Tag Archives: War

Welcome to Totalitarian America, President Trump!

Deep-State-vs-Trump II

If there had been any doubt that the land of the free and home of the brave is now a totalitarian society, the revelations that its Chief Executive Officer has been spied upon while campaigning for that office and during his brief tenure as president should now be allayed.

President Trump joins the very crowded list of opponents of the American State which includes the Tea Party, tax resistors, non-interventionists, immigration opponents, traditional family advocates, and a host of others who have been spied upon, persecuted and badgered by federal “intelligence” authorities.  While Congress conducted some feeble hearings and investigations of the shenanigans of the US spy agencies during the interminable Obummer Administration, no real action or reform was taken to reign in the eavesdropping and spying by the national security state on American citizens.

Hopefully, the surveillance of President Trump will change his outlook on the US “intelligence community” especially in regard to those courageous souls who have spoken out and risked life and limb to alert the public about their rulers’ nefarious activities.  Edward Snowden should be among the first to receive a pardon while the person who provided him sanctuary from his American persecutors, the reviled Vladimir Putin, should be commended for his noble act, a rarity among world leaders in this democratic age.

President Trump has demonstrated throughout his life loyalty to those who have supported him.  He should, therefore, do all in his power to extricate Julian Assange from the Ecuadoran Embassy in Great Britain and provide him with safe conduct to the US or any destination in which the heroic whistleblower prefers.  Without the deluge of Wikileaks during last fall’s presidential contest exposing the massive corruption of the Clintonistas, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever prevailed never mind winning by an electoral landslide.

Not only has candidate and President Trump been monitored, but just about every American citizen is under surveillance, the data of which can be used against them at the appropriate time if and when they should challenge the American Leviathan.  NSA whistleblower William Binney confirmed what has been long known in government circles and by those Americans awake to Washington’s tyranny.

Binney confirmed Trump’s suspicion about surveillance to Fox News, “I think the president is absolutely right.  His phone calls, everything he did electronically was being monitored.”* He added that, “Everyone’s conversations are being monitored and stored.”

Ironically, it has been the immense wealth generated by a relatively free market in America that has provided the means for the government to create, expand, and maintain such a sophisticated and dangerous spying apparatus that is now being used on the very people funding it.  That such a situation could emerge under the supposed “checks and balances” of the US Constitution demonstrates again how truly worthless the document is in the protection of individual rights.

While reform of the current system has proven to be futile and without any constitutional restraint, it, unfortunately, will mean that spying and the murderous US empire of which it is a part will continue as long as the economy does not collapse and the dollar retains its world reserve status.  A silver lining, therefore, from a dollar crisis, would mean a decline in the US military and security state.

Of course, the demise of the US spy and military establishment will not be a simple process, but will be fraught with tremendous social and political upheaval and more than likely bloodshed as the Deep State will do everything in its power to protect its turf.

While a collapse may be a ways off, it is hoped that the spying on President Trump will move him to rethink his position on the Deep State which wants to sabotage his every move that goes against its interests most notably a potential detente with Russia.  Talk of deescalation of American military presence in world affairs is anathema to the powers that be.

In his Inaugural Address, President Trump repeatedly promised to put America first.  The nation’s intelligence agencies do not share that vision, but instead owe their allegiance to the New World Order.  If the President has not figured this out after having been secretly monitored, there is little hope for the near future.

*Tyler Durden. “Former NSA Whistleblower: ‘Trump Is Absolutely Right, Everything Was Being Monistored.'”  Zero Hedge.  3 March 2017. http://www.zerohedge.com/print/589722

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com/

Charles A. Beard, “American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940″*

Review: Charles A. Beard, American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940: A Study in Responsibilities.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1946.

american-for-pol-in-the-making     charles-a-beard-ii

Introduction

Last year, 2016, marked the 70th anniversary of the publication of Charles Beard’s masterful study of United States foreign policy prior to the nation’s disastrous entrance into the Second World War, American Foreign Policy in the Making1932-1940: A Study in Responsibilities(AFPM).  The book was soon accompanied by President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 published in 1948, the year of the great historian’s passing.

The two volumes were extremely influential and became cornerstones of World War II revisionism.  AFPM chronicled US policy in the crucial decade prior to the fateful attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.  The records released and the research done in the decades following Beard’s studies have only substantiated the historian’s interpretation of events.*

The most recent of the growing literature of WWII revisionism has been by the German historian Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, and his provocative book, The War That Had Many Fathers.**As Beard did with AFPM, Schultze-Rhonhof seeks to assign responsibility for the outbreak of WWII in the European theatre.  Like Beard, and in contrast to the official historical interpretation, Schultze-Rhonhof blames the provocative actions of the “Allied” governments in the years leading up to the conflict.***

Continue reading at:  https://antoniusaquinas.com/history/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com/

*This essay is dedicated to the late Charlie McGrath of Wide Awake News.

charlie-mcgrath

 

Donald Trump & The Passion of the Christ

                                  the-donald-christ  the-passion

If Donald Trump can somehow defeat the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua despite vote rigging, outlandish media bias, backstabbing by his own party’s elites, and opposition of Wall Street, his victory may be the most serious setback for The Establishment since, perhaps, the release of Mel Gibson’s blockbuster movie, The Passion of the Christ.

Both Gibson and Trump faced seemingly impossible odds at the start of their quests and were viciously attacked and undermined by the usual Establishment suspects, yet, in Gibson’s case, he was able to beat the bastards at their own game producing one of the most accurate and authentic Christian movies ever made which garnered over a half billion dollars and numerous cinematic awards!

Unfortunately, Mel Gibson did not parlay his enormous success and cause further aggravation for the Entertainment industry with additional non-cultural Marxist features, but fell prey to booze and the pleasures of the flesh.  Moreover, Gibson, who was once a traditional Catholic who rejects the heretical changes brought about at the Vatican II Anti-council, could have been a force in a counter insurgency to rid the Church of its current horde of apostates including its head honcho.

If Trump wins he will have completed what earlier populists, most specifically Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, had started, but were unable to complete.  A real challenge to the two-party duopoly could have taken place had Perot and Buchanan stuck with the Reform Party and built it up as a legitimate alternative.

A Trump Presidency will, at the very least, put a temporary halt to the totalitarian liberal order’s relentless drive to render American sovereignty and create a multicultural society via mass controlled (and uncontrolled) immigration.  There would be no return from such a demographic onslaught and political realignment, at least through the ballot box, with the only alternative being secession or the emergence of a strongman who would violently suppress the Left.

A Trump victory would not only be a blow against the entrenched political class, but like Gibson’s great movie, it would be a mighty and much needed knockdown of the mass media.  No presidential candidate has ever dared to openly take on the mainstream media and expose it for what it truly is – the propaganda arm for the New World Order and the purveyors of degenerate cultural Marxism.

The protagonist in The Passion of the Christ has often been referred to as “The Prince of Peace,” which is somewhat of a misnomer.  The Christ of the Scriptures is a fighter who spends a good portion of His ministry battling and upbraiding the corrupt Church officials and hierarchy of the day who were not properly shepherding His flock.

Similarly, Donald Trump has always considered himself a fighter (counter puncher) who has promised to get rid of the corruption and criminality that pervades the political establishment, especially the Clinton cartel.  Trump is uniquely qualified for such a task because, unlike nearly every other politician, he is not beholding financially to anyone.

Most importantly, Trump will set a new course in US foreign policy which will lead to a de-escalation in tensions around the globe especially with Russia.  High praise was attributed to the peacemakers by the Author of the Beatitudes who said: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.”

Not only for America, but a Trump victory will have positive reverberations throughout the Western world which would surpass that of the surprising Brexit vote.  European anti-immigration groups and organizations would undoubtedly become further emboldened both psychologically and financially in their struggle to stem the tide of massive unwanted and society-wrecking immigration.  There is no telling what the effect would be when the chief executive of the world’s dominant power would be in sympathy with those who have courageously sought to preserve their families, heritage and way of life from the wicked designs of the New World Order.

While Mel Gibson self destructed after the phenomenal success of the The Passion of the Christ, his movie still stands not only as an inspirational and moving cinematic masterpiece, but as a glorious blow against the Establishment.  A Trump victory could mean an even greater strike against our globalist masters.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com/

 


 

Presidential Dictatorship

Sic Semper tyrannis II

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.

***Ibid.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com/

Feudalism: Was it so Bad?

feudal system

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

states.3

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.

[Emphasis mine.]8

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.

3Ibid., 92-93.

4Ibid., 93.

5Ibid.

6Ibid., p. 31.

7Ibid.

8Ibid., pp. 66-68.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com/