Republics have been one of the worst forms of government ever devised. They have always devolved into oligarchies

McCain Advised IRS to Audit so many that it becomes “Financially Ruinous”

Posted Jun 29, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

I have never been a fan of John McCain and see him as a hypocrite, which is my personal opinion. Now Judicial Watch has gotten hold of IRS documents that show McCain’s staff also advised the IRS to engage in audits of people he did not like and “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.”Direct Taxation has been used as a political tool since it was created. This is another reason why I believe that income taxes MUST be eliminated. The Founding Fathers were correct. Any taxation MUST be indirect and NEVER DIRECT because the latter requires personal accountability to the state. These people are beyond despicable. They are by NO MEANS true representative of the people. This is precisely why Republics have been one of the worst forms of government ever devised. There is NO EXCEPTION for they have always devolved into oligarchies. We cannot have an honest government with career politicians – ABSOLUTELY impossible

How Do We Get Honest Government? Is It Possible? - The Spirit of Laws

Posted Jun 25, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: You seem to be somewhere between left and right-believing in government restraint and showing that it pursues its own self-interest which leads to corruption and in the end the fall of the state. Is that a fair statement of your philosophy?

KP

ANSWER:  I am against the Marxist views and I am against the extreme right and believe that more in liaise-fair because the government is incapable of manipulating the economy (the people) and when it does, it inevitably turns on the interest of some special group. I certainly do not believe in separating children from their parents and I do not agree that someone who came here as a child and grew up here, married, and had children with a bonafide American should be deported. Family and God should come BEFORE the state. The French legal system recognizes the old Roman tradition that nobody in one household can be compelled to testify against you. In the British/American common law system, the only such privilege extends to a spouse and not even your children. So I firmly disagree with that principle and view that family should ALWAYS come before the rights of a king, state, or minister. So what does that make my personal philosophy? Left or Right or somewhere in the middle? I am not even sure.

The battle between the left and the right far too often fails to ever look at some middle ground. That is most likely about 40% of the population. When we look at the popular vote during presidential elections, the highest anyone ever received was Johnson and that was 60.8%. In reality, there is a middle ground that constitutes at least 15% of the population for they are the people who determine who is really president. You have the extreme left and the extreme right and no matter what evidence you put forth they will never change their mind so why bother.

Government is no different from any private organization or individual. It will ALWAYS pursue its own self-interest. The examples of corruption are just so pervasive and this is due to the simple fact that there are no checks and balances. It was Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu, baron de La Brede et de (1689-1755) who came up with the tripartite form of government separating the power of legislative, executive and judicial. Our problem today is that there is no separation of power who the government appoints the judges and thus they are not independent. Ben Franklin’s proposal was to adopt the Scottish system and private lawyers should nominal judges not politicians. We did not follow that system and as such we are i9ncapable of achieving honest government6 for judges will always rule in the government’s favor.

Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws was profound and demonstrates that he indeed acquainted himself with all the various schools of thought before him, yet he did not identify himself with any particular school. I too have indeed sought to follow this model myself. Of the many subjects covered, it was his coverage of three main topics that were the most influential in recasting the Age of Political Enlightenment leading to the climax of monarchy and the dawn of republicanism.

The most important of these subjects was his classification of governments that abandoned the traditional divisions of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Montesquieu added to this primary division the republic that he conceived as being based upon virtue. Monarchy he saw as based upon honor, and despotism that he believed was based upon fear. Montesquieu saw this critical role of government-centered in how the policy was conducted. However, it was his brilliant concept that the only way to defeat tyranny was the Separation of Powers.

Here, Montesquieu divided government into legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Montesquieu wrote that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” Id./at 181. Showing how this idea influenced the foundation of the United States, we find this very passage quoted in the Federalist No: 78, p523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).

Montesquieu in his Grand Tour around Europe observed governments of all forms and saw how they had manipulated the laws to benefit themselves. The objective of his brilliant idea of the “Separation of Powers” was to prevent “the same monarch or senate” from “enact[ing] tyrannical laws” and from “execut[ing] them in a tyrannical manner.”

The judges of the times were merely agents of the state. They lacked independent concepts and for the times, Montesquieu believed that making judges independent would eliminate tyranny. But that tyranny still engulfed the judiciary for the executive selected the judges, and the legislature ‘anointed them. Once the legislative branch became career politicians and they were selected by parties, they defeated all the safeguards that Montesquieu envisioned. Thus, the system very much devolved precisely because of Machiavelli’s observation that history repeats because of the fact that the passions of man never change. Thus, modern incarnations of so-called democracies have devolved into the same tyrannical states that pursue the self-interests of government at the expense of the governed. Thus, precisely what Montesquieu saw and tried to prevent, has merely found the cracks in the sidewalks and the weeds of tyranny have once again sprouted to bath in the warm rays of the son Both Thomas Jefferson and Montesquieu saw the danger in judges.

Montesquieu’s Separation of Powers was perhaps the most influential chapter of his entire work located in book xi, chapter 6. This was penned in 1734 and was one of his first observations. His third doctrine was the idea that climate contributes to political influence. Montesquieu took care to point out that climate was but one of many factors that contributed to secondary causes that combined into what he called a general spirit within society. This climate factor combined with religion and law. Throughout history, the weather had been a primary influence behind migrations. As national states would rise and borders became enforced, the natural flows of migrations have been curtailed greatly and forced underground.

Montesquieu has brought understanding to the new Age of Political Enlightenment and others such a David Hume, said that his work would have the admiration of all ages. He was a man of honor. He was always modest and saw in his work a sense of comradeship insofar as he had collected the knowledge of the times and brought it together by simply seeing into the past and present and envisioning a collective understanding. He was even asked to write brief accounts on democracy and despotism for an encyclopedia, but he declined to state he had already had his say on those subjects.

Yet Montesquieu must be understood from his place and time in the evolution of the political economy. Everyone is influenced by their experience. The idea of becoming “worldly” by taking the Grand Tour, exposed the mind to different points of view. Yet, to comprehend how he arrived at his ideas, we must also place him in the context of the times.

There were three French philosophers on the political economy who were influenced by the events of the French King Louis XIV. These were Sebastien Le Prestre, Marechal de Vauban. (1633-1707), Pierre Le Pesant, signeur de Boisguilbert (1646-1714), and Charles-Irenee Castel, abbe de Saint-Pierre (1658-1743). From these three men, we have the beginnings of thinking about the fiscal management of the state. Vauban had advocated the abolishment of taxes and replacing them with a tithe. “while Vauban’s calculations were greatly exaggerated, he was effectively arguing for indirect taxation. His plan was put in place in 1718 in some regions but proved to be unworkable at this point in time resulting in its abandonment in 1722-1723.

Boisguilbert rejected the ideas of Vauban, yet agreed that there should be a single tax. He viewed the current scheme of collecting taxes as too corrupt. Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) took the position that the Physiocrats who ultimately influenced Adam Smith to counter with his Wealth of Nations in 1776, was the precursor to this entire line of thought. Boisguilbert also insisted upon the fact that since the aristocrats to a large extent were a privileged class that did not contribute to the tail le tax in France and thus he disagreed that there could be a single tax to replace all at the rates Vauban believed. Boisguilbert concluded it was better to have one single high tax than numerous small taxes. He argued it had to be equitably distributed, and fixed from the outset since the greatest resistance was too arbitrary justice and taxation. He argued for a land tax as used in England that was one-fifth of revenues, and in Holland it was one-third. He assumed that this tax could be collected with the least amount of coercion. There was serious resistance to taxation from the 14th Century onward. There was the Great Tax Revolt in England during 1381, the Cade rebellion of 1450 from which we have Shakespeare’s most famous line, “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers” reflected the fact that the “lawyers” were the King’s who were prosecuting the tax evasions. Then there was the Cornwall revolt of 1497 running through to the agrarian revolts between 1628 and 1632. Tax rebellions were of three general types, pure taxation, revolts under the guise of religious Reformation that was really the confiscation of the monasteries in 1536, and the anti-seigneurial revolts that rejected the French “droit du seigneur” (right of the lord) to sleep the first night with the bride of anyone of his vassals. Often the bride could be redeemed by paying a fee to the feudal lord. These revolts occurred in 1549, 1607, and 1628-1632.

The Charles-Irénée Castel, abbé de Saint-Pierre perhaps had the most criticism for the taxation policy of Louis XIV. His work was perhaps the most castigated of the three, but his concept of fiscal reform (taille tarifee) proposed in 1717 described 17 sources of wealth that he envisioned people will voluntarily reveal their wealth. This scheme of direct taxation has today dominated tax collecting, yet it was soundly rejected by the very founders of the United States.

This was the context in which we must understand Montesquieu for he was an important figure in the thought that stood between Saint-Pierre and the Physiocrats. The Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) had cost France most of its foreign trade. Thus, the ideas of the Physiocrats that it was ONLY agriculture that provided the dynamic process of income generation clearly provide a contrast to the political ideas of Montesquieu. Even Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in America believed that it was agriculture that was the pillar of the economy and real wealth.

Another person who I would say has influenced me was Thrasymachus who saw Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand insofar as it did not matter what form of government society adopted, it would always pursue its own self-interest.  Consequently, justice is only the defined by the self-interest of the government and not some great magnanimous moral code of right and wrong.

Can government corruption be ended? I believe so, but we MUST impose some restraints. Can we achieve the perfect government? Probably not because there will always be a cycle of corruption. The best we can hope for is to limit the highs and lows of the cycle. Here is a list that is just the beginning of what is required for good government.

• (1) Separate judges from the state and clearly establish human rights.
• (2) We must end career politicians for every Republican form of government ends in corruption and surrenders to an oligarchy without exception over 6,000 years of recorded history.
• (3) There should be qualifications for politicians.
• (4) We need some form of government or we end up with anarchy but at the same time, we cannot surrender all rights, privileges, and immunities to the state.
• (5) The Majority must be restrained from suppressing the minority be it religion, race, or gender
• (6) Only the People should take up positions in the legislative and they should be limited to one-year terms. If they must return to the private sector then they will never enact legislation that they themselves would not want to live under.
• (7) No tax may subject a person to paying greater than 10% of their total income annually with state and local governments.
• (8) Federal Government must be prohibited from borrowing and its funding should be serviced by the creation of new money.
• (9) Any prosecution for a crime MUST be based upon the complaint of a private citizen and not government unless the crime is against government directly.
• (10) No one may be imprisoned or have their liberty constrained except for crimes of violence against another.

Second war of independence

CNN v Trump

Posted Jun 24, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: It is really getting so bad with CNN they should just be shut down for they are no longer a news organization but a political propaganda machine. They paint Trump as getting a bad deal with North Korea and they then tried to make him look like an idiot saying to Trudeau that Canada was involved in the War of 1812. Am I wrong, but Canada was still British in 1812 and indeed declared war on the United States?

WH

ANSWER: Yes, you are correct. Canada was not an independent nation until the Constitution Act officially proclaimed the Canadian Confederation on July 1, 1867. It was initially with only four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Canada actually declared war on the USA before Britain and it is assumed that they simply had advanced notice. CNN tried to make it seem as if the USA invaded Canada first as if this began the War of 1812. They omit the fact that the British restricted US trade with France and went as far as seizing Americans and forcing them to man ships for the British as if the USA was not even a country.

The United States suffered several very costly defeats at the hands of British, Canadian, and Native American troops who Canada hired. So yes, the “Canadians” who were really British back then,  were part of the War of 1812 and that included the capture and burning of the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., in August 1814. The Americans were able to repel the British invasions in New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The British/Canadians made a good attempt to conquer the United States. Eventually, there was the Treaty of Ghent on February 17, 1815, which ended the war. That still did not resolve all the issues and the British were seeking revenge for the American Revolution. Therefore, the War of 1812 has often been called the “second war of independence” and CNN deliberately misrepresented the facts once again to stab Trump in the back

Last wave of totalitarianism

Crash & Burn & the Sixth Wave

Posted Jun 19, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Martin, as all members do, I really do thank you and appreciate you for your knowledge and insight. I am a business owner – Real Water and do approximately $10 million in annual sales right now. As a concerned citizen, I have also run for political office and was elected to the Nevada State Assembly in 2015. With Republican control, our legislature pushed through the largest tax increase in our State’s history in the name of more money for education (I led the opposition against the tax, but failed in preventing it). Of course, our latest school ratings came out and we are still ranked at the bottom – 50th. More government is NOT the solution!

I completely understand we are headed for a financial crash and burn. You have frequently stated that the only reason you are doing what you are doing is for your posterity. Other than personal preparation, extra food, don’t be in bonds, etc., what do you believe is the most beneficial thing we can do to help our country come out of the crash and burn with more freedom and limited government (like our Founders so emphatically intended) as opposed to the other potential of totalitarianism that you frequently warn us about? What is the most effective way to rally the troops so to say to help push our civilization in the proper direction?

To an elevated lifestyle,

ANSWER: The Government always thinks that throwing more money at something make it better. I have NEVER seen where that has EVER corrected any such trend. The problem lies in the total mismanagement. Governments are simply incapable of operating even a bubblegum machine. They completely fail to understand the economy, human nature, or society as a whole. The only way to actually correct such a problem is to privatize. That installs actual management and employees must actually perform. Government unions demand benefits and they negotiate with themselves. This is why the entire socialist agenda is collapsing.

I had a friend who was a postmaster. He had to tell an employee he would be checking on them a day before to ensure they were doing their job. The union made them provide notice so the employee would not actually be caught doing anything. This is how government unions have destroyed themselves and society. This is what we are headed into a crash and burn because governments do not respect the people and assume we are an endless supply of revenue.

All government agencies should be privatized and then the services they provide would actually work. Going to the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles was a case study in how not to run a government. The people were nasty, you would wait in line and they would be having a conversation with the next employee about what they would do after work and actually make you wait even 5 minutes while they did this right in front of your face. The attitude was WTF do you want now. Just absolutely nasty and hostile. No supervision and nobody even forces them to actually work. Always a horrible experience – not just one time. Ask a question and you NEVER got a straight or correct answer.

It is a structural management problem. There is no accountability and you can look at any government agency and you will see the same pattern. Increase the budget and there is NEVER any actually change. They cannot improve because there is a lack of management ability.

What does the Crash & Burn look like? It all depends upon how long we have to wait to achieve it. If we get the start of a Crash & Burn in 2021, then there is real hope of a soft-landing. If we are looking at stalling and refusing to change as taxes continue to rise, we will see that last wave of totalitarianism and then what comes AFTER 2032 is a very hard landing. That type of decline historically results in civil war and/or revolution.

All I can offer is what has happened before historically. My personal opinion would be just a guess and that is not what clients want to hear. So the sooner the better and the longer this is stalled the worse it gets.

This hostile attack against Trump is symbolic of the bureaucracy fighting to keep its power. They think if they can get Trump out of office, they will return it back to normal with a career politician. They are seriously wrong for the people voted for Trump because they are fed up with the system as is. This was not a personal popularity contest that Trump won. It is the rising tension of the people. There is not going back. This can only lead to a confrontation between the left and right. Choose where you want to like based upon the political orientation of that area. The area I live in was conservative which voted overwhelmingly for Trump. That is a bit safer than a left area for then they ultimate come after you and see you are the problem why things are not going their way.

Judiciary corruption -US

Malaysia Looking to file Lawsuit Against Goldman Sachs?

Posted Jun 18, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

May was an important turning point in Southeast Asia. The corruption that has engulfed the previous Malaysian government centered around a sovereign wealth fund involving Goldman Sachs has rocked the entire Malaysian peninsula. The national debt, which was believed to have been $170 billion, appears to be more like $250 billion of 80% if the national GDP.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was sworn in on May 10th. When his aides first entered the government offices, they were confronted with a shocking sight. There were garbage bags filled with shredded documents intermixed with left-over food half eaten thrown everywhere. It was clear, the previous government sought to destroy all the evidence of their corruption.

The new finance minister discovered computers that even the highest-ranking bureaucrats could not access. Computers were set up to prevent access by anyone other than one or two people. Evidence of massive corruption was what turned the election on May 9th, 2018.

Goldman Sachs’ role, I wrote back in 2015, has been highly criticized in the Malaysian media and political circles after it emerged that 1MDB sovereign wealth fund paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the bank for helping it raise $6.5 billion in three bond deals in 2012 and 2013. Goldman Sachs earned around $590 million in fees plus commissions and expenses from underwriting the bonds, according to Reuters. The reported fees are highly excessive, nearing 10% when such fees are typically only 1% in bond underwriting.

There is now talk about filing suit against Goldman Sachs for its role in this scandal. The likelihood of filing a lawsuit against them in New York City being successful is probably zero. They will have to deal with the most corrupt court perhaps in the world that is notorious for protecting its local banks – Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit. My recommendation is to petition the Supreme Court to bring the suit in Washington DC that they will NEVER receiver a fair trial in New York City and they should get on the phone to Donald Trump to start applying political pressure.

California Dreaming & Separatist Movement

Posted Jun 17, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

On the November election in California, enough signatures were gathered just over 400,000 to put a question on the ballot – should California be split into three states? The discontent in California is certainly regional. The proposal for three states would break California up into North, South, and just California.

Tim Draper has been the primary bankroller behind the division idea. He managed to collect at least 402,000 signatures to divide California into three parts. Northern California will be composed of the region from Oregon down to San Francisco. Southern California would include Fresno, Bakersfield, and San Diego. Then there will be California between these two regions which will be with its capital at Los Angeles. Effectively, three capital cities would emerge, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Anyone who has been to California knows that indeed there are three distinct cultures.

Silicon Valley is a region in the southern San Francisco Bay Area referring to the Santa Clara Valley, which serves as the global center for high technology, venture capital, innovation, and social media. This will be part of Northern California leaving behind the craziness of the Los Angeles politics that has far too often swamped the philosophies of Northern California.

This is once again part of the separatist movement that is rising everywhere around the world. It is all part of the same cycle of Civil Unrest.

NEVER voluntarily give up your DNA to anyone!!!!!!!!!!!

Giving Up your DNA to Anyone – Bad Idea

Posted Jun 16, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
The pitch by various ancestry operations is to send in your DNA by spitting into a vile and they will tell you your ethnic background. Sounds nice, but they then keep it. Why? The greatest danger is that such info can be turned over to the government at any moment. Giving up your DNA is actually giving up your entire family. People have been arrested because their DNA has been traced thanks to some family member who the government has in their database.

But the risk of a crime is not really the big issue for most people. The real risk is that insurance companies can deny insurance based upon getting your DNA covertly and determining that you are at high risk of heart attack or stroke. Canadian lawmakers passed the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act on March 8, 2017. This law would make it illegal for employers or insurance companies in Canada to discriminate against people based on their genetic information.

Back in 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which prohibits discrimination against Americans based on their genetic information in both health insurance (Title I) and employment (Title II). The danger presented is if you “voluntarily” give up your DNA, they can argue you “waived” all your rights. Then Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, The Affordable Care Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act all are supposed to protect you from discrimination based upon your DNA.

You should know that last year on August 22nd, 2017, the United States District Court of the District of Columbia ruled that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), should reconsider the rule that states it is permissible for employer-sponsored wellness programs to offer inducements in exchange for employees’ health information. The cap for these inducements is 30% of the cost of health insurance for a single person.

They are claiming that the 30% cap is to maintain the voluntary nature of workplace wellness programs. They are only allowed to gather employees’ health information IF participation in the wellness program is voluntary. In AARP v. EEOC (EEOC & DNA), the American Association for Retired Persons challenged EEOC’s rule allowing the 30% inducement, arguing the cap is in no way voluntary as it is high and, therefore, coercive. The court decision stated that EEOC had not adequately explained why it concluded that the 30% cap was reasonable to maintain the voluntariness of wellness programs. The judge did not immediately call for EEOC to strike the rule but has directed the agency to reconsider the rule and develop a reasonable explanation for the connection between voluntariness and the 30% cap. That is DISCRIMINATION based upon your DNA and people need to be very careful because insurance companies are NOTORIOUSLY dishonest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEVER voluntarily give up your DNA to anyone!!!!!!!!!!! These companies change their policies all the time. They call it “updating” but that means when you turn over your DNA and they said they would not resell that info, here comes a policy statement that retroactively changes the terms you agree to way back when. We are used to this Ex Post Facto changes in policy from Facebook, Google, and countless others. It is a HUGE risk when it comes to personal info and especially DNA.

Using People from the Past to Support Nationalism

Posted Jun 14, 2018 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I am curious given your passion has been history you have explored things nobody seems to have. What has impressed me is how you pull history together in such a logical way you make it come alive. My question is the origin of Germany. We were taught here in school that Germany traces its origins back to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in the year 9AD. What is your take on this subject if you care to answer.?

PVB

ANSWER: Yes, I am aware that Germany traces its origins back to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forestof 9 AD, but it is really political propaganda. It was not until 1871 when Germany became a nation-state. That is when most of the German states unified into the Prussian-dominated German Empire. Nonetheless, the famous battle in which Germanic tribes annihilated the advancing Roman army has been used for political agendas over the centuries. The battle is actually believed to have taken place near Kalkriese, northeast of Osnabrück, but the battlefield has not been confirmed. The Germans did ambush the Romans in a tight geographic area between a hill and a moor. It is well documented as a disaster even in Roman literature. Some 18,000 Roman troops were slaughtered by the Cheruscan Chieftain Arminius and his allies whose name was changed to Hermann to make him a local hero.

Arminius has been propagandized as Hermann the German and this battle has been interpreted as being the birth of Germany as a nation-state. All of the coins found at the location confirm the time period. The coins discovered at the location to the early years of the first century AD during the time of Emperor Augustus. There were also coins of late Republican time period that were still in circulation. However, we date a site by the latest coins discovered.

The defeat of three Roman legions under the command of Rome’s Germania governor and General Publius Quinctilius Varus by Arminius is a true account. It is also a fact that the Romans never again attempted to establish settlements in Germany following the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. He was the son of Sextus Quinctilius Varus who was quaestor in 49 BC and defended Corfinium when Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) besieged the city during the civil war against Pompey. Sextus was forced to surrender the town, was pardoned by Caesar, but immediately betrayed him and fled to Africa, where Caesar’s deputy Curio was fighting against Pompey’s allies. Sextus did his best to win over Curio’s soldiers to abandon Caesar’s cause. Despite the fact that Curio was defeated in Africa, Caesar won the civil war. Sextus did not return to Rome since it was not Caesar’s policy to pardon a person twice. It is not known whether he was involved in the plot to assassinate Caesar. We do know that Sextus was involved at the battlefield of Philippi, where the new leaders of the Caesarian party, Marc Antony, and Octavian, defeated the last republicans oligarchs. Sextus then asked one of his freedmen to kill him.

How his son Publius Quinctilius Varus rose to power under Augustus is not known. Clearly, he was not held to account for the sins of his father. He clearly accepted the end of the Roman Republic, in contrast to his father. What is known from that period is that the Civil War did divide families as well. Publius, nonetheless, became a personal friend of Octavian/Augustus and associate of Tiberius. He was given Syria as his province in 7 BC during which time he issued this provincial coin. While serving as the governor of Syria, Varus guarded the borders against the menace of Parthia and violently suppressed revolts in Judaea and Samaria, when it was learned that they had been apportioned to Herod Archelaus in the will of Herod the Great. The military operations in these regions are sometimes known as “Varus’ War.” Varus, however, is best known for his role in events after he returned from Syria and took up a command in Germany in 6 AD. During 9 AD, he led three legions against the German tribes at the Teutoberg Forest. He was killed and the legions annihilated in one of the greatest military disasters of Roman history. There is a surviving gravestone in the Bonn museum which clearly confirms that there was indeed a Varus war supporting the Roman accounts. We do know that the event took place.

The background of the German hero, Arminius (Hermann), is not widely explained in German folklore.  Arminius had actually received a Roman military education and had Roman citizenship. He even commanded an auxiliary German cavalry attached to the Roman army before deserting and switching his allegiance. We do not know why he took this step. Some believe that he merely entered the Roman military to learn the tactics to defeat them. Clearly, Arminius who has been portrayed as the heroic liberator who created the German nation was crafted by Martin Luther to support the liberation from the Roman Catholic Church. The story supported his political cause. During the mid-20th century, the National Socialists in Germany further enhanced this concept during the Third Reich raising Arminius as the .heroic liberator who created Germany. This myth has been used over the centuries whenever it was needed to support the rise of nationalism.

Exactly where the battle took place is not precisely known. The Kalkriese Museum was to begin a three-year excavation project to try and get some answers. This is where numismatic archaeological evidence is playing an important part in the current research. Coins help to date an event, but a battlefield would have more coins than usual. There is no absolute proof where the battle took place at this location. There have been no inscriptions of the 19th or 18th or 17th legions discovered.

The new excavation authorized in 2017 hopes to discover some piece of a helmet with an inscription or a plaque with the name of a unit. There are also stamped artillery bolts that can often be used to also confirm legions and/or events. The Roman would use a slingshot to propel bullets. Typically, these bullets are marked allowing for the identification often of specific legions.

Coins are a very important part of documenting history. There are bronze coins of Augustus that have countermarks “VAR” which has often been attributed to Publius Quinctilius Varus. As pictured above, Varus had the authority to issue local provincial coins in Africa Proconsularis as well as in Syria. His name appears in the legend and in some cases also with his bust. Since he had the authority to issue local coins, he may have had the authority to countermark imperial coins that were worn in the West as well, yet no such local coin exit issued by him in either Gallia or the Rhine border region. Therefore, local coins issued in the name of Roman officials seem to be common in Eastern Provinces under Augustus most likely because of the difference in culture led them to retain their own monetary units.

Nonetheless, there are countermarks known in the Syrian province on local provincial coins when worn that have been attributed to Varus. These are noted in Greek Imperial Countermarks numbers 658 and 659 that show “VAR”,”PVAR” and “QVAR” inscriptions. These appear to coincide with Varus’ term of office as governor of Syria. This has been used to infer that the “VAR” countermarks on bronze coins of Augusts found in the region of Germany are attributed to Varus. It was a common practice to counter-stamp bronze coins that were worn. In some instances, the coins are devalued. Here is actually a barbarous imitation of a Roman sestertius of Claudius (41-54AD) that is severely worn and the coin was a Sestertius with the countermark “DV” meaning it was devalued to a Dupondius – half the original value. Therefore, the “VAR” countermark is most likely certifying the value remained unchanged.

It was also a common practice for the legionaries to burying their money in the ground before a battle. These are hoards not of individuals, but the pay for the army. The dead would have been stripped of their armor and any coins would have been taken and the bodies were left to rot in the forest and provide food for the animals.

In early 2017 a hoard of more than 200 silver Roman coins, all dated prior to 9 C.E., were found in the Kalkriese area where the battle is suspected to have taken place. This was probably not the funds buried by the legion representing their pay. It is unlikely that Varus possessed any authority to actually strike coins as a moving military mint. That has been a common practice mostly of usurpers and during periods of civil war. In such cases, the actual dies have also been discovered. Here is a die of Gordian I (238AD) who survived only 21 days.

During 2016, University of Osnabrück archaeologists discovered eight Roman gold aurei east of Bramsche. This opened up the speculation that perhaps Bramsche might be the sight of the battle. The coins were of the early type struck prior to 9AD depicting Augustus on the obverse, with his grandsons Gaius and Lucius on the reverse. There were some other minor bronze denomination coins also found at this sight. Bramsche has been nicknamed field of gold by the local citizens who have found gold coins in this area before. Back in 1987, there was the discovery of 162 silver coins and three Roman slingshots bullets. None of the coins discovered at this site date after 9AD. However, other than the slingshot bullets, there has been no military objects found at Bramsche. Some argue that the gold coins were lost by officers attempting to flee the massacre.

Germanicus (15 BC – 19 AD)  who was the grandson of Marc Antony and Son of Antonia, he was, therefore, the brother of future Emperor Claudius and the father of future Emperor Caligula, obtained his name for he led the legions to Germany after the defeat of Varus. Germanicus’ troops campaigned against the Germanic tribes for six years during the aftermath of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest. According to contemporary accounts, Germanicus found the battlefield and buried the human remains which included skulls nailed to trees.

Now, the question is rather simple. Is the reinvention of a former Roman soldier Arminius transformed into Hermann and founder of Germany, which did not become a nation-state until 1871, a unique rewrite of history? The answer is absolutely no way. Here is a gold medallion of Constantine I the Great (305-337AD), the man who declared Christianity the official state relgion of the Roman Empire. Look closely and you will see that Constantine pictures himself with the Roman god Sol. To the pagans, this was a political propaganda piece. Sol Invictuswas becoming virtually the supreme god.

Constantine’s propaganda was all about defeating the reforms of Diocletian who established the Tetrarchy whereby emperors would retire and be replaced with their second in command. Therefore, picturing himself with Sol was a political statement suggesting that there should be only ONEemperor. Constantine supported Christianity using the same political agenda that there was one god so there should be only one emperor.

Those who seek power often rewrite history to argue what they are doing is really being heroic like some former person in history. They change names, facts, and even timelines to justify their actions. It has been a practice that prevails throughout history.