Happy Thanksgiving: The Jamestown Massacre

The first fifteen years of Anglo-Indian relations in Virginia established all of the precedents of totalitarianism on our shores—including holy war, massacre, martyrdom, and terrorism. To protect their colony, London officials dispatched troops to Jamestown who between 1609-1614 spared neither infants nor the infirm as they burned Powhatan villages, murdered native priests, assassinated chiefs, looted temples, conquered tribal territories, and starved a once-thriving population through harvest-time “feed fights.”

In 1622 the Powhatans rejected both the increased conversion efforts and the continuing territorial expansion of the colonists, correctly perceiving them as a two-pronged assault on their unique identity and future as a people. The Powhatan Uprising, Friday, 22 March 1622, was the most lethal day ever experienced by British colonists in peacetime, as Powhatan warriors slaughtered almost 30 percent of Virginia’s entire white population, including at least 35 women and 30 children, and destroyed many buildings and other property. Although the term “terrorism” did not enter the English language until the 1790s, Jacobeans described that shock tactic much as we do today.

Edward Waterhouse’s shocking report to other horrified Londoners referred to the first massive terrorist attack against English-speaking civilians in American history.

“That fatal Friday morning, there fell under the bloody and barbarous hands of that perfidious and inhumane people, contrary to all the laws of God and men, of Nature and Nations, 347 men, women and children, . . . and not being content with taking away life alone, they fell again upon the dead, . . . defacing, dragging, and mangling the dead carcasses into many pieces, and carrying some parts away in derision, with base and brutish triumph.”

The 1622 massacre inspired a new genre of anti-Indian hate literature denouncing the Powhatans for their “perfidious treachery” and “savage, wild, [and] degenerate”deeds. They were lumped with other “Out-laws of Humanity” across the racial spectrum—papists, heretics, and infidels—who opposed Anglican orthodoxy and killed innocent Protestants. It is not surprising that those Jacobean condemnations are eerily similar to anti-terrorist rhetoric today.

It was the holy men of Anglican England who were most disillusioned and vengeful in the aftermath of the 1622 massacre. The Rev. Samuel Purchas, who compared the Powhatans to the treasonous Judas, linked spirituality with territoriality. He argued that the precious blood price paid by Thorpe and hundreds of other slain Christians gave the English a “mortal, immortal” entitlement to all Powhatan lands and justified the shedding of Indian blood “in showers.”

While London clergymen demanded an Old Testament-style holy war of extermination, the decimated colonists, instead, fought a measured, tempered military campaign that was neither ideological nor genocidal in intent or result. They quickly learned to coexist with their Indian enemies by forging enlightened alliances with Indian friends—and by repudiating the British violence against them as dysfunctional and dangerous practices.

The massacre survivors who had cheated death embraced a second chance for life by creating an innovative, hybrid “New Virginia.” Soon after 1622 they began calling themselves “Virginians” for the first time, and they altered their identities, expectations, and prejudices in adapting to American realities. The dominance of acculturated Virginia merchants and the absence of English missionaries finally resolved the old Elizabethan issue of whether secular commerce or spiritual conversion was the best way to satisfy and pacify Indians. By maintaining their physical and cultural distance and assessing each tribe only on the basis of usefulness and temperament, the colonists who had faced extermination, ironically, preserved the rich multiethnic diversity of the Chesapeake.

In every age, the greater the power differential between oppressors and the oppressed, the more likely (and logical) it is for the weaker group to employ various types of “unconventional” violence against the stronger. It has always been a calculated, purposeful (never “senseless”) use of violence against unsuspecting citizens of an enemy power in order to make noncombatants experience the pain and suffering that their society has inflicted on others.

J. Frederick Fausz http://hnn.us/articles/19085.html

Does the theoretical possibility of nothingness ruin your day?

English: Full-sky temperature map taken by NAS...

If we go back in time far enough, everyone knows that we’ll come to a point where humans did not exist. Keep going back and even evolutionists agree there was a time the earth, sun, moon and stars were simply not here. Going further, we can easily conclude that everything that is must have had a beginning. The idea that everything-that-is had a beginning insists that there must have been a very first thing, which itself had a beginning. Prior to the beginning of the very first thing, can be only absolute nothingness.

If we subtract all-that-is from all-that-is there would be literally nothing at all left. Just like 1 – 1 = 0. The possibility of absolute nothingness, from a theoretical point of view, is obvious. From it comes the very real and necessary question, “How did the very first thing every come to be?”

A state of total nothingness is the mathematical equivalent to 0. The interesting thing about 0 is that there can never more or less of it. Even if we add, subtract, multiply and divide it with itself, the result will always be 0. Just as 0 will never produce anything more or less than 0 by itself, nothingness  will always perpetuate nothingness.  The theoretical potential for nothingness gives those who deny a Creator, an impossible logical hurdle to overcome.  While Creationists see no reason not to believe in the possibility of nothingness prior to a Creator creating the first something, Evolutionist are forced to take the completely unfounded and unprovable position that the possibility of nothingness does not exist. This is nothing short of a system of mathematics without the number 0. It obviously won’t work.

This is no doubt the reason behind the scientific community’s early rejection of the derogatorily named “Big Bang” theory. As Barry Setterfield points out,

“When the concept of an expanding universe entered the secular scientific arena, it was ridiculed. It was condescendingly nicknamed the “Big Bang”, even though the idea did not include any kind of explosion. It was rejected as being too close to the “silly ideas” of the Bible. Since the Bible was ‘clearly’ mythology, there was no way the truth of the cosmos could be allowed to come anywhere near what the Bible said happened.”

Science has longed for an explanation of the cosmos that does not require a beginning ever since.

Government Protects Aggressors from Society

Chicago: Gun-Free Murder

The government controls nearly everything yet people still buy and sell drugs, create kiddie porn, and quite regularly kill one another. Yet the excuse for government control is to suppress such behavior within society. Either government is completely ineffective at controlling people who do these things or the number of people relative to the total population who engage in such vile behavior would remain more-or-less a constant whether or not government exists. Of course they’d have us believe that things would be much worse – more drugs, more child porn, more killing – if government ceased to exist. It just seems odd that no matter how much NSA spying, no matter how many police on the streets, no matter how many rules and regulations, people still manage to do bad things. The State will never change that.

Until the time when people are truly free to use justified force against all forms of aggression, it will thrive.