Palestine (Yes, That Is Named After a People)

Sheldon Richman is one of my “go to” people like Walter E. Williams. Wise men who have lived through decades of change and can see truths so easily while also doing the research that backs up the issues they bring light to.

From a Libertarian Institute article called “Depopulating Palestine, Dehumanizing Palestinians” Sheldon defines some words to set the context:

Dehumanization is an apt term because it consists of more than merely murder, massacre, torture, blockade, dispossession, humiliation, and the like. It consists of the very denial of the humanity of the victims and their cultures; it may include attempts to wipe them from the archives and from anyone’s memory.

I am sure most minds go back to the stories of Nazi efforts, but they were not the only ones that used this method to achieve their goals .. African peoples dehumanized by European powers, Maoist China, Rwanda, South Africa, Cambodia, etc. However, it seems that the systematic and even popular effort to dehumanize the Muslim AND Christian people who have lived for a very long time south of Syrian and Lebanon and north of Saudi Arabia compounded with an effort to actually deny they ever existed:

No one better vocalized this denial better than a former Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, who famously said:

There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.

The tendency might be to counter with an effort to prove that a people group existed, however, that is beside the point. The point is that there is epic proof that individuals lived there and it was not like after WWII there was no one there and it would be the perfect place to put Jews, even though a vast majority of these Jews do NOT have as their ancestors a Hebrew people. So Sheldon fleshes out who these people were and part of their story as well as any claim to land based on a people group:

Morally, we have rights by virtue of our personhood, not by virtue of our inclusion in a subgroup of persons. The idea of rights not rooted in the individual literally is nonsense. Among other things, this means there is no Jewish land, Palestinian land, or land with any other ethnic, racial, or religious qualifier. There is only legitimately and illegitimately acquired land.

It is not up to governments or narratives to grant people land that belongs to others .. although many have been duped into thinking that God explicitly directed the events to create an apartheid state that has caused nothing but violence and death in the Middle East in the last 70 years.

But in fact, notwithstanding fabricated and wholly discredited “histories” of Palestine and Israel, it is now uncontroversial to state that the establishment of Israel saw hundreds of thousands of indigenous individuals driven from their ancestral homes and hundreds of others massacred by recent European immigrants (many of them atheists yet nevertheless claiming to be Jewish) with a tenuous connection to Palestine or ancient Israel. H. G. Wells posed a reasonable question: “If it is proper to ‘reconstitute’ a Jewish state which has not existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there.” (Quoted in Ian Gilmour and David Gilmour, “Pseudo-Travellers,” London Review of Books, February 1985.)

Ian and David go on to state: “.. The modern Palestinians are a people of various ethnic origins, descended from the conquerors of Palestine since early Biblical times. Their ancestors are the Canaanites and Philistines who, unlike the Jews, were never deported. They remained in Palestine (which took its name from the Philistines) and their descendants formed, and still form, the core of the indigenous population…”

Evidence of this come from the founding members of the nation of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, as it came into existence in 1948:

The fellahin [Palestinian farmers] are not descendants of the Arab conquerors, who captured Eretz Israel and Syria in the seventh century CE. The Arab victors did not destroy the agricultural population they found in the country. They expelled only the alien Byzantine rulers, and did not touch the local population. Nor did the Arabs go in for settlement. Even in their former habitations, the Arabians did not engage in farming.… They did not seek new lands on which to settle their peasantry, which hardly existed. Their whole interest in the new countries was political, religious and material: to rule, to propagate Islam and to collect taxes.

So, we have a 70 year old effort that has squeezed these people into smaller and smaller areas of their land …

What is clear is that people WERE in the land and a SMALL number of Jews could have settled there however, once there was a groundswell of dispensation religious support that made it appear that God had indeed brought the Jews back to the Promised Land, the Zionists (atheists) seized this opportunity for power and control:

Ahad Ha’am, a “spiritual Zionist” who had spent time there, reported in 1891, “‘Palestine is not an uninhabited country,’ and has room ‘for only a very small proportion of Jews,’ since there was little untilled soil except for stony hills or sand dunes.” Ha’am and others warned the Zionist movement to respect the indigenous population.

Thus if there was to be a Jewish state, most if not all of the non-Jews would have to go. “Only in a very few places in our colonialisation were we not forced [sic] to transfer the earlier residents,” Ben-Gurion told the 1937 Zionist Congress” (Gilmours). His militias would “be forced” to transfer many more a decade later.

The view most American Christians have is that these people are Arabs that came into this area in the 7th century, however, this is simply not the case:

The dehumanization of the Palestinians was manifest in the Western attitude that these individuals saw themselves merely as undifferentiated members of an Arab horde, indifferent to their immediate surroundings, that is, to their homes, towns, villages, farming communities, market connections, and ultimately their larger homeland, and thus would accept “transfer” to other Arab areas. No westerner ever thought of himself in such nonhuman terms, but thinking of Palestinians that way came easy. That’s the stuff of mass injustice, of literal and cultural genocide.

This injustice is real, and it is time to spread the truth of the 70 year lie and a people (Muslims and Christians) that are being evaporated and marginalized.

SF1

Tariffs, What Are They Good for?

From a Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) is an article that discusses not just the initial reaction from a tariff (usually, an increase) but also the downstream consequences that few seem to be able to anticipate.

Five different tariffs are discussed, but for the purpose I have for this post is around an earlier tariff back when the General (now called Federal) government used ONLY tariff revenue for its operations. Yes, even back in the 1840s the government was into income redistribution as tariff revenue derived mainly from the cotton exports in the south would fund northern infrastructure projects, first with canals and then with railroads.

Specifically, the so-called Black Tariff of 1842:

The tariff was passed because of a deadline set 10 years earlier to lower tariffs, and instead did the opposite by raising tariff rates to almost 40 percent—displeasing Southern states and his own party members. The tariff was repealed four years later because of the negative impact it was having on the economy.

The fall-in trade that followed wasn’t the only negative impact of the tariff. The tariff further divided the country, since the South depended on trading cotton with the British. … Given that his tariffs are an explicit prioritization of one group’s economic interests over those of the rest of the country, his duties on steel and aluminum will likely make things worse.

Back in the 1800s the logic used for the railroad and then the steel industry was that these “young/emerging” industries needed out government’s assistance to keep them sustainable and therefore “protected” these industries with tariffs. It is simply amazing that after 150 years the steel and aluminum industries “need protection” on the world’s stage with all the technology we have ESPECIALLY in the US toward sustained innovation that COULD keep the US competitive. Unfortunately, my hunch is that the very hand that wants to help is the same hand that ties these industry’s hands in other ways making them into corporate welfare queens that they have become in 2018.

The ripple effect is that domestic use of steel and aluminum is about to get much more expensive ( “… President Donald Trump announced his plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum coming into the United States at 25 percent and 10 percent respectively ..” ) and is counter productive towards allowing free-market capital improvements to proceed in the US economy. The only real outcome of this is for our government to grab yet another revenue stream as it continues to spend money WORSE than a drunken sailor!

FYI, as a former sailor I know 1st hand that drunken sailors stop spending money when they run out of money, unlike our government.

SF1

July 1780 Continentals Attempt Quick Victory Against British in South Carolina

13JUL1780: Major General Horatio Gates (BLUE) arrives in Hillsborough, NC. He served the British army before he moved to the American Colonies and volunteered as a Staff Officer in the Continental Army in 1775. In September and October 1777 he commanded the army that defeated the British invasion from Canada at Saratoga, NY. He sends out notice to all Continental officers still at liberty in the south to join him as soon as possible.

Note that for South Carolina forces alone, most regiments were at 10% strength as compared to their JAN1780 numbers. While SC Governor John Rutledge fled to North Carolina before MAY1780, SC Lt. Governor Christopher Gadsden was a POW, as well as 10 of 13 officers (Major General Lincoln, Brigadier Generals and Colonels) in the highest ranks. In addition to this, the British have occupied SIX major areas of South Carolina since the fall of Charleston on 12MAY1780.

One would think that this is the low ebb for the patriot/rebel cause in South Carolina, but things are going to get much worse before they get better.

25JUL1780: Gates meets Major General Baron DeKalb at Deep River, NC (just south of Greensboro) and assumed command of the Southern Military Department of the Continental Army. Lt. Colonel Francis Marion (decades later called “Swamp Fox”) and Lt. Colonel Peter Horry along with 20 others including servants are present to offer their services and receive direction.

27JUL1780: The Continentals and the SC militia unit start their 150 mile march toward Camden, SC. Faulty intelligence and a route that offered little in the way of food for these troops meant that their condition upon arrival in South Carolina will not be good.

03AUG1780: The Continentals and SC militia are joined by NC militia at the Pee Dee River in Anson County, NC. A week later Lt. General Lord Cornwallis would lead his British forces north from Charleston, SC for a showdown.

Stay tuned.

SF1

 

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