) and The Popes and the Emperors, 918-1073 (pp. 205-206) and compare them with this writers Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine pp. 14-29. In the Brittanica article there is not one word about the fact that the Germans were getting rid of Roman Popes by smearing them and replacing them with Franco-Latin saints, nor the reason why. The reason for this continuing distortion of Roman history is the fact that ancient and medieval histories of Europe had become the special domain of the Franco-Latin Universities which still continue to distort the sources of Roman history through implementing the lies of Charlemagne and Emperor Ludovicus II (855-875) in 871. As these Franco-Latin centers of research, like Oxford and Cambridge, became aware of the sources of Roman history they simply resorted to ridiculing them as products of a Greek desire for making everything Greek. But there is a big difference between the sources themselves which are simply there because inherited from the past and the deliberate falsification of these sources in order to force them to repeat the historical dogmas-lies of Emperors Charlemagne and Ludovicus II. 13. More about the sickness of religion and the falsification of history. After the disappearance of the Roman Empire in 1453 the Four Roman Patriarchs of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem continued to oversee this work of the cure within the Ottoman Empire using the monasteries as the training ground for those specializing in this method of cure. Now missing from this foursome was the Roman Papacy of Elder Rome which had been taken over forcefully by the Franco-Latins who transformed it into a Franco-Latin Papacy. These new Franco-Latin proprietors continued to call their Papacy Roman in order to trick the West Roman serfs and vilains into thinking that the Pope of Rome was still a Roman like themselves. The Franco-Latin struggle to capture the Roman Papacy began in earnest in 983 and reached its climax between 1009 and 1046. The Carolingian Franks began their doctrinal career knowing fully only Augustine. But Augustine was a Neo-Platonist before his baptism and remained so the rest of his life. Because of this Franco-Latin Christianity remained Neo-Platonic until Occam and Luther lead sizable portions of Western Europe away from Neo-Platonic metaphysics and mysticism and their monastic supports. What Luther and Occam had done was to liberate whole sections of Franco-Latin Christianity from the metaphysical part of Augustinian paganism. However, Augustines pagan understanding of original sin, predestination and revelation were still adhered to. Charlemagne began his attack on the Roman Papacy by contradicting Pope Hadrians I (771-795) support of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 786/8. This illiterate king condemned this Ecumenical Council at his own Council of Frankfurt in 794 in the very presence of Pope Hadrians legates. When the Franks captured the Papacy during 1009-1046, they had rejected not only the Seventh, but also the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80 which had been supported conjointly by Pope John VIII (872-882) of Elder Rome and Patriarch Photius (877-886) of New Rome, as well as the remaining Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Council was convened to get the Franks to accept the Seventh Ecumenical Council and to convince them to remove their Filioque which they had added to the Roman Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council. Instead the Franks continued to accept as their Eighth Ecumenical that of 869. This Council had been annulled by the common consent of the Roman Emperor and by all Five Roman Patriarchates, i.e. Elder Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80 already mentioned. The Council of 869 had removed Patriarch Photius as one who had illegally replaced the former Patriarch Ignatius (846-858). In the mean time Photius had been writing humorous attacks on the Frankish addition of the Filioque to the Creed which infuriated the Franks. So it served their interests to create the impression that Photius had been condemned for doctrinal errors in 869 and that he had never been recognized by the Roman Papacy. Of course Pope John VIII fully cooperated with Patriarch Photius during the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 879/80. In other words a bunch of illiterate and barbarian Franks began their career in dogma during the reign of Charlemagne (768-814) by being against whatsoever is produced by Roman Emperors, Popes, and Patriarchs. This same Charlemagne even added his Frankish Filioque (which has nothing to do with the West Roman Orthodox Filioque) to the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council in order to improve it. In addition he condemned all who disagree as heretics at his Council of Aachen in 809. All this has been approved ever since 1009 by all infallible Franco-Latin Popes. To the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils the Franco-Latins added the annulled Council of 869 and their own 12 Ecumenical Councils. However, their acceptance of the first Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils has been only formal since they continue to distort them within the context of Augustines pre-suppositions. In other words the Franks transformed these Councils from the cure of the sickness of religion into support of the cause of the sickness of religion. They simply transformed them into Augustines own Neo-Platonic sickness of religion and therefore into a pagan form of Christian teaching and practice based on metaphysics and mysticism. 14. The cure of the sickness of religion and the Neo-Platonism of Augustine. The Roman Emperors from Constantine the Great (306-337) to the last Roman Emperor Constantine XII (1449-1453) accepted Christianity as the official cure of the sickness of religion and not as one more form of religion. It was because the prophets of the Old and the New Testament knew by means of their glorification in and by Yahweh the cure of this specific disease in the heart that Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire. This cure had nothing to do with either religious or philosophical speculation. The pinpointing of this sickness and its cure in the heart is also the only key to the union of Christians among themselves and the reason why members of the society practicing this cure accept the Nine Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Empire. These Nine Ecumenical Councils are part of Roman Law. What unites them into one whole is the cure of the sickness of religion by means of the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification of the whole person. Each of the Nine Ecumenical Councils condemned specific heresies of their time exactly because they deviated from this cure by attempting to transform the medical practice of the Church into systems of philosophical and mystical speculations and practices. However, Peter the Great lead the Russians into believing that there are only seven officially approved Ecumenical Councils. These Roman Councils happen to be the ones that the Franco-Latin Papacy continued to accept in common with the four East Roman Orthodox Patriarchates after the Franks captured the Patriarchate of Rome. This reduction of the Ecumenical Councils from Nine to Seven had become a first step in the attempted union between the Franco-Latin Papacy and the Roman Emperors of New Rome during the latter part of the 13th to the middle of 15th centuries. Submission to the Franco-Latin Papacy was the price that the Roman Emperor of New Rome was required to pay for Franco-Latin help against the Turks. This union was supposed to have been consummated at the union Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438-1442. This Council was condemned by the three Roman Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem at their Council of Jerusalem (1443). These three Roman Patriarchates were within Moslem held territories. Then in 1453 New Rome fell to the Ottoman Turks putting all four Roman Patriarchates within the Moslem world, putting an end to the need for asking for help from the Franco-Latin royalties and nobilities of Western Europe and their Pope. The reality of the matter was that the three Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had opted to continue their tradition of the cure of the sickness of religion of the Old and New Testaments and of the Nine Ecumenical Councils and were re-joined in this work by the Patriarchate of New Rome in 1453 after the Ottoman takeover of the capital of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the most serious among these deviations from the cure in question was that of Augustine. Indeed the Ninth Ecumenical Council condemned the philosophical and mystical speculations of Barlaam the Calabrian not knowing that he was simply repeating the philosophical and mystical speculations of Augustine. Since the rule of Charlemagne (768-814) Augustine had become the heart and core of Frankish theology and spirituality. As the Franks were becoming acquainted with Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils they simply understood them within the context of Augustines writings. From the time of Charlemagnes rule until the beginning of Peter Lombards doctrinal career (d. 1160) these Franks knew not one Father of an Ecumenical Council. Peter Lombard introduced St. John of Damascus (c. 675-749) summary of the doctrines of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which he and his fellow Franks have been reading through Augustinian lens since. Augustines doctrine of original sin, and by extension his nonsense about predestination, was condemned at the Council of Orange (529). This means that the Merovingian Franks belonged to the Orthodox Patristic tradition. Augustines teaching about revelation by means of creatures which God brings into existence to be seen and heard and then pass back into non-existence when their mission is accomplished was condemned by the Ninth Ecumenical Council of New Rome in 1341. The Fathers of the Council did not know at the time that the source of this nonsense was Augustine. 15. The Final Official History of Rome An essential part of Franco-Latin distortions has been their falsification of Roman History itself. This was inaugurated by Charlemagne in 794 at the Council of Frankfurt. He then began the centuries old Franco-Latin propaganda that the Romans attached to the Emperor of New Rome Constantinople and his Roman Patriarchies of New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are a bunch of Greek heretics. Up until this time the Franks had always called the Empire of Constantinople the Imperial Romanum and its citizens Romani. The very last time that these Franks used these correct titles is witnessed to in Charlemagnes Libri Carolini where he calls the Empire of New Rome the pagan Imperium Romanum. But this position evidently backfired against him because both enslaved and free West Romans were still praying in their Church services for the Imperium Romanum. So he kept the names Romania and Imperium Romanum for the Papal States only. He evidently believed that in this way these prayers would become efficacious for the Papal States only and baptized the rest of the Roman Empire the Imperium Grecorum. Now the Franco-Latin nobility has managed to lead naive historians into the use of terms like Byzantines and Byzantine Empire. There was never a Greek or Byzantine Empire nor a nation of Byzantines. Only those who dwelt in the new capital of the Roman Empire called themselves Byzantines which was the name of the small town which became Constantinople-New Rome in 331 AD. Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to Rome, learned Latin, and studied Roman sources in order to write his history of Rome. There is a tendency to make him look like one who is looking for proofs that the Romans are Greeks. But Dionysius, however, reports what the Romans themselves say about their origins. It was the Roman Senator and leader Porcius Cato who wrote the classical work on the origins of the Roman people in his book De Origines which is also a history of the Italian cities besides Rome. This book inspired the leaders of the French Revolution into realizing that they are descendants of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. This book is now lost? The keepers of the Lie of Charlemagne have, of course, serious problems with Dionysius. An example of how they cope with this historian is the introduction to the Loeb Classical Library edition of Dionysius Roman Antiquities. Earnest Cary claims that Dionysius promisesto prove that Romes founders were in reality Greeks, and Greeks from no mean tribes But what E. Cary omits to say here is that Dionysius allows the Roman writers themselves to do the proving for him as follows: But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say they (the Aborigines) were Greeks who used to live in Achaia (in Southern Greece) and migrated many generations before the Trojan war. After at least a thousand years in Italy these Aborigines no longer knew where exactly in Achaia they came from, to which tribe they belonged and who the leaders of their colonies were. Having in mind the older Roman historians, like P. Cato and G. Sempronius, both Livy and not only Dionysius agree with the tradition handed down to them that the Greek speaking nation of Latins came into existence when the indigenous Greek speaking Aborigines and the Greek speaking Trojans of Aeneas became one nation. The Aborigines occupied an area of the West Italian coastline South of the Tiber river and the Greek speaking Trojans had landed on the coast of the land of the Aborigines where they finally settled. The Aborigines and the Trojans became one nation. This took place when King Latinus of the Aborigines gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas, the leader of the Trojans who migrated to Italy as refugees from the Trojan War. Because of this marriage they called themselves Latins (after Lavinas Father Latinus had passed away) and their land Latium. The capital of this united Latin nation was Alba Longa. Some time later the twin Greek speaking Latin brothers, Romulus and Romus, left Alba Longa and founded Rome. These Latins and some Sabines, also a Greek speaking people, founded Rome and the Roman nation. This is why the kings of Rome were mostly of Latin or Sabine origin except for the Tarquins whose ancestors originated from Corinth. In time the Romans tried to convince the Latins of Alba Longa to unite with them into one nation to better protect themselves, especially against the Etruscans. The Latins of Alba Longa refused. One of the basic reasons for their refusal was that the Sabines, whose ancestors were Greeks from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece, were, according to the Latins, no longer pure Greeks, as we just saw. A bit latter King Ancus Marcius of Rome (640-616 BC), defeated the Latins and razed their capital in order to force the Latins of Alba Longa to become Romans. The Latins of Alba Longa were settled on the Aventine and were incorporated into the Roman system of the gentis. One of these Latin gens or families of Alba Longa were the ancestors of Julius Caesar. The term gens-gentis comes from the Greek word genos meaning the family or tribe one belongs to. This term gens became the difference between those of Greek origin and the tribes of those not of Greek origin. The gentes were those who belonged to the Patrician families who made up the Roman Senate. Eventually all Romans became members of Tribes, but only those of Greek origin remained members of tribes or families called gens and gentes. This is the origin of our word gentleman. We return to the author of the above introduction to Dionysius Roman Antiquities. He literally accuses Dionysius of adding material to his history from his imagination. According to him Dionysius invents many speeches where no speech is called for. In comparison Livy, who reports many of the same historical events has no speeches for the same occasions. Not taking seriously the claim of the Romans themselves that they are Greeks the author does not take Dionysius seriously when he writes that he worked with the Roman chronicles annalists. So therefore all Dionysius had to do is to copy the Greek texts of speeches from the chronicles and annalists and put them directly into his history. Livy wrote his history in Latin. He would have had to translate all these many Greek speeches into Latin. At the time that Dionysius went to Rome in about 8 BC he of course had to study the spoken Roman dialect of what was still a Greek language, although more mixed than usual with non Greek words and with a pronounced Roman accent. This also means that the chronicles and annalists were still in a more archaic form more easily readable to Dionysius than to Livy. About this still Greek language Dionysius writes, The language pronounced by the Romans is neither utterly foreign, nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of which the greater part is Aeolic (Greek) and the only pleasure they (the Romans) enjoy, when they intermingle with various nations, is that they do not always pronounce their sounds properly. But among all colonists they preserve all indications of their Greek origin. 16. Linguistic indications of the background of the Greek Latins, Romans and Sabines. Apart from the description which the Romans make about themselves, there are also linguistic indications which clearly point to the Greek reality of the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines. The claim that the name Rome e.g. is simply a place name, which may derive even from the Etruscans, is sheer nonsense. The name Rome in Greek means power, force, fighting army and speed tactics. The name Rome derives from two the Greek verbs: 1) roomai which means to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors. The name Rome also derives from of the Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which means to strengthen, make strong and mighty and to put forth strength, have strength or might. The closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning to flow, run, to hasten. Of all the uses of this verb both active and passive there is none that even comes close to meaning rome in Greek. Romans, Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) would be their common name which dictionaries translate as citizen. But the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greeks, polites, i.e. civitas. But the names quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek name kouros-kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, young men, esp. young warriors, Iliad 19. 193, 248. So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first warriors and later citizens. It is from the original military structure of the Roman army of quiretes that the first government was fashioned into thirty curiae of 1000 men each grouped into three tribes. . Because all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came to Italy by sea from Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea faring peoples. It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they shouted the Greek word Thalassios, sailor, at the groom and not the Latin name marinos. Of the seven hills of Rome the Quirinal, the hill of Mars, was originally that of the Sabines. It was from here that the Roman warriors of Romulus stole their wives from. Quiris was not only the Sabine name for a spear, but also for their god of war. They called their god of war The Warrior in their Greek language and later Mars. In the Roman tradition Romulus did not die, but ascended deified to heaven without leaving behind his body since he was or became the Quirinus, a or one of the god(s) of war. These are some of the contexts within which the Romans thought and spoke about themselves. No historian has the right to change this. Now whether this version of Roman history is correct or not is entirely another matter. But it remains a fact, however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins themselves and the Sabines themselves believed and wanted to believe that they are Greeks. Not only this, the united Roman nation of Romans, Latins and Sabines, spoke their own common Greek Language. Now some scholars may search for sources which may prove otherwise, i.e. for some reason the Romans who were not really Greeks came to believe that they are Greeks. So what? That would be like proving that a black American is not an American because he is black. Each Roman gens sometimes was composed of several thousand Romans each one headed by a Patrician member of the senate. The members of gentis memorized their laws from childhood and kept their laws a secret among themselves. A form of an Italian language was that of their slaves and dependents which also evolved into the Latin dialect mixed with Greek. It was these non Greek speaking dependents of Rome who finally forced the Romans to reduce the laws to written form. It was because of the violent protests of their Italian dependents that the Romans produced a text of laws in primitive Latin in about 450 BC. The problem was serious because these dependents did not know the laws by which they were being punished by Roman magistrates. Faced with the revolt of these dependents the senate sent a delegation to Athens to search for a solution to the problem. The result was a set of 10 texts on bronze tables which 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 those of non-Greek origin. The origin of this problem was that for centuries the members of Greek colonies were being assimilated by the barbarians among whom they lived. This was solved by the position that the gentes had to remain a pure race so that the offerings of their priests to their gods may be heard and that the auspices be taken correctly and correct answers received from the gods when making decisions on legal, social and especially military matters. The tribune of the Plebs, Gaius Canuleis, proposed a bill regarding the intermarriage of patricians and plebians which the patricians looked upon as involving the debasement of their blood and the subversion of the principles inhering in the gentes, or families and a suggestion, cautiously put forward at first by the tribunes, that it should be lawful for one of the consuls to be chosen from the plebs, was afterwards carried so far that nine tribunes proposed a bill giving the people power to choose consuls as they might see fit from either the plebs or the patriciansWhat tremendous schemes had Gaius Canuleis set on foot! He was aiming to contaminate the gentis and throw the auspices, both public and private into confusion, that nothing might be pure, nothing unpolluted; so that, when all distinctions had been obliterated, no man might recognize either himself or his kindred. For what else, they asked, was the object of promiscuous marriages, if not that plebeians and patricians might mingle together almost like the beasts? That the debate was not about the rights between rich and poor is shown by the following joke told by Gaius Canuleis in the same speech, Why, pray, do you not introduce a law that there shall be no intermarrying of rich and poor? 17. Equality derives from the cure of the short circuit between the heart and the brain. a) From Roman racism to Orthodox equality. All humans suffer from this short-circuit since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23) The difference among humans is not equality or inequality of race, but whether one is being cured or not. Within this context we have a complete reversal of the above foundation of the Hellenic paganism of the Roman Empire. The great struggle between paganism and Christianity in the time of Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) is reflected in the difference between Roman Greeks (meaning Pagans) and Roman Christians. All Pagan Romans were defending their aristocratic ancient Hellenic identity and traditions which was being torn apart by the aristocratic identity of the cure of glorification which was open to all Romans, both gentis and non-gentis, and to all non-Romans. The Aristocracy of Glorification is no respector of the aristocracy of birth. b) Examples of racism even in the theology of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. Having conquered the West Romans the Franco-Latins called themselves the gentis and their Roman slaves serfs and vilains. Pan-German ideology was clearly expressed to an extreme degree by the followers of Hitler who were out to enslave at least the Slavs. But a theological expression of this Germanic racism is found in Albert Schweitzers book, The Quest Of The Historical Jesus. For example, on the first page of Chapter I he claims that, When, at some future day, our civilization shall lie, closed and completed, before the eyes of later generations, German theology will stand out as a great, a unique phenomenon in the mental and spiritual life of our time. For nowhere save in the German temperament can there be found in the same perfection in the living complex of conditions and factors--- of philosophic thought, critical acumen, historic insight, and religious feeling---without which no deep theology is possible. And the greatest achievement of German theology is the critical investigation of the life of Jesus. What it has accomplished here has laid down the conditions and determined the course of the religious thinking of the future.. In the history of doctrine its work has been negative; it so to speak, cleared the site for the new edifice of religious thought. In describing how the ideas of Jesus were taken possession of by the Greek spirit, it was tracing the growth of what must necessarily become strange to us, and, as a matter of fact, has become strange to us.  All this has been done without the slightest knowledge of what glorification in the Lord (Yaweh) of Glory is (in both Old and New Testaments). This is ignored equally by both Germans and their Protestant and or Catholic colleagues. Because of Augustines Neo-Platonism, both Protestants and Latins have always imagined that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils accepted both the analogia entis between God and His creation and analogia fidei between God and the Bible. This created not only their Biblical fundamentalism, but also made Greek philosophy the foundation of their understanding of the History of Dogma which is certainly not that of the reality of the Roman Ecumenical Councils. The reason for this is that Western Biblical and doctrinal scholars are ignorant of the Four Patristic Keys to the Bible and the Dogmas of the Roman Ecumenical Councils explained earlier. But even many Orthodox scholars follow either the Protestant or Catholic scholars by sniffing. Albert Schweitzer and his students saw clearly where their quest for the historical Jesus was leading, i.e. to the dissolution of the doctrinal fabric of what passes off as Christian Tradition in the Franco-Latin West. One typical Orthodox reaction has been to become proud that the Fathers of the Church had supposedly Hellenized Christianity thereby making it acceptable to the Hellenic mind of the Roman Empire. The Slavophil branch of Pan-Slavism also believed that the Slavs understood the Bible better than other races. But the supposed reason for this is that among the Orthodox the Greco-Roman Fathers of the Church belong to the historical manifestation of the Kouchite movement in history, whereas the Slavs belong to the Iranian movement in history. In other words the Slavic Orthodox are a superior brand of Christians than the Roman Fathers of the Church, not because they may have reached glorification, but simply because they are Slavs. 18. Charlemagnes strategy required that real Romans be Latin speaking. a ) Frankish defensive needs It is a fact that the Carolingian Franks wanted and decided to believe that the Romans were only an Italo-Latin speaking race. They had inherited Latin as their official language which they continued from Gregory of Tours. Their own language was a Teutonic Dialect. The tradition that the Romans were Latin and Latin speaking was invented within the Carolingian circles and became manifest in the year 794. In his Libri Carolini composed just before 794 Charlemagne continued the Frankish tradition of calling the Empire of New Rome the Imperium Romanum. But since 794 this same Charlemagne began calling the Eastern part of this Empire the Imperium Grecorum. It must be emphasized that when this change took place the Franks were ignorant barbarians. Since Charlemagne himself was illiterate it is probable that the Saxon Alcuin, the director of his Palatine School, perhaps did some kind of research which convinced him that the Romans were a people who spoke Latin only or mainly. This would mean that the Greek language became a Roman language only because so many Greeks had become Romans in the course of Roman conquests. The Franks knew very well that the Romans in Southern Spain, Southern Gaul, Southern Italy were Greek speaking. Even Rome itself had been a Greek speaking city until Constantine moved the Roman Capital to Constantinople-New Rome. The void left by the so many Romans who moved to New Rome was filled mostly by Latin speaking Romans. This obliged Pope Damasus to introduce Latin into the services of Rome. Italy had two Synods of bishops: the Northern Synod centered in Milan and the Synod of Rome whose members were all the bishops not only of the rest of Italy but the whole of the Balkans excepting Thrace which had been transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The reason for this falsification was the Frankish need to convince their West Romans serfs and vilains that their Emperor and fellow Romans in the East were nothing but a bunch of Greeks and heretics. His purpose was to cut off the West Romans from the East Romans who were still trying to help their fellow-Romans in the West now enslaved to the Franco-Latins. The West Romans hoped for, and the Franco-Latins feared, a repetition of the liberation of West Romans from the Vandals and Goths by the East Roman armies of Emperor Justinian (527-565). But what about modern historians today? Why are they not better historians of Rome than their barbarian ancestors of the Dark Ages? Because some of them have the ability of trying to present such East Romans liberators as non-existing Byzantine conquerors of West Roman provinces. The reason for this is that they either belong to a group who have serious defensive reasons for distorting historical facts or else they are not real historians. In the first case history becomes part of either an offensive or defensive strategy. From such a point of view one may sympathize with the Franco-Latins and their problems. One may thus understand their need for hiding the real identity of the East Romans from enslaved West Romans as part of those measures being taken for controlling such an immense Roman population which even as late as 1789 totaled 85% of the population of France. b) Real Latins and Franco-Latins. As we have seen the First Latins of official Roman history resulted from a union of Greek speaking Pelasgians, Aborigines and Trojans, having adopted their name from King Latinus. They were joined by the Greek speaking Sabines who began joining this group at the time of the founding of Rome. The last group of Latins of Roman history were created as part of the settlement between Rome and those Italians who revolted between 91-83 BC demanding Roman citizenship. A second group of Italians also revolted at the same time and fought for their complete independence from Rome. The first group won the right to become semi-citizens with the Latin name, but without the complete Roman franchise. The second group was simply defeated. This distinction between Roman and Latin citizens of Rome, which resulted from this revolt, was abolished by Emperor Caracala in 212 AD when he gave these Italian Latins the Roman name. Legally there were no Latins after this. It is possible that the Merovingian Franks may have been given the Latin name as indicated by the fact that their gold coins bore the effigy of the Roman Emperors of Constantinople-New Rome from Anastasius I (491-518) through the reign of Heraclius (610-641). The latters rule coincided with his ally the Frankish King Dagobert I (d. 639). Together they fought the Bulgarians and Slavs. The title of the Merovingian kings was simply King of the Franks because the Emperor of the Romans was in New Rome ruling the Romans in Gaul by means of the Frankish Kings, especially after the West Roman Emperor disappeared in 476. Dagoberts reign was followed by the do nothing kings, evidently made that way by their Carolingian Mayors of the Palace who after the reign of Dagobert become the real rulers of the Roman Province of Gaul. It is significant that the name Francia is not once mentioned in Gregory of Tours History of the Franks since it remained the Roman Province named Gallia. In other words the Frankish King was the King of the Franks, not the King of the Romans, but their governor. Evidently it was this precedent was followed by Charlemagne who never called himself Emperor of the Romans, but Augustus who administers or governs the Roman Empire. It is also possible that the Carolingian Franks may have been given the Latin name in conjunction with Pope Leo IIIs (795-816) crowning Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans in 800. In any case we call the Teutonic Latins of the Middle Ages Franco-Latins in order to distinguish them from the Greek Latins who were Romans and the Italian Latins who became Romans in 212 AD. The Franks never became Romans, but rulers of the Romans. In sharp contrast to the Merovingian Franks, who were allies of New Rome, the Carolingian Franks literally hated the Romans. This is clear from the Libri Carolini, the Carolingian preface to Salic Law and Otto Is Ambassador to New Rome Luitbrand of Cremona who revealed this same reality in his tirade against the very name Roman, which, according to him, all Franco-Latins use to insult their enemies. Frankish hatred for Romans, and not dogma, was the basis of Charlemagnes condemnation of Romans as heretics and Greeks at his Councils of Frankfurt in 794 and Aachen in 809. The main purpose of these titles, heretic and Greek was to teach the enslaved West Romans that the only Roma