It could be surmised that if the English did not decide the denigrate roman civilisation as one of the worst

episodes in human history, then their would be a chance today we would be force fed the blatant lie and forgery that Constantine and Helena were british. The incredible tenacity of the English to reappropriate aspects of history as their own, while at the same time denigrating its other aspects of its history, is typical of a institution that propagates its imperial legitimacy to an unsuspecting world. The question of the civilisation of Greece and rome, always has to be made in the shadow of Britain who claims the same imperial universal privileges as the roman emperors of Constantinople did. Inferiority complexes, the question of legitimacy, misplaced pride, the shame of adopting and inheriting a civilisation that is contrary to Greek And roman republican /monarchical ideals and was in fact its historical nemesis that has consequently re glossed its gothic feudal heritage into one that suddenly intertwines with the continuation of the heritage of civilisation of the greeks and romes, has made English scholars, intellectuals act like immature children who engage in rants and tantrums denouncing, fabricating and reappropriating roman history so that it appeals and settles the broad spectrum of inferiority complexes of the anglo saxon world who in fact hold the contemporary septula of universal claim to civilisation; like the romans have, of providing a prototype of civilisation to the whole world reinforcing the common roman motifs and dichotomies of barbarian versus civilisedand other rhetoric usages. When caracalla, roman emperor was invested to grant universal citizenship to the whole roman empire, the English were content with enslaving their conquered populations, not because they represented a threat to civilisation, but because each piece of stock was viewed not as a human being, but as an evolved animal. This represents a huge chasm between these two empires holding similar worldly claims, especially when one gleans over roman views of the person which is enshrined in stoicism, the person was a special and distinct creation in the created world to be treated with respect and even honour, this is remarkably different to how to the English viewed people in colonial times. [View law of nations and Justinian of natural law.] Guy freeland determines in his, Constantine and the british origins of Byzantine history july vima 2013. Rant that st Constantine respected beliefs of pagans like the greater monarchs of England like Elizabeth. Nonsense! 1. rome knew nothing of multiculturalism. Comparing USA to Byzantium as both claiming one nation under god, while murmuring,[supply your own definition] a vague hint of antagonism, aware that he a mix of audiences with different views. Conjuring Constantines idea of god is like the americans pluralistic god or great architect. The medieval episode of Britain produced heretics by trial and ordeal, in a time of witch hunts and other uncivilised tenets of measure. The English reformation would certainly testify to the barbaric legacy of the medieval west, which had no parallel in Greco roman times where exile was granted to heretics

and capital punishment was rare, especially in Christian rome. Such superficial attempts of comparing two different civilisations from the narrow idiom and periphery of british prejudices, is the hallmark of british intellectual lairs constantly using Greco roman history in the context of ramping up their british intellectual claims and soothing their cultural inferiority complexes. Guy presents the narrative of a sneaky rendition of an alluring fabled and revered Byzantium treatment with vague and suggestive undertones discrediting the orthodox beliefs about st Constantine and the Byzantine empire. Namely the title of his work is indicative of this treatment Phrases like constantine bringing christianity under the skirts of the monotheistic cult of unconquered cult. Guy presents st. Constantine as having a gradual conversion into the faith, alluding hints he was a practicing pagan, he contradicts himself by previously making it clear that Constantine had an aversion to the cult, saying,Constantine dismisses cult of Apollo as being distasteful and contemptible as he admitted, yet with the latter phrase, and I quote,the whole notion of a sudden conversion experience does not fit the evidence. Implying st Constantine was not a practicing Christian. In the fourth century the passage from paganism, reads as follows,transitional monotheistic cult of sol invictus to full initiation membership to the church was a gradual one. Guy speculates Constantine titled himself as a bishop. Of course another biased footnote of English historians hinting and suggesting the false and debunked idea of caesaropapism. And this nonsense is openly taught at the comical st Andrews theological college . Guy admits the Constantine coin that bore the words of sol invictus can easily well be interpreted as Christ Apollo. Christos helios, Christ the sun. Such depictions of Christ in a pagan world is expected. The gradual call for conversion stance, guy maintains, cannot be enforced. Thus showing the genuineness of st constantines conversion and the conviction for the rest of his life after the victory and the sign miracle that Christianity was the truth and salvation of man. A list of guy Freelands Errors in his article, Constantine and the british origins of Byzantine history july vima 2013,firstly, guy wrongly states that Constantine was born in Serbia.Wrong. The area that is now known as Serbia is more fitting. This is a significant error , if interpreted in context with contemporary events, would suggest a firm historical precedent for modern Slavic Macedonia. Guy marks the 1700th anniversary of the edict of Milan with contempt, by incorrectly citing the date as celebrating religious freedom when the edict plainly was a proclamation for the freedom practice of Christianity throughout the empire. Since all religion was already tolerated in roman empire, Christianity was especially persecuted because it claimed exclusivity as the living god, which considered roman gods as false. It is true a reinstatement of religious freedom was made, in the context of the persecuted religion. It isd hard to find another persecuted religion in the roman empire. One can easily draw a peculiar obsession and fascination with guys preoccupation of fitting Byzantine history into a british slant idiom or almost as a chapter of british history itself. This is the xenophobic hallmark of british writers constantly consumed

with marginalizing sexy historical narratives within their own. However when one is familiar with british treatment of Byzantine history, one will quickly glean that it underpins a sensitive crust regarding how Britain sees its position in the world as a prototype of civilisation, [in protest and direct opposition to the Byzantine claim], and as the godly ordained destiny of Britain to rule the world. Britain is an upstart to the imperial claims of the real Rome, a real christian rome [Byzantium]which genuinely was heavenly ordained to guide christs church on earth against a backdrop of real actual evading barbarians and was authentically a civilising power to the world. Britain on the other hand was not, it did not spread civilisation like the romans did, it negated them. However the appropriation of the roman rhetoric and as pledging the genuine inheritor of rome was important to her position in the world stage. The treatment of justifying roman imperial claims is not the subject of this paper. However a fair treatment in the area will show conclusively that in every area, Greco roman civilisation was far superior to the British enterprise. Britain was the first corporation fief which developed from feudal modes of production and governmental practices first conceived amongst the Normans and Goths. Feudalism did not come from roman society like many English intellectuals have lied about. Feudalism arose after rome fell to the Goths which introduced feudal modes of governance and the dark ages to Europe, sinking the whole world into perpetual ignorance. The barbarians love for a progressive society re emerged not for the love of nature, philanthropy and civil society, but only through the love of alchemical occultism, which re introduced the world with a type of science, a fake science, consumed not with civil redress that the greeks and romans possessed, but rather for the gain of individual profits and exploitation at the expense of the masses. Its basic tenet is man and science can overcome the limitations of nature by controlling it and therefore disease was viewed in this unscientific ideological medieval light [occultist] which believed man can one day live in a disease free world with the progress of science, forgetting completely that the health of populations is dependent on the health of the ecosystems and the planet. Here is the source of the worlds environmental problems. BASED ON FEUDAL MEDIEVAL FOLLY THOSE MASQUARADING THE BENEFITS OF SCIENCE THAT HAS ITS ORIGINS IN OCCULTISM AND ALCHEMY., The romans viewed this ideal of government[feudalism] as tyrannical. Feudalism gave rise to colonialism to merchantilism and then finally into capitalism. Differences between Greco roman institutions with English feudal versions. 1 disparity of wealth is greater in medieval England than the roman empire. The Equality of justice and its administration was superior to british instruments of justice which sought profit before well being. Roman society did not prostitute the idea of the sacred for temporal material profit, which is the offspring and mother of Darwinism which asserts that an institution deserves not to exist unless it could accumulate material profit, usually in the form of personal wealth accumulation and acquisition. 10% of the worlds population own more than 80% of the worlds resources is the measure of failure of these gothic institutions that consumed the world like a virus. Bankers literally playing monopoly with the world[unsurprisingly an English game] by carving up the worlds resources to be speculated and exploited and profited. The creation of money out of thin air without any metal to back it up has led to record level high of counterfeit production. When the jews in Jerusalem were clipping coins to create wealth, the roman senate addressed this abuse and rectified it in order to preserve the status quo of wealth equality amongst citizens of rome. Today

companies controlling the worlds wealth, privaltely pay little tax because islands in paradise have been created [tax havens for their indulgence] roman society would be horrified at epidemic levels of corruption especially in the stock market [hedge fund and ponzy schemes which the bankers instead of being punished were reimbursed. 2 magnus carta cannot be compared to the Justinian code . one is a civilised code for the administration of justice to all citizens, the carta ignores the masses by formulating rules of engagement amongst the nobles, lords, barons and rich who possessed all land and wealth. 3 the peasants of England did not have the law of inheritance or dowries as the romans did ,Nor the law of protection against feudal despots like the lords governing the peasants THE feudal lords a source of law amongst themselves. 4 the romans had the tribune which was a direct popular elect[checked abuses from the senate, while the English had the opposite, the house of lords which represented the interests of the nobility.. Today the lords are the corporations holding infallible power which governments comically cannot control. 5 The romans had a direct petition system,,Refer, [behind the law serena Connolly][an area completely ignored by english scholars who would help conceal the deficiencies of their own adversarial style legal system that mimicked the trial and ordeal procedures of the medieval ages by enshrining accusation as a form of evidence.] The English legal system administered justice in a witch trial fashion in contradiction and against the precedents of written law of which they claim to abide by. The roman petition system allowed the common person access to swift justice without red tape and rich lawyers using paid in hand loop holes by direct engagement with the emperor in addressing a particular breach of justice that was contrary to an establishment and uncontested legal issue. This form of justice by passed socio demographic barriers to effective justice while the English adversarial system that is based on the privatised[feudal] legal cartels of the 15th century were amicable more for the rich than the common person who was the villain of the lord. . Refer [evan whitton, our corrupt legal system] how lawyers discourse and intervention can alter the general precedent of written law to serve the interests of clientism[money buying justice] therefore law is determined not by the civil idea of written jurisprudence,but by the lawyers power in re interpreting law in a way that significantly changes the general substance and underlining principal of the law. This = feudalism. 6 the magnus carta was not a law for the people, that it has been propagated as, but was an inclusive law dealing with the kings relationship with his lords and barons. Roman law did not make a distinction between laws of aristocratic class and by separating them from the law of the people. The magnus carta ignored laws for the people because it was alreadt presumed they were the property of the lords. This is the hidden fight for civilisation,by censoring the dangerous history of the romans for providing a precedent that literally freed people from their medieval ignorance. This almost happened in European revolutions. 7 romans had shared parenting laws in event of divorce, while even today, men are given very little time with their children after divorce. A law which we would expect to appear in the uncivilised nomadic settlements in some parts of the world.

8 heresy in medieval England was charged with the death sentence, when in civilised Constantinople, heretics were only exiled[despite some forgeries that depict this scenario differently. 9 slavery in roman times was termed yolos or worker. The slave connotation was introduced by English/european scholars who found importance in propagating the concept of slave in antiquity to justify their imperial and capitalistic corporate enterprises,eg, east India company. Slaves in roman times had rights unlike the English slave which was a sub human cattle. These persons enjoyed benefits in civil society such as right to marry, buy property, right to bath and enjoy romes extensive civil facilities. 10 the romans understood the connection between cleanliness [germs]and disease. Astonishingly before john snow, the English had no idea, nor did the medievally engaged western Europeans know either. The greeks and roman people did not live in tenements in a disease infested environment, but the roman aqueducts were for all people and each house had access to clean water and drainage. A fact conveniently erased from the episodes of history and an important one at that. 11 in roman law, a woman was not the property of the man , but in Victorian England this was the case. A woman in rome and Greece was actively involved in politics. New research from pompei show how many graffiti writings were made by woman favouring one party over another. [This paper is not presenting the whole research in the area, this will be reserved for another paper] 12 pederastry, the fabrication of greek homosexuality and practices of pedophilia by males of greek city state The aristocracy of London were engaged in the practice and sought to use history to legitimise the practice. Especially when the age of consent was less than 10 years of age. There is no evidence for pederastry or widely practiced homosexual relations in ancient Greece and rome. This is another example of a contemporary society re altering the history of one society in order to gain legitimacy for prevalent Victorian practices of pedophilia within their own environment. 13 Prostitution and poverty were a common sight in Victorian England, while the fabricators of roman history sought to legitimise the practice by incorrectly stating that the romans institutionalised the practice like the English had done. The poor in roman society enjoyed welfare and other social provisions, while Victorian poor were ignored because the new god, Darwin postulated the idea that criminality was passed biologically from one person to another-a product of medieval science, created merely to justify the evils of colonialism in the third world by removing the morale impediments that defy such a practice. 14 In Victorian England people went to jail for not paying a debt, remarkably in ancient rome, their was debt protection. See, development of the roman law of debt security by Donald e phillipson. Offers a remarkable different rendition which we have been taught that the romans allowed creditors to

enslave bad debtors. This is a convenient story for the English who found themselves in a position to create a slighter better deal for the masses by highlighting the area where the dark swathy non anglo saxon romans had an affliction and predilection to corruption and never reached the level of civilisation of the English. Roman law of pignus/hypotheca & lex commissoria just to name a few. 15 One of the most frustrating concoctions of historians is the notion that life expectancy in Greco roman times was low. They did this to serve darwinistic ideological parameters, namely the notion the English, now in power are naturally the most evolved and possess a natural divine right to rule over other people and countries. It particularly served the propaganda for the dogma of the age of progress where science had the wheels of infallibility of which not even god could impede, was the disastrous reckoning of arrogant scientists in the 19th century that led to titanic. Life expectancy in Victorian England was low so it was surmised and imposed that Greco roman life expectancies was low. This is one of the most potent lies propagating the notion of scientific progress. An unquestionable infallible dogma. Evidence shows that averages were formed from the low birth rates caused by infant mortality rates in early 19th century when basic medical procedures were primitivc. Of course the medical procedures of the ancient greeks and romans were way more advanced in comparison, however this is an embarrassing historical footnote. Infant mortality was high namely because of the toxic drugs used and because doctors did not know about the connection between hygiene, sanitation and disease. Of course hypocrites knew about this connection to the shire embarrassment of the west which reinforces the true historical observation that when rome fell, knowledge of civilisation was lost to a bunch of silly knit whits. 16 The biggest myth perpetuated by the English establishment by revising roman history is the idea that the education was only the right of the rich in ancient Greece and rome. This is concocted to serve the obvious function of maintaining the status quo and expectation of an ignorant mass, by feeding them false garbage that the romans and greeks oppressed the masses like the English did, serves to solidify the perception [mandated In evolution darwins theory] that it is human nature for humans to subjugate other humans. It is the way things are.[ This dogma ideology resounds] This is the powerful justification for many barbaric deeds of government towards its people, because the unsuspecting masses, never knew of another prototype to civilisation to compare to, so they could see how bad they got it. 17 So by the time the Europeans exploited the third world and created ghettos around the world, the new prototype was suggested, reminding the masses that you ought to be grateful as civilisations around the world are in greater poverty than yourselves. 18 Education was widespread in Greece and rome as testified to the numerous libraries in every district in rome and to the graffiti walls found in numerous archaeological sites around the Mediterranean. Even today education is far

from free, but is a form of institution which institutionalised the child, very foreign to Greco roman ideas of education. Education was not a form of jail. However we would see todays school institutions as normals if we were not diverted to the prototype comparison to show that there are other ways, other ways that show that education for children can be implemented in a more holistic and life centric fashion. Eugenicists propagating that the idea that the greeks and romans were evolutionists and haters of man. A earmarked chapter of history never unfortunately confronted, when still today abortion, euthanasia, forced sterilisations of the disabled[contemporary Australian cases] etc. electro shock therapy etc.and lobotomy! The removal of a part of a brain to cure mental illness was in fact a descendant of torture medieval devices the western barbarians engaged in throughout the medieval ages. The procedure effectively reduced the person to a vegetable, while these English toffs clinically certified them as cured. Eugenics an outdated racial theory that propagated the superiority of the anglo saxon race is a shire relic medieval barbarism.;But painted as as bearing the approval of greek and roman philosophers and intellectuals who would have seen them as . Yes, barbaric. The ancient greeks disdained abortion under all circumstances. A fact that most writers of today would not touch, as like the renaissance times when the re emergence of Greco roman principals threatened the feudalistic structures of the western elite as being in effect , pretenders to the throne, so today, the implication that the prototype of civilisation to the world[ancient Greece and rome] would unanimously and unequivocally condemn the practices of todays culture as a relic of the medieval past, would be shire embarrassment to the elite and would surely lead to a revision or at least a public relations treatment.[a term invented to institutionalise the practice of lying to the public through the media] But all safeguards and checks are ignored, since people are totally consumed with gossip magazines and popular media, cultural illiteracy is at record highs. People dont care their rights have been eroded away and the idea of rome and Greece being degenerate societies is firmly planted in their minds, with the lingo that,if the romans did, then it is human nature, they utter, now we are doing the same. However the romans did not go to war in order to subjugate the masses like the americans and English did, but the evidence shows most of the wars romans entered into were defensive ones. Scholars cannot deny this as this is the inferential consensus of the sources and it fits into roman philosophical belief system. So this is an example of how historians remove the morale impediment or precedent to justify their anti philanthropic actions which resounds with the reassurance that history will judge them as justified and civilised, because they utter, as the romans did when history really judges them as the barbarians, who like the Goths, enjoyed the fruits of perpetual war who were in contempt of dying in their beds which they believed as effeminate, but was really cowardly more honourable to die on the battlefield[not for honour but for loot is dishonourable anyway] However since today many people are culturally illiterate, no longer is this information a threat to the brand of democracy the English are selling to the world. Contextualising Byzantium around Britain is a misnomer. Britain was not a country Yet. There is no better example of fabrication but by the re arranging of the historical narrative in order to fit in with the predominant values and ideas present

within contemporary filtered discourse subject matter.. Byzantium cannot ever be studied on its own merits, since the prejudiced eye distorts subject matter into narrow ideological frameworks and peripheries that serve interests of the those power broker or stake brokers funding university posts and positions Whats more unsettling is guys rendition of a miraculous event that he claimed, had un miraculous features embedded firmly within the physical and material realm of things. The mere mention of the historian gibbon by guy freeland, who recites the common idea repeated amongst western intellectual enviests to denigrate constantines rise to power to a series of political motives is pathetic at best. Citing nothing of the fact that gibbon is considered a biased historian[by modern historians] writing at the time when renaissance revolutions in Europe were calving out a new identity based on Greco roman principals and the concept of the social contract of the sovereign state, England used propaganda to denounce the pedal stool Greco roman history was accorded in Europe and gibbon was the historian commissioned to purposely distort Greco roman history as a insignificant watershed in order to subvert merits of this civilisation and reappropriate the concept of civilisation, [free trade, democracy etc] by re categorising them according to protestant ideals of capitalism and colonialism, for their geopolitical battle for Europe and to achieve hegemony. Political motive would mean a majority of the roman inhabitants were Christian, when in reality at the time of constantines conversion, only 1/10 were. London became a safe haven for the rich as like today with the biggest banker fraud perpetuated in history, all roads lead to London. Britain is obviously the antithesis of Byzantium.a Byzantium where profit exceeding 16% was forbidden. Guys contempt for orthodoxy Christian understanding of church history is indicative in this paragraph: In his public discourse Constantine typically uses language of monotheism, buts avoids explicitly Christian references. His policy is clearly discernable in his order to the army that Christian troops were to be given time to attend church on the lords day but the rest were to parade and recite a prayer he himself wrote addressed simply god. Firstly the justification guy provides for st constantines alleged alluding to Christian references is weak. If st Constantine leads the soldiers to church, its makes basic inferential sense that the prayer that he intended for them to conduct was a Christian one. Once again trying to create the perception of a st constantines engaged in a pluralistic style modern society, when the consensus in historical sequence will determine that st Constantine was not a closet Christian, he revealed his affiliation in public, however he did not force Christianity into the public forum as Christianity was newly formed and had yet to gather a profound reception. Lastly respect is accorded to the saints and peoples of England when it was under the suzerainty of the roman imperium which was commission by Christ to protect his church on earth. Free from the categorisations modern Britain imposes on her, which

is removed from this suzerainty. birthmaximos