Article posted at the Christus Rex page: https://antoniusaquinas.com/christus-rex-page/
Article posted at the Christus Rex page: https://antoniusaquinas.com/christus-rex-page/
If a world conflagration, God forbid, should break out during the Trump Administration, its genesis will not be too hard to discover: the thin-skinned, immature, shallow, doofus which currently resides in the Oval Office!
This past week, the Donald has continued his bellicose talk with both veiled and explicit threats against purported American adversaries throughout the world. In a cryptic exchange with reporters during a dinner with military leaders, he quipped:
You guys know what this represents?
Maybe it’s the calm before the storm. It could be the
calm. . . before. . . the storm.*
A reporter asked if he meant Iran or Isis which the POTUS responded, “you’ll find out.” Instead of threatening supposed overseas foes with nuclear annihilation, none of whom have taken any concrete military action against the US, why not go after someone who has actually compromised the country’s security, namely Hillary Rodham Clinton!
While some dismissed the comments as typical Trumpian bluster, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added further ominous overtones when questioned saying they were “extremely serious.”
Later in the week, Trump continued to threaten tiny North Korea, this time in not so veiled terms:
Presidents and their administrations have been talking to North Korea for 25 years,
agreements made and massive amounts of money paid hasn’t worked, agreements
violated before the ink was dry, making fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only
one thing will work.**
If war erupts either on the Korean Peninsula or in any other part of the globe that the U.S has wantonly poked its nose into, it can be safely assured that neither Trump nor any of the other “military leaders,” with which he recently had dinner with, will be in the midst of hostilities as the bombs and bullets are being cast about. No, these laptop bombers will be in safe quarters far away from enemy lines, giving orders, making speeches, and praising the troops while Congress will be hurriedly passing more “defense” funding legislation further lining the pockets of the military industrial complex.
The Warmonger-in-Chief, who has repeatedly bragged about America’s military prowess, had a chance to become a part of the organization he constantly gushes over during his youth at the time of the Vietnam War. Yet, he escaped military service, due to the machinations of his father, because of a mysterious foot/toe malady.
For all those who avoided being conscripted into America’s disastrous imperial exercise in Southeast Asia during those years, whether it was from phony medical conditions, escaping to Canada or beyond, or going to jail, they did so for justifiable reasons. The war was immoral, since Vietnam had taken no hostile action against the US and what made it worse, the government drafted thousands of America’s youth to fight it. It is reprehensible that those who got out of military service then are now at the forefront in advocating mass murder (war).
One resolution that would certainly curtail warmongering in the future would be that any legislator, president, cabinet officer, or ambassador that promotes military intervention abroad should be required to directly participate in field operations. This would quickly put the brakes on threatening talk from the likes of Trump and his crazed UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley.
A country’s leadership personally conducting military operations has had a long tradition in Western history. During the crusading era, princes and kings led their retinues and forces into battle risking life and limb such as the great Norman prince, Bohemond, whose courage, tenacity, and military acumen won the day for Christian forces at the battle of Antioch.
This venerable ideal can still be seen in Russia when recently one of its generals and two colonels lost their lives in the Syrian quagmire.*** When was the last time a US general has perished in active combat?
It is apparent that the current POTUS does not understand the catastrophic consequences of what his threats, if carried out, would lead to – death to millions, unimaginable destruction, and the end of civilization. Maybe, had he actually suffered through the horrors of combat or had been the victim of US aggression as the peoples of North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have witnessed, he might refrain from such bellicose language.
Hopefully, cooler heads in the Administration will prevail, however, a more peaceful world is unlikely with the likes of Donald John Trump at the command of the greatest destructive force in human history.
*Tyler Durden, “President Trump Warns Ominously: ‘It’s the Calm Before the Storm.'” Zero Hedge. 6 October 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-05/president-trump-warns-ominously-its-calm-storm
**Tyler Durden, “Trump Hints at War With North Korea: ‘Sorry, But Only One Thing Will Work.'” Zero Hedge. 7 October 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-07/trump-hints-war-north-korea-after-25-years-failed-diplomacy-only-one-thing-will-work
***Alexander, “General Asapov Died Because as a Russian Officer He Led From the Front.” Russia Feed. 30 September 2017. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/general-asapov-died-because-as-a-russian-officer-he-led-from-the-front/
When Germany Was Great!
Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific. Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration. The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.
Opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled by the mass media with the usual epithets: “far right,” neo-Nazi, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists.” Because of this and other factors, there has been no mass movement, as of yet, that has coalesce to challenge the German political establishment.
A possible reversal of German fortunes, however, has come from a recent poll of Bavarians.*
A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.” This percentage has increased from 25% of secession-minded Bavarians when polled in 2011.
Of the some 2000 surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of independence come from the southern portions of the country.
Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession. This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants. Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.
Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state. From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc. With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.
Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture. Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples. And, the monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings, and emperors. Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph. Mozart was funded no less by the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.
Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power. A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes. A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.
Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed. The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under their sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they do not do their fair share.
The empirical evidence is overwhelming in regard to political decentralization and economic growth. Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limitation on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states since there would be amble opportunities for producers to go to more conducive areas to set up shop. This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.
If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migration crisis before the country is completely demographically dismembered, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots. Let Bavaria lead the way!
Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs. The once Golden State has lost some 1600 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people from the state from 2004 to 2013 due to its onerous tax rates, the oppressive regulatory burden, and the genuine kookiness which pervades among its ruling elites.* A clueless Glendale official is apparently unconcerned about the financial repercussions of Nestle’s departure saying that it was “no big deal” and saw it as an “opportunity,” whatever that means!
The stampede of businesses out of what was once the most productive and attractive region in all of North America demonstrates again that prosperity and individual freedom are best served in a political environment of decentralization.
That the individual states of America have retained some sovereignty, despite the highly centralized “federal” system of government of which they are a part, has enabled individuals and entrepreneurs living in jurisdictions that have become too tyrannical to “escape” to political environments which are less oppressive. This, among other reasons (mainly air conditioning), led to the rise of the Sun Belt as people sought to escape the high taxes and regulations of the Northeast to less burdensome (and warmer!) southern destinations.
This can also be seen on a worldwide scale. The US, for a long time, had been a haven of laissez-faire economic philosophy, which, not surprisingly, became a magnet for those seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living. No longer is this the case as increasing numbers of companies and individuals are seeking to avoid American confiscatory tax and regulatory burdens and move “offshore” or expatriate to more favorable economic climates.
The idea of political decentralization as a catalyst for economic growth has become a part of a “school of thought” in the interpretation of how Europe became so prosperous compared to other civilizations. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe for centuries was divided politically among numerous jurisdictions and ruling authorities with no dominant central state on the Continent. The multitude of governing bodies kept in check, to a large degree, the level of taxation and regulation. If one state became too draconian, it would lose population to less oppressive regimes.
Just as important, Europe’s governing system was aristocratic and monarchical which has proven to be far more conducive for economic growth than democracies.
While the economic oppressed can escape among the various states, there is no avoidance from the wrath of the federal government unless through expatriation and that option has become less viable with those leaving still subject to tax obligations. This, fundamentally, is the crux of the problem and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789.
The chance that a totalitarian state such as California or the Leviathan on the Potomac would actually reform themselves or relinquish power through legislative means is a mirage. Nor will revolution work as revolutionaries while appearing altruistic, typically get a hold of the machinery of government to plunder society for their own self interest on a far grander scale than the supposed despots which they replaced!
The only viable option for the productive members of society to seek redress of state oppression is to argue, work, and eventually fight for political secession and the fragmentation of states as much as possible. Decentralization is the only hope for those opposed to the modern, omnipotent nation state. Moreover, any notion or effort to salvage the current centralized political system must be abandoned.
Naturally, before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made. Public opinion must be convinced of the superiority of a world consisting of many states. Such a cause, however, will be considerably difficult after generations have been raised and made dependent upon social democracy.
When Nestle and other oppressed businesses and individuals can easily escape the clutches of totalitarian entities like California and, more importantly, the most dangerous government on the face of the earth for freer destinations, then will individual liberty and economic growth be assured.
*Terry Jones, “Another Big Company Departs California – Will Last One to Leave Shut the Lights?” Investor’s Business Daily. February 3, 2017. http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/another-big-company-departs-california-will-last-one-to-leave-shut-the-lights/
In November of 1876, one hundred and forty years ago, Johannes Brahms’ monumental First Symphony was first heard, performed in Karlsruhe, Germany. The much anticipated work – which took Brahms over 20 years to complete – has become part of the canon of Western music. Ironically, the premiere of The Ring by Brahms’ supposed rival and fellow musical genius, Richard Wagner, was performed for the first time in the same year.
While one critic initially called Brahms’ First Symphony “Beethoven’s Tenth,” it has surpassed that unjust description and now stands on its own merit as a distinct masterpiece. The First Symphony, the three that followed, and the rest of Brahms’ works makes him more than Beethoven’s successor, a unique musical figure in his own right.
In one of his best newspaper articles, H.L. Mencken wrote the following about a Brahms’ performance:
My excuse for writing of the above gentleman is simply
that I can think of nothing else. A week or so ago, . . . I
heard his sextet for strings, opus 18, and ever since then it
has been sliding and pirouetting through my head. I have
gone to bed with it and I have got up with it. Not, of course,
with the whole sextet, nor even with any principal tune of it,
but with the modest and fragile little episode at the end of
the first section of the first movement – a lowly thing of eight
measures, thrown off like a perfume, so to speak, from the
The Sage of Baltimore continued on what made Brahms so special:
In music, as in all the other arts, the dignity of the work is simply
a reflection of the dignity of the man. The notion that shallow
and trivial men can write great masterpieces is one of the follies
that flow out of the common human taste for scandalous
anecdote. . . . More than any other art, perhaps, music demands
brains. It is full of technical complexities. It calls for a capacity to
do a dozen things at once. But most of all it is revelatory of what
is called character. When a trashy man writes it, it is trashy music.
Here is where the immense superiority of such a man as
Brahms becomes manifest. There is less trashiness in his music
than there is in the music of any other man ever heard of, with
the sole exception, perhaps of Johann Sebastian Bach. . . .
Hearing Brahms, one never gets any sense of being entertained
by a clever mountebank. One is facing a superior man, and the
fact is evident from the first note.
While Brahms was born in Hamburg, he eventually found his way to the musical capital of the world, Vienna, which, at the time, was part of the Austro- Hungarian Empire. Vienna was more than the musical center of Europe, but a cultural one as well which was rivaled by few in Brahms’ time.
Although mostly forgotten under an avalanche of pro-democracy historiography, the Vienna where Brahms spent most of his adult life was “ruled” by a monarch. The rich cultural life which flourished in that political atmosphere was admitted even by those who were, no doubt, hostile and envious of it as the philosopher and economist, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, describes in his seminal book, Democracy: The God That Failed:
Even democratic intellectuals and artists from any field of
intellectual and cultural endeavor could not ignore the
enormous level of productivity of Austro-Hungarian and in
particular Viennese culture. Indeed, the list of great names
associated with late nineteenth and early twentieth century
Vienna is seemingly endless.**
As Professor Hoppe insightfully shows, the incredible accomplishments of the likes of Brahms came in the pre-democratic era which tragically ended with WWI.
. . . rarely has this enormous intellectual and cultural
productivity been brought in a systematic connection with
the pre-democratic tradition of the Habsburg monarchy.
Instead, if it has not been considered a mere coincidence, the
productivity of Austrian-Viennese culture has been presented
‘politically correctly’ as proof of the positive synergistic effects
of a multiethnic society and of multiculturalism.
Whether the accomplishments were in the arts, music, scientific breakthrough, invention, or entrepreneurial wealth creation, all were the result of individual initiative, skill, tenacity, foresight and intelligence within a society that recognized, praised, and promoted such achievements. There was no affirmative action or policies that promoted artists based on their skin color or gender. When Brahms came to Vienna, he did not receive an Austro-Hungarian version of a National Endowment of Arts subsidy!
Just as important, and what is ignored by the Left and many race-denying realists on the respectable Right, is that all of these civilization-enhancing accomplishments in Vienna were made, for the most part, by white men. No other culture or people have ever produced music comparable to Brahms and his fellow Western musical masters.
The democratic age which followed has been praised by scholars as an advancement of the human condition on all fronts. In his book and in other places, however, Professor Hoppe has shown that just the opposite has occurred under democratic conditions with a trend toward de-civilization. Taking the US as an example, he writes:
. . . less than a century of full-blown democracy has resulted in
steadily increasing moral degeneration, family and social
disintegration, and cultural decay in the form of continually rising
rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and crime. As a result
of an ever-expanding list of nondiscrimination –
‘affirmative action’ – laws and nondiscriminatory, multicultural ,
egalitarian immigration policies, every nook and cranny of American
society is affected by government management and forced integration;
accordingly, social strife and racial, ethnic, and moral –cultural
tension and hostility have increased dramatically.
As Professor Hoppe notes, the latest phase in the democratic era has been immigration policies which have been deliberately planned to destroy the various Western cultures with Germany being the most devastated. Yet, as Mencken wrote of him, Brahms was a product of Germanic blood not that of multiculturalism. The German people who continue to support and allow those to wantonly destroy the culture that produced a Brahms should consult Mencken:
I give you his Deutsches Requiem as an example. . . . The thing is
irresistibly moving. It is moving because a man of the highest
intellectual dignity, a man of exalted feelings, a man of brains,
put into it his love and pride in his country. That country is
lucky which produces such men.
While Brahms’ music will always be listened to and played for its brilliance, it should always be remembered in what culture his genius was allowed to flourish. How fortunate for mankind that Brahms lived in the pre-democratic era and what a loss it would have been if the First Symphony would have never been composed.
*Marion Elizabeth Rodgers, ed. The Impossible H.L. Mencken: A Selection of His Best Newspaper Stories. With a Foreword by Gore Vidal. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1991, pp. 465-468.
**Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. xii-xiii.
Executive orders, undeclared wars, drone hits, assassination of citizens and non-citizens alike, the overthrow of foreign regimes, domestic spying, the abetting of known criminal activities through pardons, economic planning, opening borders, monetary manipulations are just some of the nefarious activities that routinely emanate from the most dangerous political office that the world has ever painfully come to know – the United States Presidency!
The U.S. presidents can and have created a veritable “hell on earth” for their opponents, perceived enemies, and the innocent not only in the country in which they reign, but over the lives and fortunes of peoples and places where they have absolutely no authority to interfere. While other chiefs of state have theoretically had such power, U.S. presidents have been able to inflict their destruction and chaos because, paradoxically, the nation’s free-market system, for a long time, created immense wealth which could be tapped into.
The tyrannical nature of the presidency was recognized long ago by those politically perspicacious men who opposed both the office and the draconian document which created it. Few groups in history have been so vindicated for their foreboding as those who vainly argued against the ratification of the United States Constitution than the Antifederalists.
“An Old Whig”* aptly sums up the damage that would come about if the Constitution was ratified and the office of president would come into being:
. . . the office of President of the United States appears to me
to be clothed with such powers as are dangerous. To be the
fountain of all honors in the United States, commander in chief
of the army, navy and militia, with the power of making treaties
and of granting pardons, and to be vested with an authority to
put a negative upon all laws, unless two thirds of both houses
shall persist in enacting it, . . . .**
An Old Whig saw that the president would become a “king” but without the natural and binding checks that even the most absolutist of monarchs were restrained by:
[The president] is in reality to be a KING as much a King
as the King of Great Britain, and a King too of the worst
kind; – an elective King. . . . The election of a King
whether it be in America or Poland, will be a scene of
horror and confusion; and I am perfectly serious when
I declare that, as a friend to my country, I shall despair
of any happiness in the United States until this office
is either reduced to a lower pitch of power or made
perpetual and hereditary.***
One of the Federalists’ counterarguments to the Antifederalists’ concern over the presidential office was the widely held assumption that George Washington would become the new Republic’s first chief executive and the general knowledge of his impeccable character would assuage those worried of potential executive overreach. Such a lame response neglected to look into the future when the office’s huge potentiality for despotism would be sought after and won by those who had less upstanding personal traits than the father of the country.
The growing decentralized political movements throughout the world with, for instance, the hopefully upcoming British exit from the European Union, can only be enhanced if the office of the president and, for that matter, all other nation state’s chief executives are exposed as tyrannical institutions which are anathema to individual liberty and collective self-determination. Presidents, premiers, chancellors, prime ministers, and their like along with central banking are the two nefarious pillars of power of the modern nation state whose continued existence guarantees perpetual war and economic regression.
In this seemingly interminable presidential election cycle, populist, libertarians, conservatives, and all sorts of anti-Establishment types are delusional if they believe the totalitarian direction in which the country is now headed will be reversed through elections or choosing the “right” candidate. “Making American Great Again” will only come about when the chief executive office and the statist document that created it have been repudiated.
Prior to the presidency’s abolition, its ideological justification must be first debunked. There is no finer place to start for this most necessary task to take place than in the dissemination of the perceptive and enduring words of the much neglected Antifederalists.
*Probably penned by a group of Philadelphia Antifederalists – George Bryan, John Smilie, James Hutchinson and maybe others. See, John P. Kaminski & Richard Leffler, eds., Federalists and Antifederalists: The Debate Over the Ratification of the Constitution. Madison, Wisconsin: Madison House Publishers, 1989, p. 18.
**Ibid., p. 86.
One of the biggest misconceptions held among the independent and alternative media is that of feudalism and the political, economic and social arrangements which characterized that unfairly maligned epoch.
Derogatory language is often used to describe feudal times with commentators often suggesting that today’s political and financial elites seek to return mankind to such a supposedly depressed, stagnate and repressive condition.
Those who receive the most animus from alternative media pundits are the authority figures and institutions which reigned throughout the period – knights, dukes, kings, princes, popes, priests, bishops, churches, monasteries, and cathedrals.
Yet, was this the case; was feudalism which existed throughout much of the Middle Ages really that bad?
Politically, despite the distortions found in contemporary history books and political science texts, state power in feudal times can be categorized in one term – decentralized – which in reality meant a considerable amount of individual liberty and freedom for all, including serfs.
Naturally, feudal political conditions across Europe varied, however, a look through Carl Stephenson’s classic work, Mediaeval Feudalism, is instructive:
So far as eleventh-century France is concerned, we may disregard
the royal authority altogether. The kingdom of the West Franks,
which had never been more than a political makeshift, now seemed
on the point of final dissolution. . . . The ancient rights of the crown
had long since passed to such men as were able, with or without
legal authorization to organize and defend a local territory. . . .
The greater of the king’s alleged vassals never came near his court,
whether to perform homage or to render any other service. What
respect could they have for a theoretical lord who was defied with
impunity by petty officials on his own domain?1
Professor Stephenson continues with words that should warm the hearts of anti-statists everywhere:
France, obviously, had ceased to be a state in any proper sense
of the word. Rather, it had been split into a number of states
whose rulers, no matter how they styled themselves, enjoyed
the substance of the regal power.2
In Germany, too, power was radically diffused as Professor Stephenson describes:
. . . in various other ways the rulers of Germany sought to
maintain the Carolingian tradition of a grandiose monarchy.
They even revived the imperial title and made brave efforts
to reign on both sides of the Alps. But the task was an
impossible one. The Holy Roman Empire became a mere
sham; and as the prolonged contest between the royal
and the princely authority ended in the complete victory of
the latter, Germany. . . was resolved into a group of feudal
Despite their aggrandizing efforts, the German kings could never succeed in establishing absolutist rule:
Vainly trying to be Roman emperors, the successors of
Otto I . . . became [as kings] purely elective, degenerated
into a sort of decoration to be borne first by one local prince
an then by another.4
Germany remained, for the longest time, an area of decentralized political authority as Professor Stephenson explains:
From the Rhineland to the Slavic frontier, armies were
made up of knights, society was dominated by a
chivalrous aristocracy, the countryside was dotted with
motte-and-bailey castles, and governments were
organized on the basis of feudal tenure.5
Political and economic theory have demonstrated that power which is diffused typically leads to low levels of taxation. In the case of medieval feudalism, this certainly was the case:
. . . if the lord needed military service or financial aid beyond
what was specifically owed by his vassals, his only recourse
was to ask them for a voluntary grant. He had no right to tax
or assess them arbitrarily, for his authority in such matters was
determined by feudal contract.6
Likewise, law was not “made up” by legislative acts, but was that of custom and tradition based on the natural law which kings, lords, vassals, and commoners were all obliged to live by:
Nor does he [the king, or lord] have a discretionary power
of legislation. Law was the unwritten custom of the country.
To change or even to define it was the function, not of the lord,
but of his court. It was the vassals themselves who declared the
law under which they lived; and when one of them was accused
of a misdeed, he was entitled to the judgment of his peers, i.e.
his fellow vassals.7
Warfare, too, was limited in scope compared to the massive human slaughter and destruction of property which has taken place over the past two centuries:
The general character of feudal warfare may be easily
deduced from what has already been said about
vassalage and chivalry. . . . when two feudal armies
met, each knightly participant was apt to conduct
himself as he saw fit. The final outcome would depend
on a series of duels in which the determining factor was
individual prowess. But battles on a large scale were
rare in feudal Europe. The characteristic warfare of the
age consisted rather of pillaging raids into the enemy’s
territory, of skirmishes between small bands of knights,
and of engagements incident to the siege of castles.
While there used to be a debate about the conditions of serfs compared to that of modern day wage earners, the argument is now falling apart with studies showing that real wages and corresponding standards of living have actually contracted over the past half century for most. Where there can be no debate, however, is the moral condition of the people of the feudal past compared with contemporary times where “gay marriage” and other abominations have now been given legal status. No right-minded person could argue that marriage, the family, and child rearing are in better shape today than they were in the supposed “Dark Ages.”
In nearly every aspect of societal appraisement, medieval feudalism was a far superior social order than anything which has come in its wake. Those who denigrate it not only show their historical ignorance, but play into the hands of their elite oppressors who understand that a return to such a social order would be a much greater threat to their power than any presidential candidate or his “movement.”
1Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, Ithaca, NY.: Great Seal books, 1942; 1960, pp. 77-78.
2Ibid., p. 78.
6Ibid., p. 31.
8Ibid., pp. 66-68.