Ρωμηοσύνη Ρωμανία Ρούμελη

by Ιωάννης Σ. Ρωμανίδης

Κατά παράκλησιν φίλων ητοίμασα δι' εκτύπωσιν το παρόν δοκίμιον χάριν εκείνων που συγκινούνται με την Ρωμηοσύνην μας, παρ' όλην την ωργανωμένην και έντονον πλύσιν εγκεφάλου που υφιστάμεθα, δια να την εγκαταλείψωμεν και την αντικαταστήσωμεν με τον Γραικισμόν, τον οποίον προσπαθούν οι Ευρωπαίοι να μας επιβάλουν από τον Θ' αιώνα και οι Ρώσοι μετά την Άλωσιν, ως περιγράφομεν εν τω δοκιμίω τούτω.

Το πόνημα τούτο είναι περίληψις των όσων διδάσκω περί των ιστορικών και ιδεολογικών πλαισίων και θεμελίων της ρωμαίικης υποστάσεως του Γένους. Ο αναγνώστης θα διαπιστώση ότι πολλά εκ των εκτιθεμένων ενταύθα, ερμηνευτικά αλλά και ιστορικά, απουσιάζουν από τα εν χρήσει εγχειρίδια των εκπαιδευτικών εν Ελλάδι ιδρυμάτων ως και από την επίσημον εμφάνισιν του Έθνους και της Ελλαδικής Εκκλησίας.

Τα εν λόγω ερμηνευτικά και ιστορικά στοιχεία ως εμφανίζονται εν Ελλάδι είναι πιστή παραλλαγή της ευρωπαϊκής, ρωσικής και αμερικανικής περί των εν προκειμένω θεμάτων επιστήμης.

Τα περισσότερα εν τω δοκιμίω τούτω αναφερόμενα γεγονότα ως γεγονότα δεν δημοσιεύονται δια πρώτην φοράν. Έχουν σχεδόν όλα δημοσιευθή και υπάρχουν κατεσπαρμένα εις παλαιά και νέα βιβλία, ξένα και ελληνικά. Η προσφορά του βιβλίου τούτου είναι η ρωμαίικη σύνθεσις και ερμηνεία των ως επί το πλείστον γνωστών στοιχείων.

ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ
ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ

Α'. Η ΕΘΝΙΚΗ ΚΑΘΑΡΣΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΜΑΪΚΗΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΟΡΑΜΑ ΤΩΝ ΜΕΛΛΟΝΤΙΚΩΝ ΗΝΩΜΕΝΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΦΡΑΓΚΟ-ΡΩΜΑΝΙΑΣ
1. ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΗ
2. ΣΧΕΔΙΑΓΡΑΜΑ
α) Οι Ελληνόφωνοι Πελασγοί, Αρκάδες, Λακεδαιμόνιοι και Τρώες, οι οποίοι αποτελούν το 'Ρωμαϊκόν Έθνος. Οι Ιταλικοί (Italici), οι οποίοι επανεστάτησαν το 91 π.Χ. ζητώντας το 'Ρωμαϊκόν όνομα, αλλά εδόθη εις αντικατάστασιν το Λατινικόν όνομα το 85 π.Χ. και τελικώς το 'Ρωμαϊκόν όνομα το 212 μ.Χ. (Παρ.1-9)
β) Οι πρώτοι Ρωμαίοι Ιστορικοί, οι οποίοι έγραψαν εις τα Ελληνικά, όχι εις τα Λατινικά. Διατί; (Παρ.10-11)
γ) Οι πρώτοι Ρωμαίοι Ιστορικοί, οι οποίοι έγραψαν εις τα Λατινικά (Παρ.12-17)
δ) Περισσότεραι γλωσσολογικαί ενδείξεις του υποβάθρου των Ελληνοφώνων Λατίνων, 'Ρωμαίων και Σαβίνων (Παρ.18-31)
ε) Κατά την διάρκειαν του 7ου π.Χ. αιώνος οι Ελληνο-Λατίνοι της Alba Longa αμφισβητούσαν ότι οι Ελληνο-Λατίνοι της 'Ρώμης δεν ήσαν πλέον καθαροί Έλληνες. Αυτό πρέκυψεν από την απορρόφησιν των Ελληνο-Αλβανών Λατίνων υπό των Ελληνο-'Ρωμαίων Λατίνων (Παρ.32-45)
στ) Η Φραγκική Παπωσύνη του 1046 και η Νορμανδική Αγγλία του 1066 (Παρ.46-48)
ζ) Το ψεύδος της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας αποκαλύπτεται καθαρά υπό της 'Ρούμελης της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (Παρ.49)
η) Το Πρωτόκολλον του Λονδίνου της 31ης Ιανουαρίου του 1836. Η ανάγκη δια το ψεύδος της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας (Παρ.50)
θ) Πώς τα σχέδια δια μίαν 'Ρωμαϊκήν Επανάστασιν έγιναν δια μίαν Ελληνικήν (Παρ.51-52)
ι) Εις κάθε περίπτωσιν το αστείον είναι εις τους ψεύτας (Παρ.53)
ια) Η Φραγκία μαζί με την 'Ρωμανίαν ισούται με τας Ηνωμένας Πολιτείας της Φραγκο-'Ρωμανίας (Παρ.54-55)
ιβ) Η θεραπεία των φαντασιών είναι το ων ουκ άνευ μιας τοιαύτης κοινωνικής πραγματικότητας (Παρ.56-57)
ιγ) Η χρήσις των ονομάτων Alban/Albanian και Roman/Romanian. (Παρ.58)

Β' ΤΑ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΚΑ ΠΛΑΙΣΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΣ
1) Τα εθνικά ονόματα
2) Αντιφάσεις εις την ευρωπαϊκήν ιστορικήν επιστήμην
3) Οι Νεογραικοί έναντι των εν προκειμένω αντιφάσεων
4) Περιγραφή ή σχέδιον ιστορίας πολιτισμών
5) Ο ελληνικός πολιτισμός των Ρωμαίων
6) Η ρωμαϊκή θεώρησις της ιστορίας έναντι της ευρωπαϊκής και ρωσικής

Γ' Η ΑΠΟΜΑΚΡΥΝΣΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΦΡΑΓΚΩΝ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΝ

Δ' ΤΑ ΘΕΜΕΛΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΕΝΑΝΤΙ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΣΑΙΩΝΙΚΗΣ ΕΥΡΩΠΗΣ
1) Η 'Ρωμαιοσύνη ως εν τω κοσμώ ηγεσία
2) Ο Ιερός Αυγουστίνος και η Φραγκοσύνη
3) Ο επαρχιωτισμός των Φράγκων και η επεκτατική των πολιτική
4) Θεμελιώδεις παρανοήσεις εκ μέρους του Αυγουστίνου και των Ευρωπαίων
5) Οι έναντι της Ρωμηοσύνης ισχυρισμοί των Προτεσταντών
6) Σχέσεις Αμβροσίου και Αυγουστίνου
7) Παράδεισος, κόλασις και αποφατική θεολογία
8) Ευρωπαϊκή και ρωμαίϊκη θεολογία σήμερον

Ε' ΕΞ ΕΠΟΨΕΩΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΣ
1) Ο ελληνικός πολιτισμός και ο δυτικός πολιτισμός σήμερον
2) Επιστημονική πρόοδος εν σχέσει προς την Φραγκοσύνην και την Ρωμαιοσύνην
3) Τα δόγματα και οι κανόνες των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων της Ρωμαιοσύνης εις την Φραγκοσύνην
4) Η ιστορία της Φιλοσοφίας εις την Ευρώπην
5) Η ιστορία της κλασσικής φιλολογίας
6) Η πολιτική και η εκκλησιαστική ιστορία
7) Οι Ρωμαίοι Πατέρες και οι Φραγκολατίνοι Σχολαστικοί
8) Ο ευρωπαϊκός «φεουδαλισμός»
9) Τα φεουδαρχικά θεμέλια των ισχυρισμών των Φράγκων ότι υπερέβησαν τους Πατέρας της Ρωμαιοσύνης
10) Η Εκκλησία των Ρωμαίων ως το κατ' εξοχήν φραγκικόν μέσον καθυποτάξεως των δυτικών αλλά και ανατολικών Ρωμαίων εις την Φραγκοσύνην

ΣΤ' ΕΤΕΡΑ ΤΙΝΑ ΕΞ ΕΠΟΨΕΩΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΣ
1) Τινά επί πλέον περί ρωμαϊκών εθναρχιών και φεουδαλισμού
2) Η υπό των Φράγκων κατάληψις της εθναρχίας της πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης
3) Η Ρωμαιοσύνη και ο Γερμανισμός, το υπόβαθρον της διασπάσεως της θρησκευτικής Φραγκοσύνης
4) Ο φεουδαλισμός και όχι η Ρωμαιοσύνη εις τα θεμέλια της φραγκικής παπωσύνης
5) Τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου της Φραγκο...

416 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1975

Reviews

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again I will write this review in English since, quite obviously, this book has been one of the most important, fundamental, and great books I've read in my life so far.
This book is in my opinion one of the most revolutionary, innovative and groundbreaking books I've read in the spheres of history, politics, anti colonial theory and in theology. The book is dense but I'll try to mention the most important aspects of it and what makes it so groundbreaking. Many of the contents of the book were issues I wanted to write for a long time and finding a book that has done such work already that no other has dared to commit in such scale (except exceptional authors like Anthony Kaldellis recently) was wonderful.

The main point of the book is to give importance on our identity, our nation, our people, our culture, our state as Romans. Not as "neogreeks", but instead on what we always were. Romans. Romanidis makes exactly this argument that, when the Ottoman empire was crumbling, the Great Powers, instead of letting the Roman people that were enslaved in the ottoman empire revolt against it and gain their complete independence, effectively liberating the Roman state that was conquered by Turks in 1453, they created artificial ethnic identities along the regional lines of the roman and ottoman empire akin to what the same powers did a century later with the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Through theological, historical and neocolonial means they created small and semi independent nations that were entirely dependent through debt on their Western masters, these newly formed Balkan nations such as the state of Greece, was and still is on its basis, a slave state and the greek identity on its fundamental a slave identity. The people of the Balkans by absolute total majority used to call themselves Romans and identify their culture, state and nation in the Roman state that got captured by the Turks in 1453 and not in anything else. Many people in the Balkans still call themselves as such, such as Romanians, Aromanians (vlachs), and romans in Anatolia who call themselves rumioi/romioi and their language romeika/rumeika. He writes: The Great Powers desired not to establish a free Roman state which could in time include all the Romans of the Balkans, Asia Minor and the Middle East and replace the Ottoman Empire. They wanted the Ottoman Empire to be dissolved and replaced, but by small easily controllable through debt, states. For this reason it was absolutely necessary that a united Romanity should also be dissolved. (Thus we see the core origins of modern Western idea and practice of what Kwame Nkrumah calls Neo-Colonialism.)

In the beginning of the book, Romanidis makes the argument that the old city of Rome has been Greek way before it was Latinized. He gives many examples why Rome and Roman does not equate to Latin and that Romans were not Latins but they were themselves Romans. That is shown in the fact that most of the ancient Roman citizens spoke Greek and not Latin and most of pre 500 BC historical works were written not in Latin but in Greek. Latin became a common language after 500 BC and still even then, most of the senate and public still kept speaking Greek and not Latin. To make the argument that "east Rome was not Roman because they adopted the Greek language" is extremely ahistorical and idiotic and Romanidis points this out in excellent ways. To go even a step further I argue that there was nothing "greek" about the late roman empire (which the colonial western world calls "byzantine") as such neither the political system, nor the economic system, nor the religion, nor the education, nor the customs were of Hellenic origin but it was the time, after christianity, the first time that Rome, and generally the identity of Rome and Roman got its own, unique and special identity that truly differentiated it with other civilizations. Before Constantine and Theodosius, ancient Rome, was more of a copy of ancient Greece, Germanic tribes, Carthage and other Italian civilizations such as the Etruscans. Rome truly shapes itself on its own identity of Romiosini, of Romanity/Romaness after Christianity.

Romanidis argues that it is imperative to find our OWN history and not be slaves on the historiographical narrative that the West, as an effective Other of us Romans, created for us to weaken us, through their racist ideas of their 'racial superiority' over us. Romanidis makes exactly the argument that the way we see ourselves as greeks (and i'd also include every other balkan nation such as albanians which romanidis talks about but also bulgarians, romanians, macedonians etc stand today as nations that are only ancient without a 'middle ages' period. Nations that they have had their identities stolen by the west, and had them constructed and projected by the same West so the Roman people of the balkans and anatolia remain weak and easily controllable. Such as terms like "byzantine" or "greek" should be rejected and disregarded as they have their origin and usage in the colonialist and racist Germans who used these terms to dehumanize us and claim our civilization and identity for themselves after conquering and subjugating our Western Roman lands and pillaging and looting our Eastern Roman lands.

Romanidis makes the excellent argument, answering to many false Marxist interpretations of history that systems like feudalism, slavery and class struggle were universal and existed everywhere in very similar ways. Romanidis points out the fact that we Romans never had feudalism and that feudalism is a system invented specifically from the Franks and imposed by force on the Roman subjects of the Western part that Franks conquered. Ideas such as Racism, Racialism, Nobility, Class structure and class antagonisms were phenomena existing in Frankish society and never in our Roman state after Christianity. The Roman state after christianity has been a republic that was ruled by a senatorial body which was itself governed by the Roman people (thus everyone living in Roman lands no matter the religion, social and economic status and language). Romans in the Roman empire could study in the best universities the world had ever seen completely for free, even if they were from very poor and irrelevant backgrounds. It is very important that Romanidis points out the obvious fact that Roman emperors had no actual power on themselves and acted on accordance with the senate, but also the fact that there was no hereditary power and all hegemons had to be elected. Which comes up to the most important, already mentioned fact that most Roman emperors managed to become emperors through their skill and not because they were born from a specific nobility, such as the Frankish system that was established in the West. For this reason Romanidis argues that modern class antagonism between the working class and the bourgeois class of Europe have their roots in this racist view that Frankish nobility had against the "subhuman" Romans.

Wrt he specifically writes that: "As we have seen, the Franks, as well as the more closely related Germanic tribes, who together with the Franks conquered the Romans and Slavs in Western Europe and Italy, came to believe that they were by nature, by birth, noble as a race, and that the conquered were by nature and by birth humble or common and servile, that is, sclavi/slavic, slaves. This means that, contrary to the Roman social conception, the Teutons do not believe that a spiritually slave can become spiritually noble, since each one is not what he is in spirit, but by nature and by birth. Slavs (Slaves) beget Slavs and nobles beget nobles." In contrast to the Romans, the Frankish state was considered the personal property of the king, and therefore his male children inherited their father's property. The state was even divided into as many pieces as was needed, so that each son could inherit his share. From this principle came the European tradition of dividing the European states and countries among themselves, with only a few families of the same name. In early Arabic Islam, the caliphs, as well as the younger tribes, must necessarily be descended from the tribal family of Mohammed. (Though this changed alot depending on the era)The basic premise of the Frankish national ideology, which was the foundation of feudalism, was the idea of the natural and divine superiority of the Frankish or Germanic race over other races, including of course the Roman or 'Greek' race. In time this ideology was transformed into the natural and divine superiority of the noble class over the serfs.
The racist ideology of Hitler's Nazis has had its historical roots ever since.

One very important and groundbreaking take of Romanidis is how he states that the Greek state was not a liberator in the Aegean and by extension neither in Epirus or Macedonia or in Thrace. Only as a free Roman state we would be able to liberate those lands since those lands never belonged in a Hellenic state. He states that now the Turks are preparing plans to 'liberate' the Aegean and their stance has a better historical legitimacy than the one of the "Neograecians".

Ofcourse I have had some disagreements with the author which can be somewhat fundamental but the review has already gone long enough for my standards and time and, even if they were kinda fundamental, they were not enough to even harm my opinion of the book in the slightest. It is impossible to mention everything the book offers and talks about wrt the spheres of theology especially which Romanidis makes extensive criticism of the Frankish invention of "catholicism" and "protestantism" when they conquered and subjugated the old Patriarchate of Old Rome and enforced the ideas of st. Augustine on the Romans of Italy. He goes on to make extensive theological commentary that connect with history and politics and shows how important it is to truly understand the theological background of Europe if someone wants to talk about anti colonialism and independence. All anti colonial writters in the past have spoken and analysed colonialism on the ground basis of its consequences in their own respective regions of asia, africa, america etc, but no one could for obvious reasons analyse and understand the true origins and root of Western ideological and practical fundcamentals of Western ideology and colonialism since the first victims of both typical classic colonialism and also neo colonialism as analysed by Nkrumah, were the Roman people especially of the Balkans and Anatolia.

I think, that especially as Communists, this book should have an equal importance, if not much bigger importance, than the orientalist and racist crap written by Engels in his Origin of Family, State and Private Property. Its a book that, in my opinion, every Communist, Marxist and especially people versed into the Juche idea should read, even tho unfortunately it doesnt exist in English. The book draws alot from Juche even if Romanidis is not knowledgeable of it.

5/5