Category: Current Events

Don’t Judge the Past Through the Lens of the Present – New Amsterdam to Run Island

Things are not always what they appear .. whether it be history or this world. The movie “Shooter” said it well:

So this is more of a lesson in how we approach both history as well as current events, and how we can relate the two and become wiser. If the goal is to protect your family and property, you might want to seek wisdom and in the long run find yourself becoming more humble.

This article from Medium helped me how to unpack history in the lens of THOSE times, and also helped me connect the dots from something I was aware of:

  1. The British taking New Amsterdam from the Dutch in 1664 (without a shot fired)
  2. Battle of Medway in 1667 (as seen best for visual learners in the movie (English version) “Admiral“, the story of then Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter

It seems that #1 above was not received well back in the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Dutch Republic). This action helped to kick off the Second Anglo-Dutch War in 1665 culminating in a decisive British defeat by the Dutch Navy (60 ships) and Marines (1500 men) in June 1667. Basically, the Dutch had this planned the year before but since negotiations for a peace treaty were in process, this might give the Dutch a better position at that table.

Dutch Republic

The Dutch Navy under nominal command of Willem Joseph van Ghent and Lieutenant-Admiral Michiel de Ruyter, over several days bombarded and captured the town of Sheerness, sailed up the Thames estuary to Gravesend, then sailed into the River Medway to Chatham and Gillingham, where they engaged fortifications with cannon fire, burned or captured three capital ships and ten more ships of the line, and captured and towed away the flagship of the English fleet, HMS Royal Charles.

The context is this:

England and the Dutch Republic both wanted to establish dominance over shipping routes between Europe and the rest of the world. The Anglo-Dutch Wars were how they settled this disagreement.

Think of these conflicts as international trade disputes — in which each side had a big navy and wasn’t afraid to use it.

The Second Anglo-Dutch War lasted two years, from 1665 to 1667, with an estimated joint loss of 52 ships. Over 12,000 men lost their lives.

The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Breda, leaving Manhattan under English rule. In exchange, England conceded to the Dutch the South Pacific Island of Run.

That is it. The Dutch had the upper hand after England was humiliated, at it took the ISLAND of Run (instead of the harbor that would become New York City) located  on the western side of the Banda Islands which is a part of the Maluku Islands now part of Indonesia.

I take it that didn’t help. I too needed a visual aid:

In this view, you don’t see the island OR the chain of islands it is a part of. So the Dutch got a deal? Well … as a matter of fact, yes they did. Again, you need to get in the lens of 1667 .. not 2018 to get this one. Our default follows:

Humans are amazing at making snap decisions, at extrapolating the broad view from the briefest glimpse. Humans see a pattern emerge that reminds them of something else, and — bam — they know exactly what’s going on. And all without a single conscious thought.

It’s a talent that’s served us well in the past. With a single glance, we can draw innumerable conclusions about our environment. What a lovely day. Such a warm smile. Oh crap, a tiger!

It’s this same talent that allows us to look at the terms of the Treaty of Breda and say, Something’s fishy here. The Netherlands got a raw deal.

Yup, we might call them stupid. Knowing what I know, I don’t think is was them. You need to understand the context. There are a few facts you need to know with this story:

First, spice was the 17th Century’s driver for worldwide trade:

Today, we take spices for granted. Every kitchen has a spice rack, or a well-stocked pantry. … But spice prices weren’t so reasonable in the 17th century. In fact, there’s an old French saying that goes something like this: You can buy a serf’s freedom for a pound of pepper.

Let that sink in for a minute. You could buy a person’s way out of a lifetime of indentured servitude with an item we can grab at the supermarket for $12.98.

Spices typically grow best in warm, non-European locales, which means that a lot of time and effort was spent just getting spices to Europe — thereby driving up the price. Case in point: Marco Polo’s first overland journey to Asia took 24 years. Sure, sailing cut that time down considerably. But then you had to factor in problems like scurvy. If it took 50 men to crew ship properly, you’d hire 75. Chances were you’d lose a third of your crew to sickness and death along the way.

Second, Europe’s naval power’s primary interest in the Americas was not settlement and not the fur trade. The English and the Dutch was trying to figure out how to get around America. The possibility of a short route up a river and getting to the “Spice Islands” drove these explorers. The Dutch had lost interest in New Amsterdam as it had little value to them.

Third, the spice that grew on Run best was nutmeg .. and the value of nutmeg in 1667 when the treaty was signed was similar to the price of gold:

The economics of nutmeg

The third fact to know is that of all the high-demand, low-supply, overpriced spices, nutmeg was king. It was the most precious spice on earth from kingdom to kitchen.

I’m not knocking it. It’s the secret ingredient in my homemade pancakes. It does a stand-up job dusted over eggnog. I wouldn’t want to imagine pumpkin pie without it. In the 1660s, though, nutmeg ruled the world.

It was literally worth its weight in gold. Incidentally, I looked up the price of gold, and, at the time of this writing, it’s trading over $1,250 an ounce. That would make the average quarter-ounce nutmeg seed worth over $300

So the decision was made and so did the Dutch cash in on their choice? (Do note that the British only held on to New York City for about 100 years)

Holland went into the war already controlling most of the Banda Islands. All but Run, to be precise. By the end of the hostilities, the Dutch had an exclusive monopoly over the most expensive spice on the planet. A nutmeg-opoly, if you will. And they held onto it until 1810. (At which time, the British used the Napoleonic Wars as an opportunity to capture Run’s neighbor, Banda Neira. They then shipped nutmeg trees to tropical parts of the British Empire, such as modern day Sri Lanka, effectively killing the Dutch nutmeg-opoly.)

That’s 143 years of nutmeg domination.

Or, 34 years longer than England held onto New England. Not a great bargain for the English after all.

So there you have it. In context you know know more about the big deals of the 17th century BUT you also can look at history and research for yourself how to get into THEIR shoes and try to SEE what they saw BEFORE you pass judgement on THEIR decisions.

Does this help? Can you follow the process to unpack history for your advantage which helps you, your family and your friends start to figure out current affairs in your country as well as in the world. It is my hope that when you read of situations in other parts of the globe that you would take time to research their world, their context and their culture before you quickly come to a snap judgement based only on your own lens.

SF1

 

State’s Rights, Slavery or Freedom?

While there is an effort to erase all history in this country by the government schooled ignorant masses, those that can think critically will need to research harder to find source material necessary to learn from.

Why do we need to learn? Because whenever you have culture wars, collective societies and empires in the mix you will need to know your enemy so you can effectively resist the wave, retain your freedoms and maybe even your life. Beyond this, there are others in your family or circle of friends that need to be sparked to research on their own over time. The struggle is real as one by one we give people truth in love and give them the freedom that is in our DNA from out Creator.

An article from Abbeville Institute sparked this thought in me this morning .. here is a clip:

“The Civil War was fought over slavery.” If you want verification of this “known” fact, this politically correct “given” all you have to do is ask a typical Southern politician, educator, media personality, minister or just about anyone you meet on the street.

True that you can ask this question all over the United States and get this as the 90% majority opinion. You might be surprised that those in foreign lands tend to see things a little clearer as I predict only 80% of the world that is knowledgeable of the American “Civil*” War.

* By definition, that war was NOT a “civil” war where BOTH sides want the WHOLE nation

Southerners who know the truth about the War for Southern Independence will try to correct the error of Yankee propaganda by announcing that the War was fought over states’ rights not over slavery.

So there is probably another 10% of Americans that would agree with this paragraph .. that it was all about “state’s rights”, that their state had a right to opt out of an abusive marriage when and if necessary years after it agreed to the marriage (whether it was the 1st marriage during the late 1770s with the Continental Congress or the 2nd marriage during the late 1780s with the US Constitution). While this is honorable and follows the founder’s thought processes, there is something more at the core of most of those who fought.

The author goes on to point out that your typical southern dirt farmer in 1861 was not all that political and really saw the imminent invasion as a threat to his way of life, and that of his family and his land! In fact, he offers a short story to segway to a way to look on the reality of 1861:

Suppose one is walking along a city street and you come upon an individual viciously beating someone. Out of a sense of honor and Christian charity you demand that the man cease beating his victim but the man looks at you and tells you to mind your own business because he has “a constitutional right to beat the victim.” Now don’t think outside of the scenario—with just the facts as given—how would you feel even if the person doing the beating did in fact have a constitutional right to beat the victim? Legal technicalities do not stand up well against an emotional appeal.

So the author suggests that the south missed the boat in the post war period by not getting to the core of the grounds for divorce in the first place. In addition to this, I contend that this political “evidence” pales in comparison to the life both southerners, northerners and westerners (Midwest today) had before that horrible war. The author goes on to lay blame at the southern politicians:

Instead of maintaining the struggle for the principle of Southern freedom; the right to be the masters in our own homes; the right of self-determination; and the right to live under a government ordered upon the free and unfettered consent of the governed—all of which was boldly proclaimed in 1776—Southern spokesmen meekly declared that the men in gray were fighting for states’ rights. Instead of challenging each successive generation of Southerners to break the chains of political and economic bondage fastened upon the people of the South by the ruling elite of the Federal Empire, our “leaders” sought to assure the Northern majority that “we the people” of the invaded, conquered and occupied Confederate States of America were once again 100% loyal Americans—meaning that we were obedient subjects of the newly created Federal Empire.

So in the North (Union) waging a war against southern culture is a particularly wicked way through wholesale burning of homes and cities, raping of women and taking anything of value from the innocent people left behind by their husbands who were fighting hundreds of miles away (i.e. total war), the north actually “kept the Union” (i.e. marriage) intact while a by-product was freeing the black slaves only to exit this war by making everyone a slave on the government plantation by force.

Now here comes the punch line …

Why did those men in gray, the majority of whom were not part of the plantation system, why did they fight for four long years against overwhelming odds with not a single friend in the community of nations to offer encouragement? Why were they willing to expend so much blood and treasure? The answer is as simple as it is eye-opening; they were fighting to be free; to prevent an aggressive and culturally dissimilar Yankee majority from making political and economic slaves of the Southern minority. They were fighting to prevent Yankees from turning Southerners, both black and white, into political and economic vassals of their newly created Federal Empire! They were fighting to drive back an aggressive and evil invader (the United States of America) and to preserve the independence and freedom of their country …

.. their land, their way of life.

Look around today in 2018 and be honest. Can you see why many people in this forced Union are now worried about a second “civil” war? Can you see why the south and its former independent spirit was targeted in the last decade to rid itself of the desire to once again desire to shake off the tyranny that runs loose in this land? Is there no refuge for those that just want to be left alone .. opting out of any government assistance and be self-reliant where they can raise their families THEIR way .. in FREEDOM?

It is critical that those who love their God-given life, family, healthy communities and land come to terms with the encroaching empire and its cultural rot and filth. One example of how a people can be free in spirit while being a serf in an empire is in the book of Acts in the Bible. These people were able to both rest in His love and hope while being proactive defenders of the ones they love on this earth. A future post will cover my own thoughts on this.

Until then, dream about freedom, research to know your enemy and be prepared for the times ahead .. teach that next generation well!

SF1

Protecting Single Women With or Without Kids

To start with, the US Constitution is in fact non-binding .. like wedding vows, it has been broken so many times and in so many ways by our government that it really is “just a piece of paper” in addition to that, my being born here does not mean I gave my consent .. duh.

[Please research Lysander Spooner’s monumental essay “The Constitution of No Authority.” ]

Contracts need at a minimum two signatures:

“.. Under more appropriate and restrictive definitions, police kill more Americans in just one year than mass shooters have in several decades. Moreover, school shootings present an even smaller risk than mass shooting more generally. As a matter of fact, the American student is today safer in the classroom “than at any time in recent memory.”

Choking on your food, for example, is much more likely to end your life than is a mass shooting, to say nothing of the risks associated with activities like driving in cars or swimming. In the wake of a tragedy, no one likes to hear such facts, as they seem to minimize the pain and loss of the survivors and the families of victims.

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates is striking, or it should be; obsessed with the extraordinarily small risk presented by mass shootings, they strain at a gnat yet swallow a camel. They plead for gun control—really disarmament—for the dominated as they exempt the dominators ..”

Bingo!

Thinking about one position on gun “control”:

The proponents of gun control, broadly defined, seem to believe that private citizens with firearms are likely to pose a danger to society, while agents of the state (e.g., soldiers and law enforcement officers) will act justly and nonviolently, using their weapons only to protect the innocent. If we take seriously the idea that the incentive structures surrounding individuals bear on their behaviors, then this assumption appears untenable, for agents of the state, when they commit violent attacks and injustices, are rarely held accountable for their actions.

The data speaks for itself. Those with badges have a conviction rate in the extreme single digits.

The non-conservative, radical advocate for gun rights contends that the normative questions surrounding gun ownership are far more important than the legal questions

Far, far more as the legality of hiding a Jew in The Netherlands during WWII in German occupied Holland was indeed a crime BUT it was the right thing to do. [I hope you know the story about Anne Frank]

Unarmed people are usually slaves:

The egoist writer and publisher Dora Marsden deftly captured this point:

What profit can a labouring man feel in voicing any desire to be his own master when he sees himself at the apex of a triangle which broadens out to its base in serried rows of armed men, each with his rifle, bludgeon and lash raised threateningly at him? As the mildest-mannered policeman would tell him, to do so would be “asking for it.” That an unarmed populace under a government possessing an armed force is in a condition of slavery, is a fact which shouts. To be free is to have the power to treat on equal terms (emphasis added).

Free or slave, that is the question .. and the weakest among us are the widows, single women and single parents that find them in some rough spots in life where defending life itself, even sacrificially, is the “right thing to do” .. regardless of the “law”.

Gun control advocates who point to Parkland and say “never again” are the humanitarian with the guillotine, their misplaced righteous indignation sweeping away all other concerns. They can’t consider the dangers that inhere in their position because the position is a matter of faith, of religious certitude. Crafting policy as a response to a school shootings is a lot like crafting policy as a response to the September 11th attacks: informed more by fear than fact, scare tactics than good sense. Politicians, overeager to do something to respond to tragedy, are prone to enact “solutions” that are worse than the problems themselves. The desire for “safety” at any cost—for perfect safety of an unattainable kind—leads to policies that make us more unsafe, vulnerable to a more powerful and dangerous enemy: the security state. Because it neither appeals to emotion nor offers an easy fix, this standpoint is unlikely to grab many headlines—unlikely to compete with the righteous indignation of well-meaning high school students. When tragedy strikes, libertarians are often in the uncomfortable, unenviable position of saying that politicians and government ought to do nothing. Looking at the state without the rose-colored glasses of ideal theory, government is just an institution of violence, its actions entailing more costs than benefits. During times of tragedy, when emotions run high, it’s worth reminding oneself of this.

Bingo .. again. This article earned 2ea “bingo’s”

 

Storm Clouds – Can You Sense It?

The storm clouds have breasted the horizon and they’re moving our way fast. – Francis Porretto

From Liberty’s Torch

We’ve been here before, the reign of terror in the 1970s with thousands of bombings, targeted criminal assaults, serial urban arson on a large scale and many unpunished murders.

How serious is the threat? About twenty per cent of the population identifies as Progressive. Not more than twenty per cent of those are committed radicals. Quick arithmetic says about a million strong. Of these, only some will actually participate in violent acts. If history rhymes, they’ll go down to the plantation, spin up the idle hands and set them on the townsfolk.

Trust fund activists are the darlings of the media so, as in the ’70s, they’ll be portrayed as leading a huge populist movement. As always, behind the smoke and mirrors will be more smoke and mirrors. It’s a mistake to underestimate them however.

Arm yourself, they will. This advice comes from a reliable source:

Luke 22:36 – But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

If you’re in a city it’s useful to know street mobs are deeply impressed by actual opposition. Said differently, they’re cowards. During the 1992 Rodney King riot in Los Angeles, determined Korean-Americans successfully defended their businesses with not much gunfire.

The goal isn’t “knock ’em down dead at eight hundred yards” like in the movies, the goal is to convince the mob they’re making a mistake. Putting one on the ground, writhing in pain with a blown kneecap, say, is the kind of publicity you just can’t buy.

A centerfire battle rifle is best, but a typical city block only runs a hundred and some yards, give or take a Starbucks. If all you have is a bunny gun nearly everything is in range. Even a shotgun with serious meat-getter loads covers a lot of it. In most cities the Left is in a position to shut down vendors of ammunition, get as much as you can when you can. And forget “grocery shopping”, lay in supplies, there’s no good reason to get flash-mobbed on a milk run.

Decide what you will absolutely-for-sure defend. Ally with capable, trustworthy and like-minded neighbors for mutual defense and let it go at that. But don’t go looking for trouble. Again, if you’re in a city, stay away from crowds, they’re trouble by intent. What happens to the crowd happens to you. It’s not as if you’ll be consulted before it all goes bad. There’s never a good reason to forfeit your own good judgment.

The Left is always preparing for their long-standing fantasy of murderous insurrection. What would we see if they decided the time is right to go for it? We’d see what we are seeing. Be alert. If the game is on, cities will get untenable. You may have to leave. This is something other than “unrest” with its roving mobs of opportunists, it’s a catastrophic collapse of civil order by design.

From: Woodpile Report

Not to scare anyone, but the time for planning is now. There are forces behind the scenes that keep escalating this division for their benefit, they will not enter the fray but will benefit from it. Remember how Lincoln acted to the “insurrection” in 1861? That was based on a law created after George Washington used the military to crush the Whiskey Rebellion in PA (those rebelling just retreated back into the woods). That law is still on the books and those that salivate with the ramp up in the police state would love a full on inclusion of US military forces and hardware that our government has at their disposal to tighten the grip on this land.

It’s your call, no one will ring a bell and make an announcement. If you’re told anything you’ll be told to “remain calm and carry on, order is being restored”. People want to believe it so they will believe it, and there’s your opportunity. First out is best out.

Cities are supported entirely from the outside: food, fuel, electricity, water—everything. All will stutter maddeningly, then wink out to nothing. Officialdom wants to keep you from the only reasonable reaction: panic, so events will always be a step or two ahead of your awareness.

Have a “stop loss” decision point and don’t second guess it, the window will close fast. The surest way to survive a catastrophe is to be elsewhere. This is why you, and the one percenters, have a Beta Plan, meaning a remote, defendable, four-season bugout destination with supplies stacked high and deep.

Four-season bugout location .. that will indeed be interesting .. especially as things unravel, competing groups and families will be vying for similar locations. Many people not used to the outdoors will find themselves out of their element pretty fast.

I prefer the ‘1776 Option’ which is outright secession. Various areas of this country have various “personalities” and it would be great to segregate towards peace than diversify towards an uncivil war. I have kids and grand-kids, I prefer peace ..

When you are fed, there are many problems. When you are hungry, there is one problem.
-NoPension at Zero Hedge

Uncertain times require a back to basics adjustment. Slow adopters will suffer the most.

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.

When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity.

To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.

I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
– Theodore Dalrymple

Used to being controlled, critical thinking skills if any will be rusty.

Find your lifeline here

A Glimpse Into the Future: Possible Ken Burns Documentary

The struggle is real, and if the current momentum is sustained, anyone who was in the military can imagine how much MORE ineffective our forces will be in the next five years and beyond. Even the basics, the logistics, the radio communications and such will all fall apart as PC reigns supreme.

Military forces will not be able to survive in peacetime. Considering that we have been at war 222 of 239 years .. maybe THIS will make “empire” not sustainable as it seems that the amount of debt we create does not slow the US down.

From The Burning Platform