Christopher Columbus And The Falsification Of History

Authored by Antonius Aquinas,

The Los Angeles City Council’s recent, crazed decision to replace Christopher Columbus Day with one celebrating “indigenous peoples” can be traced to the falsification of history and denigration of European man which began in earnest in the 1960s throughout the educational establishment (from grade school through the universities), book publishing, and the print and electronic media.  It is amazing that, as of yet, the federal holiday commemorating the Genoese explorer’s world- changing voyage has not come under attack.  It is doubtful that in the current radicalized leftist ideological atmosphere, the national government’s recognition of Columbus will survive much longer.

Most of what has been taught about Christopher Columbus and his holy and heroic patroness has been distorted, lied about, and politicized for the advancement of leftist causes, the most important of which is the smearing of the great European men of the past and to ridicule their descendants’ pride in their glorious heritage.  The historical untruths have not stopped with Columbus and Queen Isabella, but are being spread about conditions of the pre-Columbian societies.

Instead of an idyllic land where the inhabitants lived in peace and harmony with one another until the evil, conquering white man appeared, life in the pre-Columbian Americas’ was, to say the least, quite grisly.  A recent archeological discovery in Mexico City of the ancient Aztec Empire shows again what most knew, prior to the onslaught of leftist historical revisionism, that human sacrifice was practiced on a large scale.

Archeologists have found more than 650 skulls where human sacrifices were conducted at the site of Templo Mayor, which was one of the primary temples of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan.  The new find substantiates the description of Andres de Tapia, a Spanish soldier who accompanied conquistador Hernan Cortes in 1521, and his account of the discovery of tens of thousands of skulls which were in the temple that became known as Huey Tzompantli.  The number of skulls must have been vast for they “struck fear” in the hearty and seasoned Spanish explorers.

A depiction of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica

That the Spanish immediately ended this hellish practice is not much spoken about by history professors in their lectures to their gullible students, nor did the Los Angeles City Council refer to the satanic ritual during their announcement.  Such inconvenient facts do not fit the liberal paradigm of the evil, marauding conquistadors subjugating the innocent Mesoamerican peoples to Spanish rule.  Nor will there be much mention that Columbus’ discovery brought civilization to the pagans and more importantly – and horrifically for the politically-correct – Christianity to the indigenous peoples and a chance for eternal salvation.

The takedown of Columbus is also a swipe at the figure who made his exploits altogether possible.  For Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand’s underwriting of the great Genoese Admiral’s voyage came only after they had completed their sacred mission of ridding the Iberian Peninsula of the dreaded Moors.  Once accomplished, the Queen fulfilled her promise to finance Columbus.  It has been contended by some scholars that the discovery of the New World under Spanish auspices was a reward by Divine Providence for the freeing of Spain of the Mohammedan menace.

Instead of enslavement and plunder that leftist historians accuse the Spanish Crown as motives for the exploration, the exact opposite was the truth, as candidly stated by Columbus himself:

“she [Isabella] would continue the experiment for the glory of God and His Church, even if the islands yielded nothing but rocks and stones.  She had spent more money . . .  on enterprises of less importance, and would consider all she had disbursed well employed, for it would result in the spread of [Christianity] and the good of Spain.”

Nearly every moral and ethical system ever devised has always condemned ingratitude.  Acknowledgement and veneration of the glorious deeds of those of the past in which a civilization was built is a necessary duty for its preservation.  When a culture’s icons are ignorantly defamed or replaced, it is a sure sign that it is in steep decline.  The scuttling of the yearly commemoration of Christopher Columbus’ monumental expeditions by the city of Los Angeles is another ominous indicator of a deeply troubled and disintegrating society.

Can Germany Be Made Great Again?

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man.com,

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.

 

The Holy Roman Empire in 1789 AD. At the time, Germany was a patchwork of countless independent principalities, duchies, city states, bishoprics and other statelets. This was a glorious time, as citizens could very easily vote with their feet if they were unhappy with their rulers. Keep in mind, there were no such things as “passports” or “border controls” at the time. No-one even thought about such things – it would have been considered an inane notion. And although almost every statelet minted its own coins (displaying its own coat of arms and a portrait of its ruler), money was actually standardized across the entire region since the Middle Ages. Most of Germany used silver coins, which were minted according to standardized weights and sizes (gold coins were also used, but silver was more prevalent in day-to-day commerce). Thus all coins were accepted across the region, regardless of which principality or duchy had issued them. There were no tariffs either and no restrictions on cross-border investment. There was even a mechanism for reining in fiscally highly incompetent or plain crazy rulers through a supra-national arbitration body that only sprang into action upon special request (when such requests were deemed reasonable). Taxes as a rule didn’t exceed a level of 10%, as any attempt to impose higher taxes would lead to an exodus of people from the territory concerned. Not everything was perfect of course, but let us just note that despite a lack of democracy, there was no lack of freedom. Check out some of our previous articles on this topic for additional color: “Secession – An Alternative View” and “Are Nation States Beginning to Splinter?” [PT] – click to enlarge.

Those in opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled with the usual epithets by the mass media: “far right,” “neo-Nazis”, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists”. Because of this and other factors, no mass movement has coalesced as of yet to truly challenge the German political establishment.

Indications of a possible reversal of German fortunes, however, have 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.”  The percentage of secession-minded Bavarians has increased from 25% in a poll conducted in 2011. Of the around 2000 people 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.

Civilization and Prosperity Flourish in Small Political Territories 

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.  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 by no lesser figure than the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.

Famous composers and their patrons – from left to right: Johann Sebastian Bach and his financier Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ludwig van Beethoven and his patron Archduke Rudolph of Austria, the Archbishop of Olomouc (who died in 1831 at age 43 just one year after Beethoven passed away – not to be confused with the later Archduke Rudolf, the crown prince who killed himself and his lover Baroness Vetsera at the Mayerling hunting lodge in 1889); Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his biggest fan and supporter Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Great artists, outstanding intellectuals and scientists were as a rule supported by members of the elites at the time, who either paid them stipends or commissioned specific works. It is worth noting that the achievements of these artists and intellectuals have generally stood the test of time, which seems highly unlikely to happen with most of the dreck funded by the State in modern times. [PT]

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 its sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they refuse to contribute their fair share.

The empirical evidence with regard to political decentralization and economic growth is overwhelming.  Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limits on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states, since there would be ample opportunities for producers to set up shop in areas more conducive to their efforts.

A truly depressing record: today only five countries in the world are considered economically free according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index (another 28 are in the “mostly free” category). Not even one country has a perfect score of 100. You will notice that the top five include only one large territory, namely Australia – which just about makes the cut with a score of 81 points; moreover, it is a sparsely populated place with a population of only ~24 million people. The two territories considered most free are city states, and the next two are tiny countries. For some reason Heritage didn’t rank a number of smaller countries and city states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Monaco. If it had, they would be in the top five, replacing the countries currently ranked 3 to 5. The countries with high economic freedom scores are the most prosperous places on the planet, which is of course no coincidence. Citizens of other countries who are not part of the political elites and their politically well-connected cronies must of course wonder why these success stories are not emulated everywhere in the world. They should also ask themselves what is worth more to them: that their rulers are able to “throw their weight around on the international stage” (one of the reasons for which people in Europe are supposed to support the socialist superstate wet dreams of the EU’s political and bureaucratic elites), or their personal freedom. It is worth noting that several of the countries with high economic freedom scores are not considered sufficiently democratic; in other words, the ability of citizens to choose which gang of criminals waving a flag should boss them around and rob them for the next several years is limited. We happen to think it’s more important that those in power do as little bossing around as possible. In fact, people should not even worry about who is going to sit on the throne, they should focus on simply abolishing the throne instead. Unfortunately it is quite difficult to deprogram the serfs, but one can always hope. We are actually convinced that Statism will wither away at some point in the future and be replaced by societies based on voluntarism. [PT]

This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and less restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.

If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migrant crisis before the country is completely dismembered demographically, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots.  Let Bavaria lead the way!

Why the Government Fails at Welfare

Via The Daily Bell

The leviathan created by the modern welfare state is one of the gravest threats facing the American republican system. Dangers levied by the continued use of the government’s dole come both fiscally and socially. Fixes being floated from Congress to community organizations still lack a cohesive focus on reform in the mainstream public discourse.

The federal welfare apparatus has bloomed into a disastrous menagerie of nearly one hundred programs. Representative Warren Davidson (OH8-R) has introduced legislation that will consolidate 92 of the programs in an attempt to minimize waste and redundancy.  Davidson isn’t alone in his calls for welfare reform.  Other members of the House Freedom Caucus are publicly demanding that welfare reform be tied into the promised Trump tax reform package.

Even if House conservatives get their way, it’s not clear if the welfare model is sustainable. Stacked up against other industrialized countries, the U.S. clearly gets the worst bang for its buck.  In part, the reason for the failings comes from flawed designs for the American social safety net.

Governments on both sides of the Atlantic seem to be settled on the model of government intervention supporting those in need, but several Pacific Rim countries offer a different model based on social responsibility.

Pacific Rim Models

The tiny nation of Singapore has dazzled economists and pundits since it gained its independence from Great Britain. By embracing free market principles Singapore has raised its per capita income from $500 to over $52,000 in the short time it has been free of colonial shackles.

Even more exciting is the attitude the government takes on social welfare programming.  Since its inception, the state has taken a hard stance on handouts.  The government’s longtime approach has been underpinned by the idea that universal benefits are “wasteful and inequitable” and has chosen to base their safety net on social pressures. Singapore’s philosophy on welfare follows

Singapore’s philosophy on welfare follows three basic principles: each generation should pay its own way, each family should pay its own way, and each individual should pay his or her own way.   These aren’t just guidelines.  The legislators codified the importance of family reliance by enabling seniors to file litigation against their children if they refuse to support them.

In addition to heavy social pressures, the state also requires compulsory savings for retirement, housing, and other items deemed social necessities.  By requiring employers and employees to designate money for individual “rainy day funds” the government ensures that citizens have money when in need while simultaneously avoiding onerous taxes and bureaucracy that accompany the American and European models.  

Other Pacific Rim countries have also dabbled in alternative forms of social welfare.  Chile once instituted a meritocratic point based system which enabled those in lower income brackets to advance through subsidies offered by the state and was able toproduce better results than those in Europe and America.

Japan also has a history of creating social pressures to ensure the elderly and those in need are taken care of without government intervention.  Hong Kong, another of the Pacific’s shining societies has its own take on welfare in which increased productivity from workers equals increased benefits.

While those in Congress struggle to find the solution to America’s welfare woes it is important that they look not across the Atlantic to the failing welfare states of Europe for policy, but rather to the east and take note of the alternatives offered by market-based models.

States Rights

Instead of waiting on the national government to create a solution to one of America’s most pressing problems several states have taken the initiative and attempted to create a sustainable welfare model. By embracing the federalist model and utilizing the states as laboratories of democracy lawmakers can see what works and what doesn’t in real time. Already some states have produced promising results.

Legislators in Maine took a bold step in implementing conservative style welfare reform. Initiated by a Republican governor, Paul LePage, the reforms sought to address the growing number of welfare recipients in the state and the massive budgetary mess that came along with it. In Maine, able-bodied adults are required to work, train, or volunteer at least on a part-time basis to receive any government benefits.

The plan drew steep criticism from both the Obama administration and liberal media outlets as both claimed that the measure unfairly targeted the poor in a budget reducing measure and would create more harm to those in need. The results of Maine’s experiment, however, have proven quite the opposite. 

Maine has lowered its unemployment rate and has 10 times fewer residents on welfare. Even more exciting for Mainers, those who came off of welfare saw their incomes rise by an average of 114 percent. Proving that Maine’s results are not just a fluke, Kansas has implemented a similar program and has likewise alleviated a great deal of the state’s poverty.

Policy think tanks across the country have analyzed the finding of Maine’s experiment and have called on their state governments to follow suit. Some even heralded the program as a model for the nation. The problem facing many action oriented states come from restrictions put in place by the federal system. While the Republican lead welfare reform of the 90s did a great deal to push welfare to the state level, it also left a great deal to be desired.

To function as independent bodies, as the federal system intends, and better serve their most vulnerable citizens’ states ought to have greater freedom to experiment with welfare reforms.  Congress could act to give states a greater say in how welfare is implemented within their borders if reform is to be both helpful to those in need and sustainable.

Market-Charity

The government has a long history of implementing duplicative, ineffective policies and leaving communities to pick up the pieces. From the feds creating the modern ObamaCare healthcare debacle to city government literally stealing donations meant for children, every time the state attempts to intervene to solve a societal ailment it just makes it worse. Welfare is no different. Luckily for Americans, the government doesn’t control their fate, they do.

When looking to alleviate the suffering of their fellow citizens, Americans need only look inwards. American citizens are already the most charitable citizenry in the world, and keep giving more money every year. Moreover, private charity organizations, by and large, run much more efficiently and with substantially lower overhead.

Private groups are providing money, resources, and life-changing services better than the government is. Tired of seeing their impoverished neighbors get tossed around by the welfare system one group started an organization to successfully transition people off government support and into self-sufficiency. The core idea of such missions is to have neighbors helping their community members rise to their full potential and become productive by their own means. Of course, neighbors helping neighbors only works if there are opportunities available to them.

No government intervention or individual generosity can finally end poverty. The only force powerful enough to lift people out of the clutches of poverty is free market capitalism. Many who advocate for expanding the welfare state in its traditional form fail to realize the positive power markets can play in reducing poverty.

The wealthiest societies are not those which provide their citizens with cradle to grave care; it’s actually the complete opposite! The freer the society the easier it is for individuals to act and create wealth which in turn raises the standard of living. If allowed to thrive, market forces will create the greatest outcome to workers, companies, and those in need.

If the government is serious about helping the disadvantaged it should stop with the various welfare schemes, which inevitably fail, and get out of the way of the real engines of wealth creation. Neither the federal government nor any local authorities have the means to truly address poverty. Government fails; freedom works.

Venezuela's Oil Production On The Brink Of Collapse

Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

Desperation is spreading in Venezuela as violent protests continue to paralyze the country, further damaging the country’s shattered economy. Venezuela’s already-decrepit oil industry is deteriorating by the day, and an outright implosion is no longer out of the question.

The inflation rate, according to the IMF, will balloon to 720 percent this year. Food shortages have been common for quite some time, but are deepening and wearing down the population. Three out of four people surveyed by the WSJ reported involuntary weight loss last year. Hospitals have completely broken down.

Venezuela has been crippled by protests since late March, with more than three dozen people having been killed over the past two months, and there is no sign of improvement. This meltdown is taking a toll on Venezuela’s oil production, the last thing keeping the country from becoming a failed state. Venezuela’s oil production has been declining for more than a decade, mainly because oil revenues are used to finance the government, leaving little for state-owned PDVSA to reinvest in its operations.

But things are getting worse. The cash shortage is accelerating the decline. As of April, oil production stood at 1.956 million barrels per day (mb/d), down 10 percent from last year, and down more than 17 percent from 2015 levels - and output continues to trend downward. James Williams, energy economist at WTRG Economics, told Marketwatch in March that he expects Venezuela to lose another 200,000 to 300,000 bpd this year, another 10 to 15 percent decline from 1Q2017 levels.

The problem is downstream as well, as the shortage of refined products worsens. Three out of Venezuela’s four oil refineries are operating significantly below capacity because of the inability to find spare parts for maintenance, according to Reuters. The Paraguana Refining Center, for example, is only producing 409,000 bpd compared to its nameplate capacity of 955,000 bpd. PDVSA’s third largest refinery, which has a capacity of 187,000 bpd, is operating “at minimum levels due to problems at two of its three distillation units,” Reuters says.

With cash drying up, PDVSA is also struggling to import lighter fuels that are necessary to blend with the country’s heavy oil. Some ships are sitting off the Venezuelan coast because of unpaid bills. Meanwhile, because of obligations to creditors, PDVSA is sending crude abroad, leaving little for domestic refining.

But PDVSA’s financial and operational problems have a compounding effect. Falling production at refineries mean more gasoline needs to be imported from abroad, putting a tighter squeeze on state finances, which in turn leaves even less for everything else the country needs, from food to healthcare.

The possibility of all hell breaking loose is not zero. The WSJ reports that Venezuelan security forces are at their breaking point. Young, underpaid members of the national police are often not given food or water while on duty, and are asked to constantly beat back rapidly escalating protests in scorching heat, around the clock. Also, police and soldiers are not immune to the food shortages and economic collapse that the rest of the country is suffering through. The loyalty of the security services to the President no longer appears rock solid.

PDVSA and the national government avoided a debt default a few weeks ago, but with obligations looming later this year and a dwindling pile of cash with which to draw upon, the problem is not going away.

As far as the oil sector goes, the best case scenario for Venezuela is steady, if rapid, decline in production – a loss of 200,000 to 300,000 bpd this year. But the darker scenario is a much more sudden disruption if the country implodes. There is no way of knowing if this will happen, but analysts are growing increasingly concerned about the possibility. “Oil production continues its downward drift due to service provider cuts, power shortages, inability to obtain imports and irregular salary payments,” Helima Croft, commodities strategist at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in a recent report. “The oil question is whether current conditions could set the stage for the type of industrial action that cut exports by nearly 80 percent in the early 2000s.”

Buchanan: Is Secession A Solution To Cultural War?

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

As the culture war is about irreconcilable beliefs about God and man, right and wrong, good and evil, and is at root a religious war, it will be with us so long as men are free to act on their beliefs.

Yet, given the divisions among us, deeper and wider than ever, it is an open question as to how, and how long, we will endure as one people.

After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” that Harry Truman said we were.

In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests.

One can only imagine how Iranians or Afghans would deal with unelected judges moving to de-Islamicize their nations. Heads would roll, literally.

Which bring us to the first culture war skirmish of the Trump era.

Taking sides with Attorney General Jeff Sessions against Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, the president rescinded the Obama directive that gave transgender students the right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools. President Donald Trump sent the issue back to the states and locales to decide.

While treated by the media and left as the civil rights cause of our era, the “bathroom debate” calls to mind Marx’s observation, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Can anyone seriously contend that whether a 14-year-old boy, who thinks he is a girl, gets to use the girls’ bathroom is a civil rights issue comparable to whether African-Americans get the right to vote?

Remarkably, there was vigorous dissent, from DeVos, to returning this issue to where it belongs, with state and local officials.

After yielding on the bathroom question, she put out a statement declaring that every school in America has a “moral obligation” to protect children from bullying, and directed her Office of Civil Rights to investigate all claims of bullying or harassment “against those who are most vulnerable in our schools.”

Now, bullying is bad behavior, and it may be horrible behavior.

But when did a Republican Party that believes in states rights decide this was a responsibility of a bureaucracy Ronald Reagan promised but failed to shut down? When did the GOP become nanny-staters?

Bullying is something every kid in public, parochial or private school has witnessed by graduation. While unfortunate, it is part of growing up.

But what kind of society, what kind of people have we become when we start to rely on federal bureaucrats to stop big kids from harassing and beating up smaller or weaker kids?

While the bathroom debate is a skirmish in the culture war, Trump’s solution — send the issue back to the states and the people there to work it out — may point the way to a truce — assuming Americans still want a truce.

For Trump’s solution is rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, first advanced in the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII — that social problems are best resolved by the smallest unit of society with the ability to resolve them.

In brief, bullying is a problem for parents, teachers, principals to deal with, and local cops and the school district if it becomes widespread.

This idea is consistent with the Republican idea of federalism — that the national government should undertake those duties — securing the borders, fighting the nation’s wars, creating a continental road and rail system — that states alone cannot do.

Indeed, the nationalization of decision-making, the imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions to social problems, the court orders emanating from the ideology of judges — to which there is no appeal — that is behind the culture wars that may yet bring an end to this experiment in democratic rule.

Those factors are also among the primary causes of the fever of secessionism that is spreading all across Europe, and is now visible here.

Consider California. Democrats hold every state office, both Senate seats, two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature, 3 in 4 of the congressional seats. Hillary Clinton beat Trump 2-to-1 in California, with her margin in excess of 4 million votes.

Suddenly, California knows exactly how Marine Le Pen feels.

And as she wants to “Let France Be France,” and leave the EU, as Brits did with Brexit, a movement is afoot in California to secede from the United States and form a separate nation.

California seceding sounds like a cause that could bring San Francisco Democrats into a grand alliance with Breitbart.

A new federalism — a devolution of power and resources away from Washington and back to states, cities, towns and citizens, to let them resolve their problems their own way and according to their own principles — may be the price of retention of the American Union.

Let California be California; let red state America be red state America.