There has never been any president who has been so attacked and hated by the media in the history of the nation. Now the New York Times has done a piece claiming that Trump was handed over $400 million from his parents and he is neither a self-made man nor dis if parents pay taxes on handing him that money. All of this hatred is clearly designed to protect the corruption in government. They just hate him and the people who voted for him because they wanted the DRAIN THE SWAMP.

The one thing about history is the fact that nothing seems to ever be a first. Following the collapse of the Roman Monetary System during the 3rd century which bottomed in 268AD, most people who just like to blame the government for hyperinflation never really seem to do their investigation of events because they always ASSUME that they know the cause and just look for the facts that support their predetermined conclusion. There was an emperor who came to power in 270AD who appears more like the same script of Trump’s DRAIN THE SWAMP.

The debasement of the coinage was indeed pervasive. However, much of this was NOT official, but the corruption of the bureaucracy. The corruption in the bureaucracy was reflected by the event of a revolt probably in late 270AD or 271AD of the moneyers (people who were in charge of minting the coins) led by a man named Felicissimus who was most likely a Procurator Summarum Rationum, or the top official in the monetary system at the time in charge of the Rome Mint. The rebellion of mint workers barricaded themselves in on the Caelian Hill in Rome. Aurelian sent in the troops to DRAIN THE SWAMP in Rome itself and it was a major battle ending with 7,000 dead. The mint in Rome was then closed until later in the reign.

This rebellion in Rome itself infers that it took a force of arms to reverse the decline in the currency. For some 7,000 men to have died seems to be extreme if this was truly just the workers at the mint. This may have been more like draining the swamp within Rome. We do know that the mint in Rome was then closed and no coins were struck in Rome for nearly 3 years until 274AD.

Aurelian’s army was battle hardened. It does not seem plausible that he would have lost more than a legion in a simply revolt at the mint. It would suggest that the answer to this paradox was that the mint workers were not alone and the corruption was widespread. It is more likely that the moneyers and their allies in the revolt must have included the Praetorian Guard and part of the Senate of Rome.

It is most likely that those in the mint resorted to various forms of forgery or debasement on their own accord rather than official decree. We do know that they were melting down older coins to make more from the same amount of metal. This was most likely an unauthorized debasement which might have been considered to be high treason. Where Claudius II reformed the gold, he did not reform drastically the minting process itself.

Most likely, the Praetorian Guard may have remained loyal to Gallienus, to begin with and were not included in Claudius’s generous bribe. Aurelian’s desire to reform the monetary system appears to have forged an alliance between the Praetorian Guard, Senate, and the moneyers. The Praetorian Guard was once the elite legion of the Empire, whose duty it was to safeguard Rome and protect the Emperor himself. But with the border areas being under attack, the emperor’s needs were not in Rome. He had his generals and personal guards whose loyalty was not in question.

The Praetorians were most likely not trusted by Aurelian and were, in reality, were untested in loyalty. Only if the revolt was joined by the Praetorians could the casualties reached 7,000. However, for such a revolt to unfold it had to be closer to a usurpation of power. This would have meant that it required funding and political influence in addition to the force of arms. This could have only come from some faction of members in the Roman Senate. Aurelian was not one of them and was another general raised by the army. He was not Italian in his heritage. He was not of noble birth and the Senate may have been looking to reassert itself once again as they had to under Maximinus (235-238AD). They also knew that Aurelian was planning to reform both the monetary system and the political system of the Empire.

If we look at the murder of Aurelian, this too reveals that the very next emperor was nominated by the Senate – one of their own Tacitus (275-276AD). It seems Aurelian’s personal secretary, after being reprimanded by the emperor for attempted extortion convinced his personal guard that Aurelian intended to execute all of them. They knew he was draining the swamp so they rushed to his quarters murdered him. I fear that Trump will be the LAST Democratically elected president. Just as the Senate installed one of their own, we are going to see the elections rigged and the numbers played with to produce the result that the corruption was to maintain their hold on the country that is being supported by the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, and just about every other newspaper and media outlet. None of them respect the anyone voted for Trump, and to them, it was all fake because it was orchestrated by Putin. So in the process, they have laid the seeds for World War III all to ensure that the corruption will continue.

QUESTION: Why do academics refuse to revise history when they are clearly wrong? This seems to be the same issue with their research on Global Warming.

YK

ANSWER: They seem to dig their heels in and just refuse to admit they are ever wrong. They did that with Homer claiming it was a book written for children and could not be accurate history because it was written 600 years after events. It was Heinrich Schliemann which took Homer and followed it a guidebook and discovered everything from Try to Mycenae. They accused him as being a fraud and the jewels he photographed his wife wearing discovered in Troy the declared were fakes. He went on to discover every city Homer had written about. Not one of those academics got off their ass to prove that Homer was not real. They just pronounced it from above without lifting a finger.

They did the same with the book Historia Augusta. They attributed right down to a monk and cited his name claiming he made it all up some 300 years after events. To this day, it will be cited and often noted as being unreliable. The academic did exactly the same thing and trashed this book because it listed 30 tyrants of the 3rd century Rome which included named they never heard of in any other source.

In this case, two names were verified by coins discovered. There were two gold aureii of Saturninus discovered in Egypt. They found exactly where Historia Augusta described his attempt to seize the throne of Rome. Saturninus was a usurper hailed by the troops from Alexandria, Egypt. All that is known for sure is that he was raised to the position of Emperor by a mutinous army detachment formerly loyal to Emperor Probus. Saturninus must have been either a commander or a high-ranking civil servant. Speculation can point to Probus’s decision to partially demobilize the army and put them to work in constructing civic projects as a likely reason the rebellion. In any event, Saturninus is said to have been very reluctant in his nomination. Pollio, a historian of the age, quotes him as greeting his new subjects “You have lost a useful commander and gained a wretched emperor”. He was probably murdered by his own troops, but that is not certain. One coin is in the Louvre and the other was acquired for my collection. The discovery of this coin put Historia August on the map as real.

Then more recently, there was yet another discovery further validating Historia Augusta. The identity of yet another extremely obscure Emperor of the 30 tyrants has been confirmed further demonstrating how wrong the academics have been. In the year 1901, a coin bearing the legend IMP C DOMITIANVS PF AVG was discovered in a rural area of France. Immediately, the academics declared it was a forgery because it would have again proven them wrong.  Then in 2003, an amateur metal detectorist discovered a clump of about 5,000 Gallic-era coins that were all stuck together. Early the following year, the British Museum announced the discovery that made headlines worldwide. This time there was no denying that the Emperor Gaius Domitianus (271AD) did in fact exist and that the earlier coin discovered in France had been genuine after all.

Gaius Domitian was mentioned only in a brief passage of Historia Augusta as a general under Aureolus. He rose up as a rival to Gallienus (253-268AD) with a tenuous alliance to Postumus. He is credited here with defeating the better-known usurper Macrianus and the capture of his 30,000 men. However, the chronology offered presents a problem as his defeat can be conclusively shown to have occurred in 261, nearly a full decade prior to the Aureolus affair, so there is either a mix-up or the reference is to the wrong Macrianus.

There is another obscure reference by a 5th-century writer who mentions there was initial resistance to Aurelian coming to power in 270AD. He is said to have immediately arrested a man by the name Domitianus. Both coins were discovered inside the Gallic Empire. Historia Augusta confirms that events surrounding the downfall of the Gallic Emperor Victorinus in 271AD was violently contested. It is possible that Domitian rebelled in Cologne or Trier which does not comply with his capture by Aurelian‘s partisans.

Nevertheless, these two coins of Saturninus and Domitianus have unquestionably confirmed that the academics were wrong. There is just this reluctance to concede being wrong. It is that unwillingness that keeps society in the dark and this infects not merely history, Global Warming, but also economics. Here we see academics still preach Marxism, the disparity in income, no matter how many examples exist of this theory causing tremendous hardships and retarding the growth of civilization – i.e. Venezuela