I sit here at my keyboard mulling over the events of the past day, weeks, and months and have decided to write about some thoughts, perhaps divinely inspired, regarding history and its ties to the present day. Specifically, how in the United States of America it seems that Anglo Spanish War begun in the 14th century continues to this day. Though this war has had its ups and downs with the English side primarily the victor throughout the centuries I would like to postulate the United States of America is the current front line of this long fought war.
After we all take a deep sigh and or recover from our hearty belly laughs of contempt at my postulation I would ask that the readers of this post continue reading and I will certainly do my best to make my case which should and will include a brief history lesson. At the time of the 14th century undeclared conflict between Spain and England’s Queen Elizabeth I and the monarch and people of England were continuing their nascent English rebellion against the Roman Catholic Pope’s and the other Roman Catholic monarchies of Europe. Remember this was a time that monarchies held “divine” rights as conferred by the pope and could and often times their rules were characterized by the personalities and ambitions of the person holding the crown at any given time. We must also remember that the powers of these monarchs in their territories was absolute and the vast majority of the people in these kingdoms had no individual liberties and lived at the mercy of their monarch and those who served in their monarch’s name.
Getting back to the 14th century the Magna Carta was a mere two centuries old and had for the most part been renewed by succeeding monarchs after King John’s agreement to it after a rebellion of his barons. Of course after John’s death Pope Innocent III annulled the document but in 1216 it was issued again in an albeit altered form in order to obtain Henry III’s barons acquiescence in order to raise taxes. Then Henry’s son Edward I renewed the charter yet again in 1297 confirming it as part of England’s statute law. I point out to you the most important part of this paragraph is Pope Innocent III’s annulment of the charter from Rome after King John’s death. Here we have the seeds of England’s rebellion against Rome being sown because a monarch’s power for the first time in Europe is being curbed not by Rome but by the subjects of the Pope’s “divinely” appointed monarch. This document also created and sowed the seeds of a power structure not that of the tradition feudal power structure favored by Rome.
In the 14th century the rebellion against Rome had erupted into open warfare with the Spanish Armada being destroyed off the shores of England to which the Spanish Navy never recovered. The Magna Carta had, at this time in history, been part of England’s statute law for two centuries and Queen Elizabeth I’s government, to maintain her power, had all but banished or driven underground the Roman Catholic Church’s followers and its representatives on her island. In the preceding two centuries the royal council had evolved into a two house parliament which increasingly limited the powers of the monarchy and ultimately led to the English Civil Wars of the 15th century which saw the ascendency of the Parliamentarians under Oliver Cromwell dissolving the monarchy for a brief period of time. In the 14th century it was, in fact, even normal for all parliaments to summon representatives of the shires and boroughs (House of Commons) separate from the traditional feudal representatives of bishops and nobility (House of Lords) to “advise” the monarch. Here we see the first bicameral legislative governing system in the world that I am aware of and I ask the reader to remember that this was to curb the power of a ruling feudal elites. Examples of this ruling feudal elite held sway in Europe and, quite frankly, elsewhere around the world and arguably have throughout time up and into modern times (i.e. Saudi Arabia and China). A system where a gilded elite of the minority held all power and the majority of the people were essentially slaves, serfs, subjects, or whatever else one might call them. I also would like to add that by the end of these civil wars the English Parliament was no longer subservient to the English Monarchy and ultimately saw the last Roman Catholic monarch of England overthrown by William of Orange in 1688.
Now moving forward to the 18th century the English colonists of the New World decided that the monarchy and its representatives were no longer willing to or had any intent of listening to, recognizing the rights of, or keeping in mind what was in the colonies best interests. The United States of America came into being after what quite frankly was a long, arduous, and bloody revolution. I want to point out the bloody part of this revolution. I also want to remind the reader that the freedoms gained in England in the formation and establishment of her Parliamentarian system did not come into existence without bloodshed either. Once human beings gain power they rarely voluntarily give this power up. However, in the United States of America the founders of this country took the Parliamentary System one step further and eliminated the monarchy completely creating a chief executive or President. The founders kept the two house parliament, however, they gave this two house legislative body the formal title of Congress which is completely independent of the chief executive or President. Lastly, they created a separate and completely independent judiciary known as the Supreme Court. I want to point out that these bodies are independent and were created with the intent of these bodies being independent of each other so no one person or small group of people could wield the majority of the levers of federal power in the United States. I would argue the founders of the United States of America did this purposely to keep power from being consolidated knowing that human nature abhors giving up power once gained. Further that there are those human being who will never be satisfied with the power they gain and will continually lust after more and yet more power. Fortunately, for all of us, the founders codified this governmental system into a document known as the United States Constitution which even provides a mechanism to change this document with the consent of the ruled.
So where does this tie into the ongoing war between England and Spain. Well, in name, this is no longer the case obviously as England and Spain have not fought against each other for centuries now. I will submit to you, however, that this war was not about the individual countries named but the ideas of governing and being governed as represented by these two countries. These idea were then carried into England and Spain’s colonies and in particular what we call now call the Americas or Western Hemisphere. Outside of the United States and Canada the separation of powers has come about in name, with many countries adopting constitutions modeled after the United States’ constitution, but this has primarily been implemented in name only. Latin and South American countries histories are littered with strong men coming to power, ignoring their countries constitutions, amassing large amounts of power, and in so doing continuing the feudal power structure system, if not in name, but in reality. These countries have very small middle classes which periodically, in the case of Chile and Venezuela for instance, are decimated through the manipulation of currency markets and or civil wars for instance. Some of these countries still follow the Spanish Law system of judiciary and we, if fact, even see this in many western states in the United States where it is called common law.
Currently in the United States of America it is my opinion that an attack on the fundamental structure and foundation that this country was built on is being waged by the international elites who desire unlimited power for themselves. These international elites are the descendants of the same elites who supported, created and or grew out of feudal middle age Europe. Quite frankly, one could even make the argument that humans for the most part have created feudal political structures for the majority of human history and time. These monarchs and the elites who supported them had unlimited powers and could only be brought to heal by another stronger monarch or power structure. The ruling elites of early Norman England were no different and when their power began to be curbed the entire European power structure fought this change. The European international power structure fought this change and fortunately for the world they lost in England and its upstart revolutionary colonies known as The United States of America.
However, in most of the Spanish speaking Americas the consolidation of wealth and power is not too unlike that of feudal Europe when one looks dispassionately at the facts. In fact we can even see this system in the Philippines which was another colony of Spain. This is a system that rewards very few in disproportionate measure to the rest of society. Let me not leave out the abominations of what we have seen in communist countries either. These societies that were created for the “working” or “proletariat classes”. All we have to look at is the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. In these societies a small ruling elite came to monopolize all of their countries levers of power. In fact, North Korea essentially has a monarchy with the titular head of government now being passed along heredity lines. Additionally, when a middle class rises and begins to accumulate power and wealth in these countries some sort of calamity befalls whatever country it is happening in. Just ask Chile, Argentina and Venezuela or in the case of North Korea and China the middle class is just not allowed to exist.
So, in the United States I listen to the news today and our duly elected President, like him or hate him, is being attacked by an anonymous editorial in the New York Times supposedly written by a cabinet insider. Ok, perhaps the editorial is true but I have a couple of things to say and question. If this is indeed written by an insider why does this person not have the courage to come out in public with their name? Is it because it is actually written by someone in the New York Times which evidently has been financed by Carlos Slim the uber wealthy Mexican media mogul. Let us not forget Mexico is a country of uber wealthy international businesses, some legal and some not so legal, with little between these uber wealthy and the rest of their countries citizens who live at or below the poverty level. A country whose journalist are often murdered when they “cross the line” by drug kingpins and who knows who else. So, based on my observations, just whose favor did a Mexican media mogul have to curry to become so extraordinarily wealthy? I also have to ask myself was this a personal attack because the Mexican elites, not to mention the wealthy international American interest, who benefit from illegal immigration are feeling so threatened by President Trump and what he represents? Is it because of their perceived threat to their power base that the internationalists are willing to publish this sort of disrespectful diatribe to the office of the presidency? If this is indeed the case just how far would these elites be willing to go?
As several days have gone by in my effort to write this piece and I contemplate on what is now the 17th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC I have to ask myself where the world sits in this ongoing war between the modern day feudalist and the modern day parliamentarians? I would say that the light is shining brighter and brighter on the feudalists as evidenced by the anonymous letter to the feudalist propaganda agent known as the New York Times. I would further say that the feudalist and their contempt and disrespect for the US Constitution is being waged against the the Supreme Court nominee in trying to make him some sort of political candidate. The feudalist are also busy at work in Silicon Valley with the likes of Facebook, Twitter, and yes even Amazon as they consolidate power and use their power to stifle opposing thought and competition. We see another loosening of capital in home financing which the feudal bankers I am sure are hoping to consolidate more real estate in their hands thanks to the government when the next crisis comes along,. Lastly, and though this list is not nearly complete, I am encouraged by those who seem to be waking up and especially by those who have been awake and continue to shine light on the continuing attacks against the US Constitution. I also have to ask yet again at what point do we draw the line against those who have utter contempt and disregard for the US Constitution and call them enemies whether they be foreign or domestic?
I can say for certain that many of the freedoms that I once enjoyed are no longer available to me such as sitting near an airport runway to watch airplanes land and take off amongst many others. I can say that my internet searches and activities are not nearly as free as they were before the attacks. I can say that the United States has fought two wars that have massively redistributed the wealth of the world into the hands of fewer and fewer. I can also say that during this time a financial crisis has come about and that thanks to the two United States Presidents and Congresses at the time of the crises did nothing more than to apply band aids to a situation that has not nor will not go away. In fact, all they managed to do was to prop up the international banking system so that it would not fail. I can say that international terrorism has been dealt a massively blow in the meantime which is a good thing. We have not had this sort of attack against the United States again which again is a good thing.
I sit her grappling with what to type next but as my life goes on I need to go and support my child and must put this writing aside for a bit. My fear is that as the news cycle wears on it will no longer seem relevant despite it being, at least in my opinion, more than relevant today than one can even imagine.
Just last week Tiger Woods was vilified by an ESPN commentator for saying that one must respect the office of the US Presidency even if one does not respect the current office holder. This by extension goes for the whole US Constitution and the government that it has created. We should not expect a Supreme Court nominee to be a politician nor should we treat them as such. We should be questioning their independence and will they take their oath of office seriously and interpret law not use their seat for judicial activism. Likewise, when we elect our congressional representatives and senators we should be asking them if they will represent their constituencies in accordance with and within their constitutionally prescribed powers and limits. We should not keep reelecting the same people over and over that support only the elites in their own states and then who transfer their allegiances to the power brokers in Washington DC. It is telling when Senators die that the largest memorials for them is not in their home states but rather in Washington DC.