Category Archives: America

What Tucker Carlson and the Pro-Life Movement Miss about Abortion

In a recent talk to the Center for Christian Virtue, Tucker Carlson railed against abortion asserting that it is “no benefit to society” and “it erode[s] its very foundation.”* The former Fox News anchor called the battle over infanticide not a “political debate,” but a “spiritual battle.”** The speech comes as the issue of abortion has heated up in the Republican presidential campaign.

Carlson is certainly correct in his assessment that the fight over abortion is a spiritual struggle, but he, like most of the pro-life movement, does not understand the larger tragedy of abortion. The failure of the pro-life movement to stress this fundamental aspect, and to see abortion in the light of eternity, is one of the reasons why the evil is still a legalized part of the so-called civilized world.

While the killing of the unborn is a crime, a greater injustice of that heinous offense is committed. Most Christians, including presumably Tucker Carlson (who was brought up Episcopalian) and the Center for Christian Virtue, would agree that one must be baptized to have a chance at salvation. Abortion denies that opportunity. Unbaptized infants neither go to heaven or hell, but to the “limbo of the children” where they do not suffer the pains of hell, but neither can they receive the beatific vision.

Abortion is not only the killing of the unborn, which is heinous in its own right, but it denies one from entering heaven. If this aspect had been emphasized from the start, it may have mobilized even greater public and judicial support to outlaw the abominable practice.

Tucker Carlson’s Christian priorities are also skewed as he states:

The point of life is to have children and to watch

them have grandchildren. Nothing will bring you

joy like that will. Nothing comes close. Would

trade your job for your children? Would you trade

anything for your children? Of course not.***

The point of life is to save one’s soul and, as the Divine Savior taught, this is done by loving God with “thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind” and loving “thy neighbor as thyself.”

Christ is very clear about those who put either parents or children above Him:

He that loveth father or mother more than

me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth

son or daughter more than me, is not worthy

of me. [Matthew 10: 37]

Of course, children are precious gifts from God who add enjoyment and fulfillment to one’s life for those who can have them. Children, however, are sinners and are in need of nurturing and instruction in how to live a moral life. Sadly, despite the efforts and best intentions of parents, some children turn out badly.

The fact that abortion is now a part of the political discourse demonstrates just how far the natural authority figures and institutions of society have failed in fulfilling their roles as moral guideposts. Yet, this was bound to happen with the increased power of the state in all aspects of society, usurping the role that the family (and its extension – uncles, aunts, grandparents), churches, ministers, arbitrators, employers, philanthropists and scholars once held. Where at one time ethical matters were discussed and decided outside of the state apparatus, now nearly every personal decision is subjected to government interference which has become the supreme arbitrator of what is moral and what is not.

That society’s non-governmental authority elements have little clout is also a factor in why most young people do not have much of a moral compass in how to conduct their lives and are susceptible to support the most debauched aspects of society.

The left has long recognized this and has used the state to push through their agenda on all sorts of social and economic issues. Using the levers of the state, a small, determined minority can impose its will on an unorganized majority. This is another argument as to why pro-lifers should be for radical political de-centralization and the restoration of natural authority in society.

Ultimately, the eradication of legalized abortion will not come via politics. Instead of political wrangling, what should be made clear to the pro-abortion crowd is the real eternal consequences of their actions where the Divine Judge, who is not subject to legislative interference or some perverted, phony “right to choose” nonsense, will deliver perfect justice.

*https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-tucker-carlson-spits-fire-anti-abortion-speech

**https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/09/26/tucker-carlson-abortion-not-political-debate-spiritual-battle/

***Ibid.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

President Trump’s Role in the Ukraine War

8 Replies

With his usual braggadocio, former President Donald Trump has promised that if returned to the White House he would end the Ukraine conflict within hours and claims, as many of his supporters do, that the war would never have taken place had he been in office. Like most of his campaign promises during his 2016 presidential run – drain the swamp, pull troops out of Afghanistan, build a wall – very few were accomplished, despite the fact that the former president had a Republican House and Senate at the start of his first term.

Listening to Trump’s often incoherent statements on the Ukrainian imbroglio shows that the ex-chief executive has learned little from his four years in the Oval Office. While talk of ending wars in a few hours may garner popular support, translating them into actual results is a far different and, to say the least, difficult matter, as Trump should now realize after his fruitless years as president.

Trump had a chance to de-escalate tensions in the Ukraine that had been building especially after the Western-inspired coup of February, 2014 which replaced the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Yet, the former president did nothing to remedy the situation and, in fact, worsened matters by providing military hardware to the Ukraine, which the Obama Administration had denied.

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the region’s geo-political realities, Trump decided to provide the Ukraine with military equipment. In December, 2017 the U.S. shipped, among other weaponry, Javelin anti-tank missile systems, with the first sale completed in March of the following year to the sum of $47 million. Reportedly, the former president was convinced by his advisors that the military aid would be “good for U.S. business.”

If one considers the military industrial complex a vibrant part of the U.S. economy and not a parasitical drain that redistributes scarce resources away from the production of useful consumer goods into the creation of destabilizing and murderous weapons of war, then – “yes” – military spending is good for business. For those, like Trump, who support such an idea are apparently unfamiliar with Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler who rightly called “defense spending” a racket:

I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism.*

After the provocative action of supplying the Ukraine with military hardware, the Trump Administration inflamed relations further by pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) which was agreed to by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The landmark treaty banned missiles with range between 500 and 5,500 km (310-3,400 miles).**

The U.S. accused Russia of non-compliance to the terms of the treaty, a charge that the Russians and many military analysts denied. This, of course, led to a greater level of distrust between the two nations and went against candidate Trump’s aims of lessening tensions between the two powers.

Trump, as with the pro-war Western media, is ignorant of the historical context that played into Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine. It is a well-established fact that the U.S. and Western powers gave assurances to Russia as far back as when the Berlin Wall came down that NATO would not expand eastward. That promise has been repeatedly broken as NATO now includes 31 nations with Sweden set to come on board in 2024.***

Making matters worse, the Biden Administration, the war mongers in Congress, and the U.S.’s NATO lapdogs have escalated matters with tremendous financial and military assistance, which has done little to stop the Russians, but has resulted in the needless slaughter of thousands and the wholesale destruction of Ukrainian territory. The introduction of cluster bombs into the fray and the promise of F-16 fighter-jets capable of carrying nuclear war heads has heightened the possibility of a general conflagration.

None of the declared Republican presidential contenders have critiqued the former president’s reckless Ukrainian policy. Some of the candidates (Chris Christie, Nikki Haley) have instead insanely called for greater support of the Zelensky regime!

The American involvement in the Ukrainian War has nothing to do with its national security, but with the interests of the U.S. Empire. The tragedy of the Trump Presidency is that things were supposed to be different. Instead of non-intervention, the Administration armed Ukraine, stationed troops in Syria, assassinated an Iranian general on a Middle East peace mission, and committed a host of other head scratching acts which went against candidate Trump’s pledge of an “America First” foreign policy that propelled him to victory in 2016.

To think that things will be different in a second go-around is clearly delusional, as the former president is now campaigning with never-ending war proponent Senator Lindsey Graham.

*See War is a Racket, Port Townsend, WA.: Feral House, 2003; 1935.

**“INF Nuclear Treaty: US Pulls Out of Cold War-Era Pact With Russia,” BBC, 2 August 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565

***Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 22 January 2022 ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

“Don’t Buy Government Bonds”

2 Replies

As another farcical “debt-ceiling raising” saga unfolds, conducted by the two indistinguishable political parties hell-bent on driving America into economic ruin, it would be instructive to look at how some earlier conservative/libertarian thinkers viewed public debt. Unlike the present generation – with the notable exception of Ron Paul – these intellectuals asked fundamental questions about such matters as debt, taxation, central banking, and foreign policy.

One of the leading lights of what was known as the “Old Right” of the 1950’s, which opposed the Cold-War globalism of the likes of William Buckley and domestically sought to overturn the New Deal, was Frank Chodorov (1887-1966). In his books and essays, Chodorov challenged the pillars which social democracy rested and sought to return America to small government, free trade, and “isolationism.”

In one of his provocative essays, Chodorov pervasively argued that those who purchase public debt are complicit in the enhancement of state power. Unlike many present-day economists who only see the baneful economic effects of profligate government borrowing, he makes a moral case against debt financing.*

He points out that public borrowing burdens future generations for the benefit of the present. Despite reasons often given for the necessity of borrowing – war, natural disaster, infrastructure, etc., – Chodorov contends that the practice of shifting the cost to later generations, whatever the reason, is unjust:

This is exactly what you do when you
cooperate with the State’s borrowing
program. You are loading on your children
and your children’s children an obligation to
pay for something they had no voice in, and
for which they may not care at all. Your
‘investment for posterity’ may earn you
nothing but the curses of posterity.

Chodorov understood, as most commentators do not today, that a gold-backed currency restrained State largesse: “When money was redeemable in gold, the inherent profligacy of government was somewhat retrained; for, if the citizen lost faith in his money, or his bond, he could demand gold in exchange, and since the government did not have enough gold on hand to meet the demand, it had to curtail its spending proclivity accordingly.”

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despicable and criminal act of taking the U.S. off the gold standard domestically that led to the expansion of the public debt as Chodorov describes: “. . . Mr. Roosevelt removed this shackle and thus opened the flood gates. The only limit to the inclination of every politician to spend money, in order to acquire power, is the refusal of the public to lend its money to the government. . . . the government can then resort to printing of money, to make money out of nothing. . . .”

Not realized at the time, but the ability of the American government to expand its revenue base fit nicely into FDR’s later nefarious foreign policy objectives.

Chodorov’s viewpoint on public debt can also easily be applied to FDR’s decision to eradicate the gold standard through which the U.S. currency could be redeemed for precious metals. FDR’s act, however, was a “violation of contract” with American citizens since the U.S. government defaulted on its obligations.

In Orwellian fashion, the verbiage used with most government operations is often misused to legitimize State functions. “Investment” is one such term that has been corrupted in relations to spending and debt.

In promoting their spending schemes, politicians will often use the term investment, “investment in education,” “investment in infrastructure,” etc. This is deliberate, since it tries to equate government spending with a vital component of the market process.

In a market economy, investment means the lending of savings, which is used to expand and/or start an enterprise. In return, the lender receives a stock or a bond. If the business is successful, the lender’s investment will receive a return – dividends from a stock or interest from a bond. Business investment is, therefore, a necessary aspect of capitalism which results in economic growth and increased living standards.

As Chodorov incisively points out, however, government investment is the antithesis of what takes place in the marketplace:

The State, however, does not put your money into production. The State spends it – that is all the State is capable of doing – and your savings disappear. The interest you get comes out of the tax fund, to which you contribute your share, and your share is increased by the cost of servicing your bond.

Chodorov’s solution to deficit financing was not to buy government bonds. While this would certainly be a step in the right direction, a more radical approach is needed since the problem has now become so immense.

Simply put: there should be a prohibition on government borrowing of any kind. State revenues should only come through tax receipts and fees paid by those in the present. This would completely eliminate the “moral hazard” of debt financing and drastically reduce the size and scope of government over society.

For those who seek to put an end to the current debt-ceiling charade and rectify the immoral practice of burdening future generations by the irresponsibility of the present, the works of Frank Chodorov are essential.

* “Don’t Buy Government Bonds,” The Mises Institute, 13 January 2011. https://cdn.mises.org/Out%20of%20Step_4.pdf

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The Convention of States Project: A Bad Idea

11 Replies

Similar to Patrick Buchanan’s campaigns, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” the Tea Party, and to some extent Donald Trump’s presidency, the Convention of States Project* will not solve the crises that America faces. It will, undoubtedly, like most of the previous reform and populist movements be sabotaged by the ruling class if it ever gets close to accomplishing its goals.

The Project’s rhetoric is “old-style” conservative/populist-speak which seeks to “[propose] amendments that impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”** Some of the proposed amendments include:

Congressional term limits
Requiring a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to increase the public debt
Restoring the Commerce Clause to its original intent and scope
Repeal of the 16^th Amendment, which gave us the income tax
Giving states, by a three-fifths vote, the power to negate any federal law, regulation or executive order giving Congress an easy means of overriding regulation

So far, 19 state legislatures have called for a constitutional convention, 34 states are needed for a convention to be called and, for an amendment to be passed, it must be approved by three quarters of state legislatures.

The state legislatures who have signed on have realized that the federal government has become omnipotent and the individual states are now merely appendages to Washington. “The states,” said South Carolina state representative Bill Taylor, “have sort of lost their voice, and all we can do now is beg from the cheap seats and say, ‘Hey, don’t do that.’”***

After the totalitarian and draconian efforts of the U.S. government and those around the world the past two years in response to the “pandemic,” Mr. Taylor’s sentiment is, to say the least, an understatement!

The fundamental problem with efforts such as the Convention of States Project is that they do not understand the nature of the crises that both America and most of the world face. For America, its current malaise can be traced shortly after its independence with the adoption of the Constitution itself.

While it has long been touted as a great document of freedom and liberty, it is anything but. The “founding fathers” knowingly created a powerful central government and decreased the sovereignty of the individual state governments which had existed under the Articles of Confederation.

In the words of Murry Rothbard, the Constitution was a coup that, for the most part, was the antithesis of the spirit and drive of the American Revolution which was a movement against political centralization and empire:

It was a bloodless coup d’etat against an unresisting

Confederation Congress. . . . . The Federalists, by use

of propaganda, chicanery, fraud, malapportionment of

delegates, blackmail threats of secession and even

coercive laws, had managed to sustain enough delegates

to defy the wishes of the majority of the American people

and create a new Constitution.****

Worse than the power grab was the establishment of an omnipotent state as Rothbard incisively continues:

The drive [for ratification] was managed by a

corps of brilliant members and representatives

of the financial and landed oligarchy. These

wealthy merchants and large landowners were

joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in

their drive to create a strong overriding central

government – a supreme government with its

own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce,

and raise armies.*****

410jXD-zO+L

The celebrated “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances” within the federal system and even the Bill of Rights, so often lauded by conservative and populist commentators, have proven from the very start to be ineffectual in stopping the expansion of state power.

The Constitution itself declares that it is the ultimate authority as Article VI states:

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which

shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,

or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme law of the land. . . . [Italics mine.]

The massive and now unresolvable social, economic and political troubles both in the U.S. and around the world stems from a concentration of political power that is inherent in the nature of constitutional government. This power is augmented and sustained by a system of central banking which provides the nation state with seemingly unlimited financial power to implement its various social engineering schemes, conduct continuous warfare, and has the ability to crush any opposition to its hegemony.

The solution, which is all too obvious, but not attainable in the current ideological atmosphere dominated by statist thinking, is political decentralization.

The smaller political alignments under decentralization would probably coalesce around peoples with similar economic, social and religious affiliations and status and those with similar ethnic and racial backgrounds. Such a system would be truly diverse and undoubtedly lower social tensions which derive from the central state’s forced integration polices.

Once political decentralization became a reality, the natural and mutually beneficial relationships and interactions between peoples would emerge. The immense advantage of free trade – the widening of the division of labor and specialization – would be the norm between societies since smaller countries could not afford to restrict trade since doing so would lead to autarky and the resultant fall in standards of living to primitive levels.

Likewise, a universal monetary standard, most likely based on gold and silver, would arise among differing communities since a multitude of currencies would lead to monetary chaos and render economic calculation an impossibility. Since no central state could impose its currency, the only honest and sound money – gold/silver – would be quickly adopted by all.

The mass invasion of the U.S. taking place under the negligence and encouragement of the Biden Administration could also be thwarted through political decentralization. Areas where the lives and property of people are threatened by invaders have more of an incentive to effectively deal with unwanted groups than bureaucrats living often times thousands of miles away.

Each jurisdiction would make its own policies on who or how many it wanted in its territory. Moreover, each community could expel undesirables without interference from those who are not property owners or members of such communities.

While those behind the Convention of States Project and the state legislatures which have called for a constitutional convention may be well meaning, they will ultimately fail. Such efforts are a wrongheaded approach to address the myriad of problems that plague the U.S. and, for that matter, the entire world.

Instead of attempts to amend the Constitution or though the electoral process by finding the “right candidate,” the very viable and historically proven alternative of de-centralization through secession is the only pathway to ultimate success. Until the break-up of the nation state is accomplished, America and the world’s future will be considerably bleak.

*https://conventionofstates.com/

**https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/activists-more-than-halfway-to-forcing

***Ibid

**** Murray N. Rothbard, Conceived in Liberty. Vol. 5, The New Republic, 1784-1791, ed., Patrick Newman. Auburn, AL.: Mises Institute, 2019, p. 306.

*****Ibid.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Trump’s Inflation

4 Replies

Former President Donald Trump attends a rally in support of Arizona GOP candidates, Prescott, Ariz., on July 22, 2022. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Once again, former president Donald Trump criticized the Biden Administration for the record consumer price increases that Americans are now paying. His remarks followed up on his July 4^th speech in Wyoming where he lamented about the state of the nation: “I know it’s not looking good for our Country right now, with a major War raging out of control in Europe, the Highest Inflation in memory, the worst 6 month Stock Market in History, the highest energy prices ever.”*

In his most recent campaign rally for GOP hopeful Kari Lake, Trump lambasted President Biden for creating the “worst inflation in 47 years”** and for his “war on American energy” which Trump believes has contributed to the record hike in fuel prices.

The former president boasted that had he been re-elected “none of these terrible events would have happened.” He reassured his audience “not to worry” and that “we will make America great again.”

As with all of his post-presidential rallies, Trump’s criticism of the Biden regime comes with touting his own accomplishments as chief executive. Most of these claims are so outrageous they damage or totally negate his critique of Biden’s policies and make Trump sound like a fool.

Take, for instance, his rally in Arizona for Kari Lake, where he had the audacity to say that under his watch the country “had the greatest economy in the history of the world with no inflation.” [!] Such nonsense needs no comment.

Like his boasts about the economy, the former president deftly left out his Administration’s role in the drastic rise in prices which Americans are currently suffering from.

First, however, the meaning of “inflation” should be explained.

Inflation, properly defined, as it was understood until the present era, meant an expansion of the money supply. “Deflation,” its opposite is a decrease in the money supply. The rise or fall in prices – usually a rise in producer and consumer prices – is a consequence of the expansion or contraction of the money supply. Once understood, the rampant rise in prices in America and throughout the world has been the result of the increase in the money supply not only by the Federal Reserve, but all central banks.

Another important tenet of monetary theory long since forgotten has been the notion of a “lagging indicator.” Between the expansion of the money supply – inflation – and the resultant increase in prices, there is often a lag which could take months or years to appear.

The increase in consumer and producer prices is due to the dramatic explosion of money and credit which took place during the Trump Administration not only in response to the scamdemic, but in the years leading up to it. In fact, the plandemic was a convenient excuse to inject massive liquidity into a system that began to hemorrhage in September, 2019. In the early months of 2020, the markets began to implode before the unnecessary lockdowns as the air began to come out of the financial bubble. This has been ignored by the financial press and Trump himself.

Prior to the covid hysteria, Trump had repeatedly lobbied for “cheap” money, calling for a renewal of quantitative easing, reduction in interest rates, and he even spoke about “negative” rates. The former president threatened to fire Jerome Powell, whom he had picked to head the Federal Reserve, for not reducing interest rates far enough. Trump complained that President Obama benefited from the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy and wanted similar treatment so as to keep the financial bubble going.

Trump’s fiscal policy was also highly inflationary as he ran record deficits long before covid. His tax cuts and failure to cut government spending led to greater government borrowing which the Fed was forced to monetize. Trump was on pace, well before the 2020 lockdowns, to spend more money in four years than Obama spent in his two terms. By 2019, the deficit had grown to $1 trillion dollars, up $205 billion, 26 percent from 2018.*** Again, all before covid had begun.

It was the Trump Administration’s wrongheaded response to the corona virus which is largely responsible for the rising prices of today. If the lockdowns were necessary (which a growing number of officials now admit they were not), the proper policy would have been to reduce the money supply (and government spending in general) since the lockdowns reduced production meaning less goods and employment. The massive increase in the Fed’s balance sheet from $4 trillion to some $9 trillion meant more money “chasing fewer goods” causing the prices of the available goods to increase – some dramatically.

What was needed was a reduction in consumer spending since there was less goods being produced with the lockdowns. Less demand would have offset the reduction in supply and would have kept prices from spiraling.

Instead, Trump – as did his successor – following the doctrines of Lord Keynes, attempted to maintain aggregate demand at pre-covid levels and sent out stimulus checks even to those still employed. While the money given out to American workers pales in comparison to the massive transfer of wealth to politically-favorite corporations, big business, and the expansion of the government itself, the propping up of aggregate demand led to supply chain shortages.

Trump is not alone in his ignorance of economics. His handlers, economic advisors, and the vast majority of his loyal supporters do not understand what took place under his administration. The current financial mess can be laid at his – and the Federal Reserve’s – feet. To be fair, his predecessor, Barrack Obama, is also liable.

The “inflation,” and now recession, which the country is suffering through cannot be fully attributed to the Biden Administration although it too has added to the crisis with more profligate spending.

The remedy for the current mess is not the re-election of a very flawed former president who does not understand the problem at hand and throughout his term was constantly outfoxed by the Swap which he was elected to drain. The solution is a return to sound money, the abolition of central banking, and the allowance for the necessary cleansing of the financial bubble. Until a presidential contender speaks in these terms, America’s financial woes will continue.

*https://www.zerohedge.com/political/heres-what-trump-says-inflation-would-be-if-he-were-still-president

**https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-blasts-biden-over-soaring-prices-says-true-inflation-rate-much-much-higher-91

***https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/25/us-deficit-hit-billion-marking-nearly-percent-increase-during-trump-era/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

America’s Trade Deficit: An Enormous Concern

30 Replies

Another milestone (or more accurately millstone) was recently passed by the U.S. economy as the January trade deficit surged to an all-time record high of $107.6 billion, up some $26 billion from December’s $80.7 billion imbalance.*

Like the gigantic federal budget deficit, the trade imbalance is no longer talked about by the financial press. There has been little criticism of President Biden on either matter nor are Administration officials questioned about how things can be reversed. In fact, some commentators bizarrely contend that trade deficits show how robust an economy actually is!

The trade deficit was supposed to be alleviated by former President Trump who vowed throughout the 2016 campaign that he would rectify the situation and repeatedly ridiculed U.S. trade negotiators for their lack of financial acumen. He touted that his “friendship” with world leaders, most notably Chinese President Xi Jinping, would result in favorable trade deals for the country.

Trade hawks got on board with Trump’s economic nationalism believing that he would not only fix imbalances, but create an American industrial renaissance. Optimism ran high after his unexpected win in 2016.

As president, after a couple of contentious years of on-again, off-again negotiations a first phase of an agreement with China was signed in early 2018. During the negotiations, he boasted:

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars

on trade with virtually every country it does business with,

trade wars are good and easy to win.**

In actuality, nothing significant was agreed upon with China despite the Trump Administration bragging that it was the first phase of a more comprehensive deal to come. Despite all of the hoopla, the trade imbalance continued to grow and no deal was ever finalized.

Besides the initial agreement with China, the next biggest trade policy act was the scrapping of NAFTA and its replacement with a new treaty, “The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). The new agreement was little different than the original treaty.

Thus, by the time he left office in 2020, the U.S.’s trade gap ($68.2 billion) was greater than during his predecessor, Barrack Obama’s term, who Trump lambasted for his ruinous trade policy.***

Trump wisely spoke little about trade during his unsuccessful 2020 re-election bid and, surprisingly, his opponents, despite the president’s miserable failure, steered clear of the issue. Of course, the Democrats were limited in what they could do with an obvious feeble, senile, and vile candidate at the top of their ticket.

Like the Democrats, Trump’s trade-hawk cheerleaders have remained reticent about the escalating trade numbers and like the former president they too, are now discredited when it comes to trade. If America could not overcome its trade gap with an economic nationalist as president for four years, then there must be a problem with their thinking.

The reason why Trump failed – as will Biden – is that he, his negotiators, and the trade hawks who supported him are ignorant of basic economics. The burgeoning trade deficits are not the result of bad trade deals or that of ineffective tariff policies, but are the result of a deteriorating U.S. economy which is no longer one of production, but of consumption and debt. A growing economy creates trade surpluses not deficits; it produces more than it consume.

Because of decades of anti-capitalistic economic legislation – confiscatory taxation, regulatory burdens, inflationary monetary policy, “crowding out” budget deficits, unemployment subsidies, minimum wage laws, and an overemphasis by the Establishment on higher education – the U.S. is no longer an industrial power and not a conducive environment for economic growth.

Because it possesses the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. has been able to offset its trade imbalances by importing goods in exchange for dollars. Even with this advantage, however, trade deficits have continued to grow. It appears that even its status as the possessor of the world’s reserve currency may be coming to an end as the dollar’s preeminence will fall with the surge in price inflation. This will have a devastating effect not only for the domestic economy but its foreign trade as well as the country will not be able to export dollars for goods in the future.

The burgeoning trade deficit is a far more accurate indicator of the health of an economy than GDP, unemployment figures, or the government’s “official” rate of price inflation. All these statistics are so manipulated that they do not come close to showing what is actually happening in the real world. The trade deficit is a more reflective gauge of an economy’s productive capacity.

That Trump posted the largest trade deficit in history also explodes his claim that under his watch, the U.S. had the greatest economy ever! How he calculated and supported such nonsense (which was not challenged by the financial press) is hard to maintain with trade deficits in the stratosphere.

When America’s economy was at its zenith, it was a creditor nation with trade surpluses and producing goods which were sold the world over. It had a high savings rate, a low inflationary environment, little public debt, and respect for private property, particularly the right for entrepreneurs to hire and fire whom they pleased. All socio-economic groups prospered from the free market and free trade, not just the 1%.

The trade deficit can be turned around, but not through bureaucratic state orchestrated deals which favor big business and multi-national corporations at the expense of American consumers. The proper trade policy is no policy at all, except the freeing of the economy from government intervention.

*https://www.reuters.com/business/us-goods-trade-deficit-hits-record-high-january-2022-02-28/

**https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-trump/trump-tweets-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win-idUSKCN1GE1E9

***https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/us-trade-deficit-january-2021.html

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The January 6th “Insurrection” and the Epiphany

4 Replies

One year ago a haphazard and foolish attempt was made by supporters of former President Donald Trump to disrupt a joint session of Congress which had assembled to formalize the victory of then president-elect Joseph Biden. Some Congressional offices were vandalized while Congress had to halt proceedings as representatives were evacuated and the Capitol building was put under a lockdown.

A number of the participants in the ransacking were arrested and even those who did not take an active part have been imprisoned and remain there to this day. Some of the right-wing groups, such as Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have been fined and face further legal persecution.

The ease that protesters were able to gain access to the Capitol building, the lack of police response, and the number of agent provocateurs among the Trump supporters makes it hard not to believe that the entire affair was a sting operation. Trump played right into the scheme by calling for the rally on December 18, four days after the Electoral College had voted, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6^th. Be there, will be wild.” The build-up and encouragement by Trump and others gave U.S. intelligence agencies plenty of time to orchestrate a false flag.

What has been forgotten since the calling of the “Save America” rally by Trump and the government’s response to the ‘insurrection” has been that January 6^th is an important date in human history. January 6^th is the feast day of the Epiphany, the date that it was revealed to the gentile nations that the Messias had been born. “Epiphany” in Greek signifies “appearance” or “manifestation.”

The Magi – guided by the Star of Bethlehem – were led to Bethlehem to adore the Savior, bearing with them precious gifts. In fact, Epiphany has been traditionally a higher class of feast than the Nativity.

That Trump and his supporters most of whom consider themselves Christians decided to make their futile protests on the Epiphany instead of celebrating the day for its importance demonstrates why the world is in its present deplorable condition.

Until those who seek to halt the neo-leftist assault on what is left of Western culture which began in earnest with the election of President Trump in 2016 get their priorities straight, they will have little success against the forces that seek to destroy them.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

On the 75th Anniversary of V-E Day and the Coronavirus Scamdemic

6 Replies

The iconic Champs-Élysées and its Arc de Triomphe stand eerily empty before V-E Day ceremonies Friday in Paris.

This month (May 8th) marks the 75^th anniversary of “V-E Day” when German forces unconditionally surrendered to the “Allies.” Numerous articles, essays, and monographs have appeared commemorating the anniversary and while all are mostly laudatory, some have acknowledged that the outcome had its “drawbacks.”

By any objective rendering, for Western Civilization WWII was an unmitigated catastrophe whose reverberations continue to this day. Forty-three million troops were senselessly killed between American, British and Continental forces while 38 million civilians perished. Europe’s current demographic nightmare had its unfruitful seeds cut down with the depopulation of the Continent’s finest for the maniacal aims of the world’s power elites. Not only the loss of life, but the destruction of property and the cultures upon which they were built have been incalculable. Although the US emerged in the post-war world as the dominant economic and political power (as its mainland remained unscathed from wartime destruction), its participation in the conflict was a titanic geopolitical blunder.

The defeat of Germany and Japan, which would have not come about without US military might, left vast power vacuums in Eastern Europe and the Far East that Soviet Russia and Red China ruthlessly filled. Half of Europe would fall behind the Iron Curtain, subjected to fierce political repression and debilitating socialistic economic planning. In Asia, Communist regimes sprang up with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union which America attempted to counter in Korea and Vietnam at a staggering cost to its domestic economy and social tranquility.

Even after the fall of Soviet Communism, the US’s supposed lethal enemy, America maintained its empire as its “defense” spending continued to escalate beyond all reasonable levels which has led, in part, to the decline of domestic living standards of nearly all except, of course, for the politically well-connected. Not only has military adventurism bankrupted the country, but there is now “blowback” from the countless enemies either real, imagined, or contrived – created by US overseas meddling. Moreover, the nation’s military-industrial and security complex has turned on its own citizens with spying, surveillance, and data gathering that would be the envy of Stalin’s Cheka. Yet, it was US participation in WWII which cemented the nation on its ruinous course as global policeman. This was predicted and feared by “isolationists” at the time which is why they so courageously fought to keep the country neutral.

While the peoples of the world suffered from the Apocalyptic-like destruction of the war, certain groups did gain. The benefactors were obvious – Stalin and the Soviet state which was given free reign in Eastern Europe; the US military and security industrial complex which had a world empire to police; Chinese Communists, with Imperial Japan decimated, it left little opposition for them to gain control in China and beyond. For almost everyone else, even the so called “victors,” WWII was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

For the remainder of 20^th century American history, US entry into the Second World War proved to be the catalyst which led to the immense cultural, economic, and political changes, which many conservatives, libertarians, and traditional-minded people at the time and afterwards opposed. Yet, it was US participation in the war which meant that all of those changes would become permanent. Harry Elmer Barnes, who was a keen social theorist and wrote extensively in sociology, clearly understood the effects of US entry into the war:

Drastic changes in the domestic realm can also be attributed to the impact of our

entry into the second World War. The old rural society that had dominated

humanity for millennia was already disintegrating rapidly as the result of

urbanization and technological advances, but the latter failed to supply adequate

new institutions and agencies to control and direct an urban civilization. This

situation faced the American public before 1941 but the momentous transformation

was given intensified rapidity and scope as a result of the extensive dislocations

produced by years of warfare and recovery.*

Harry Elmer Barnes

While every sector of American life was unalterably changed, the most ominous took place in the political order. Although the federal government had begun to expand during the Progressive Era, its scope and involvement in society drastically accelerated during and after the war. Barnes, holding many libertarian beliefs, observed the totalitarian features of the post-war nation:

The complex and cumulative aftermath of [WWII] has played the dominant role in

producing the menacing military pattern and political impasse of our time, and the

military-industrial-political Establishment that controls this country and has sought

to determine world policy.**

The rise of America to world power status diverted attention and scarce resources away from the domestic front, which further exacerbated social and economic changes. The societal strife would become more and more acute as the nation’s overseas commitments mushroomed, as Barnes incisively explains:

The social problems of an urban age were enlarged and intensified, crime increased

and took on new forms that became ever more difficult to combat, juvenile

disorganization became rampant, racial problems increased beyond precedent, and

the difficulties of dealing with this unprecedented and complicated mass of domestic

issues were both parried and intensified by giving primary but evasive

consideration to foreign affairs in our national policy and operations.***

While domestic problems received less attention as the American empire expanded, foreign lands which held different patterns of social order or had non “democratic” forms of government, were targeted for “regime change,” even if they had taken no hostile action toward the US:

. . . the results of [WWII] already indicate that this produced drastic and possibly

ominous changes in the pattern of American relations to the rest of the world. We

voluntarily and arbitrarily assumed unprecedented burdens in feeding and

financing a world badly disrupted by war. . . . The United States sought to police the

world and extend the rule of law on a planetary basis, which actually meant

imposing the ideology of our eastern seaboard Establishment throughout the world,

by force, if necessary. . . .****

Had the US remained neutral as the isolationists and American First supporters had pleaded, the world today would be markedly different – undoubtedly freer, more prosperous, and likely more peaceful. Since every society is governed, in part, by its understanding of the past, the post-WWII world is built on a lie. The lie, of course, was that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked and that the Roosevelt Administration had negotiated in good faith with the Japanese in the months and years leading up to it.

While not recognized at the time and even today the outcome of WWII ushered in the totalitarian nation state which would become a permanent and intimate fixture in the lives of its citizens. There was no appeal to its dictates and as the decades rolled on it accrued unthinkable power over the society and economy. It attempted to solve every social and economic problem or inequality (most of which it created) and in each action enhanced its power and control dramatically.

The corona scamdemic may be the state’s greatest power grab yet. Besides the infringement of civil liberties, the shut down has been adroitly used to cover for the titanic economic collapse which began in the weeks prior to the draconian response measures. Actually, the financial breakdown began last September with the Fed’s “repo” operations.

All of this has been quietly and deliberately forgotten by the financial press and under the cover of fighting the virus, the Fed and the rest of the world’s central banks have expanded their power and control of financial markets to unprecedented levels, making a mockery that the economy is in any sense “capitalistic.”

The adage that “history is written by the victors” has never been more apparent than in regard to V-E Day, however, the coronavirus scam has shown once again that the consequences of the day and the war which it commemorates are now being ominously fulfilled.

*Harry Elmer Barnes, “Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century.” In Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought. Vol. IV, 1968, p. 11.

**Ibid., pp. 9-10.

***Ibid., p. 11.

****Ibid., pp. 10-11.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Memo to The Donald: Cut Tariffs NOT Rates

12 Replies

So far, President Trump’s economic response to a potential coronavirus outbreak and a further stock market sell off has been expected – calls for more interest rate cuts and an additional round of monetary stimulus. For the stock market, economy, and the virus itself, neither measure will have their desired effect and, in fact, may exacerbate things.

Further rate cuts and more money printing will not alleviate the situation since it has been the Federal Reserve’s recent “repo operations” which has pushed the market to its unsustainable highs. For President Trump’s re-election hopes, the current “correction” better be short lived since he has repeatedly boasted about the stock market and has tied its success with the supposed health of the economy. He will pay a political price if the market continues to tank and brings the economy down with it.

While President Trump and economic nationalists have bashed China for its trade practices, they are now going to see first hand how dependent the US and the West are on Chinese exports, as supply chains are disrupted over the coronavirus.

A Bloomberg article describes China’s weakest factory activity ever recorded:

The manufacturing purchasing managers’ index plunged to 35.7 in

February form 50 the previous month, according to data received by the

National bureau Statistics on Saturday, much lower than the median

estimate of economists. Both were well below 50, which denotes

contraction.*

The expected reduction of Chinese goods will mean higher US domestic prices, however, the increase in prices can be offset somewhat not by rate cuts, but by tariff reductions, or, better still, elimination of duties on imports. Increasing the money supply or cutting interest rates, which is what Trump, the market, and 95% of economists favor, will only mean higher prices for dwindling imports as greater amounts of money will chase fewer goods.

In the President’s comments on the coronavirus and the stock market plunge, he has repeatedly cited other nations’ (Japan, Germany) – lower interest rates as a policy that the Fed should pursue. Apparently, the President is not aware that recent data out of Japan has shown that the economy shrank at an annualized rate of 6.3% for the fourth quarter of 2019 while the German economy only grew at 0.6% last year.** Low rates have not helped either economy or anywhere else where they have been foolishly tried.

What President Trump, world policy makers, and central bankers do not understand, whether deliberately or from willful ignorance, is that the artificial suppression of interest rates and money printing does not lead to economic growth. Instead, prosperity can only come about by the arduous process of saving (abstention from consumption), which provides the means for capital formation, which leads to production. Employment, wage growth, and income are also ultimately tied to savings. For the creation of wealth, there is no way around this elementary economic principle – one that few profession economists comprehend.

For saving and investment to have their most efficacious impact and for individuals to engage in such sacrificial behavior, a sound monetary order must be in place. Unfortunately, ever since the US went off the gold standard internationally in 1971, its monetary system has grown increasingly unstable.

If the Trump Administration would eliminate, or at least reduce significantly, tariffs, it would more than likely induce China to do the same. The benefits of lower import prices for the millions of out of work Chinese due to the coronavirus shut downs would be a tremendous help and would also boost America’s export industries. Such action would show to those who elected him that Donald Trump was not a typical politician, but one who thought outside the box.

While it did not cause the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 contributed to its severity. If the recent sell-off is indeed the beginning of the long anticipated bust, following a supposed decade long expansion, then policy makers should do all in their power to alleviate the coming suffering. The reduction of tariffs not only on Chinese goods, but those the world over would be a step in the right direction.

Let us hope that someone will convince Donald Trump that tariff reduction and not rate cuts will help Americans better deal with the troublesome and potentially economic and socially devastating coronavirus.

*China Posts Weakest Factory Activity on Record,” Bloomberg News, 29 February 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/china-feb-manufacturing-pmi-at-35-7-est-45-0

**Megumi Fujikawa, “Japan’s Economy Shrinks Faster Than Expected.” Market Watch. 16 February 2020. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-economy-shrinks-faster-than-expected-2020-02-16; “German Economy Stagnates as Eurozone Growth Hits Seven-Year-Low,” The Guardian, 14 February 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2020/feb/14/german-economy-stagnates-growth-eurozone-gdp-business-live

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The Constitution IS the Crisis

8 Replies

A Review of Murray N. Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 5The posthumous release of Murray Rothbard’s fifth volume of his early American history series, Conceived in Liberty, is a cause of celebration not only for those interested in the country’s constitutional period, but also for the present day as the nation is faced with acute social, economic, and political crises. The fifth volume, The New Republic: 1784-1791, stands with Boston T. Party’s 1997 release, Hologram of Liberty, as a grand rebuttal of the cherished notion held by most contemporary scholars, pundits on the Right, and, surprisingly, many libertarians who believe that the US Constitution is some great bulwark in defense of individual liberty and a promoter of economic success.

ConceivedInLiberty4in1 Volumes 1-4

Rothbard’s narrative highlights the crucial years after the American Revolution focusing on the events and personalities that led to the calling for, drafting, and eventual promulgation of the Constitution in 1789. Not only does he describe the key factors that led to the creation of the American nation-state, but he gives an insightful account of the machinations which took place in Philadelphia and a trenchant analysis of the document itself which has become, in the eyes of most conservatives, on a par with Holy Writ.

What Might Have Been

While Rothbard writes in a lively and engaging manner, the eventual outcome and triumph of the nationalist forces leaves the reader with a certain sadness. Despite the fears expressed by the Antifederalists that the new government was too powerful and would lead to tyranny, through coercion, threats, lies, bribery, and arm twisting by the politically astute Federalists, the Constitution came into being. Yet, what if it had been the other way around and the forces against it had prevailed?

It is safe to assume that America would have been a far more prosperous and less war-like place. The common held notion that the Constitution was needed to keep peace among the contending states is countered by Rothbard, who points out a number of instances where states settled their differences, most notably Maryland and Virginia as they came to an agreement on the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay. [129-30]

Without a powerful central state to extract resources and manpower, overseas intervention by the country would have been difficult to undertake. Thus, the US’s disastrous participation in the two world wars would have been avoided. Furthermore, it would have been extremely unlikely for a Confederation Congress to impose an income tax as the federal government successfully did through a constitutional amendment in 1913.

Nor would the horrific misnamed “Civil War” ever take place with its immense loss of life and the destruction of the once flourishing Southern civilization. The triumph of the Federal government ended forever “states rights” in the US and, no doubt, inspired centralizing tendencies throughout the world, most notably in Germany which became unified under Prussian domination.

In a failed attempt in 1786 to enact an impost tax under the Confederation, Abraham Yates, a New York lawyer and prominent Antifederalist, spoke of decentralization as the key to liberty as Rothbard aptly summarizes:

Yates also warned that true republicanism can only be preserved in small states, and

keenly pointed out that in the successful Republics of Switzerland and the

Netherlands the local provinces retained full control over their finances. A taxing

power in Congress would demolish state sovereignty and reduce the states, where

the people could keep watch on their representatives, to mere adjuncts of

congressional power, and liberty would be gone. [64]

Antifederalists, such as Yates, had a far greater understanding of how liberty and individual rights would be protected than their statist opponents such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Antifederalists looked to Europe as a model, which, for most of its history, was made up of decentralized political configurations. The Federalists, on the other hand, got much of their inspiration from the Roman Republic and later Empire. There is little question that an America, with the political attributes of a multi-state Europe, would be far less menacing to both its own inhabitants and to the rest of the world than what it has become under the current Federal Leviathan if the Constitution never passed.

Speculation aside, historical reality meant that America would be fundamentally different than it would have been had the Articles of Confederation survived, as Rothbard points out:

The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of

American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an

omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears. [312]

Limited Government Myth

One of the great myths surrounding the American Constitution – which continues within conservative circles to this very day – is that the document limits government power. After reading Rothbard, such a notion can only be considered a fairy tale!

The supposed “defects” of the Articles of Confederation were adroitly used by the wily nationalists as a cover to hide their real motives. Simply put – the Articles had to be scrapped and a new national government, far more powerful than what had existed under the Articles, had to be created as Rothbard asserts: “The nationalists who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for a new government, all designed to remodel the United States into a country with the British political structure.” [145]

In passing the Constitution, the nationalist forces gained almost all they had set out to accomplish – a powerful central state and with it a strong chief executive office, and the destruction of the states as sovereign entities. The supposed “checks and balances,” so much beloved by Constitution enthusiasts, has proven worthless in checking the central state’s largesse. Checks and balances exist within the central government and is not offset by any prevailing power, be it the states or citizenry.

There was no reform of the system as it stood, but a new state was erected on the decentralized foundation of the Confederation. Why the idea of the founding fathers as some limited government proponents is a mystery.

The Chief Executive

As it developed, the Presidency has become the most powerful and, thus, the most dangerous office in the world. While its occupants certainly took advantage of situations and created crises themselves over the years, the Presidency, especially in foreign policy, is largely immune from any real oversight either from the legislature or judiciary. This was not by happenstance. From the start, the nationalists envisioned a powerful executive branch, and though the most extreme among the group were eventually thwarted in their desire to recreate a British-style monarchy in America, the final draft of the Constitution granted considerable power to the presidential office.

As they did throughout the Constitutional proceedings, the nationalists cleverly altered the concept of what an executive office in a republic should be, by subtle changes in the wording of the document as Rothbard incisively explains:

[T]he nationalists proceeded to alter . . . and exult the executive in a highly

important textual change. Whenever the draft had stated that the president ‘may

recommend’ measures to the Congress, the convention changed ‘may’ to ‘shall,’

which provided a ready conduit to the president for wielding effective law-making

powers, while the legislature was essentially reduced to a ratification agency of laws

proposed by the president. [190-91]

As if this was not bad enough the office was given the ability to create departments within its own domain.

In another fateful change, the president was given the power to create a

bureaucracy within the executive by filling all offices not otherwise provided for in

the Constitution, in addition to those later created by laws. [191]

The totalitarian federal agencies that plague the daily lives of Americans were not some later innovation by the Progressive movement or New Dealers, but had been provided for within the document itself. The efforts of those opposed to the various social welfare schemes of the past, which have been put into effect through the various Cabinet departments, have been in vain since the power was given to the Presidency and has been taken advantage of by nearly all of its occupants.

Rothbard’s analysis of the chief executive office is especially pertinent since the nation is once again in the midst of another seemingly endless presidential election cycle. The reason that the office has attracted so many of the worst sort (which is being kind) is because of its power. If elected, the ability to control, regulate, impoverish, and kill not only one’s fellow citizen, but peoples across the globe is an immense attraction for sociopaths!

A Coup d’état and Counter Revolution

Rothbard makes the compelling case that the Constitution was a counter revolution, which was a betrayal of the ideology that brought about the Revolution:

The Americans were struggling not primarily for independence but for political-

economic liberty against the mercantilism of the British Empire. The struggle was

waged against taxes, prohibitions, and regulations – a whole failure of repression

that the Americans, upheld by an ideology of liberty, had fought and torn

asunder. . . . [T]he American Revolution was in essence not so much against Britain

as against British Big Government – and specially against an all-powerful central

government and a supreme executive. [307]

He continues:

[T]he American Revolution was liberal, democratic, and quasi-anarchistic; for

decentralization, free markets, and individual liberty; for natural rights of

life, liberty, and property; against monarchy, mercantilism, and especially

against strong central government. [307-08]

There was, however, always a “conservative” element within the revolutionary leadership that admired Great Britain and wanted to replicate it in America. It was only when there was no alternative to British political and economic oppression that they joined with their more liberal-libertarian brethren and decided for independence.

Conservatives did not go away after independence, but would continue to push for an expansion of government under the Articles and finally, after most of their designs were consistently thwarted, did they scheme to impose a powerful central state upon the unsuspecting country.

Yet, they would not have triumphed had a number of key liberal-libertarians of the revolutionary generation moved to the Right during the decade following independence. Rothbard shows why he is the master in power-elite historical analysis in his discussion of this tragic shift, which would spell the death knell to any future politically decentralized America:

[O]ne of the . . . reasons for the defeat of the Antifederalists, though they

commanded a majority of the public, was the decimation that had taken place in

radical and liberal leadership during the 1780s. A whole galaxy of ex-radicals, ex-

decentralists, and ex-libertarians, found in their old age that they could comfortably

live in the new Establishment. The list of such defections is impressive, including

John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, Alexander

McDougall, Isaac Sears, and Christopher Gadsden. [308-09]

As the country’s elite became more statist and as political (Shays Rebellion) and economic (a depression) factors played into their hands, conservatives seized the opportunity to erect on America a powerful national government:

It was a bloodless coup d’état against an unresisting Confederation Congress. . . .

The drive was managed by a corps of brilliant members and representatives

of the financial and landed oligarchy. These wealthy merchants and large

landowners were joined by the urban artisans of the large cities in their

drive to create a strong overriding central government – a supreme government

with its own absolute power to tax, regulate commerce, and raise armies. [306]

Conclusion

The Mises Institute and the editor of the book, Patrick Neumann, must be given immense credit for bringing this important piece of scholarship into print. Once read, any notion of the “founding fathers” as disinterested statesmen who sublimated their own interests and that of their constituents to that of their country will be disavowed. Moreover, The New Republic:1784-1791 is the most important in the series since the grave crises that the nation now faces can be traced to those fateful days in Philadelphia when a powerful central state was created.

Volume Five shows that the problems of America’s past and the ones it now faces are due to the Constitution. The remedy to the present societal ills is not electing the “right” congressman, or president, but to “devolve” politically into a multitude of states and jurisdictions. For the future of liberty and economic well-being, this is where efforts should be placed and Murray Rothbard’s final volume of Conceived in Liberty is essential reading if that long, arduous, but much necessary task is to be undertaken.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

posted 02-10-’20