A Look at the Early Origins of Anti-Semitism and Its Effects Today

 

Anti-Semitism is perhaps the oldest forms of prejudice in the world.  At its heart is  the hatred of Jews and Judaism. Anti-Semitism includes a general belief that Jews are no long the "chosen people" as stated in the Bible due to their rejection of Jesus as the new "Messiah who would usher in a "Kingdom of God" on Earth. 

This role as "chosen" was annexed by a new sect known as "Christians" (from the Greek "Christos" for "anointed" similarly as a king or prophet who using olive oil). Based on their belief that Jesus was the anticipated messiah of prophecy, and through him, all believers were now the "chosen" or "elect" of God. They also believe that since Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, they also have forfeited their divine "blessings" or "birthrights" including their right to the Holy Land.  That now belongs to Christians.

The Catholic Church, since the Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century, considers itself the sole legitimate arbiter of Christianity, has, historically, been at the core, of anti-Semitism down through the centuries. some even consider it the originator of anti-Semitism.  The Eastern Orthodox Church broke off in 1054 over a number of technical and doctrinal issues, but most notably the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, now known as the "Holy Father" or Pope and head of the "catholic" or universal church in what became known as "The Great Schism".   

It was here, starting in the 4th Century, the Vatican begins issuing official edicts or "Bulls" to enforced Church orthodoxy. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the liberation of Jerusalem from the Muslims in what was  the first of eight major church sponsored crusades (in realty, there were dozens of crusades, though without the direct support of the Vatican).

 Pope Urban, in his directive, openly referred to Jews as "Christ killers" and "devils", and urged the crusaders to convert or murder any Jews they encountered along the way (the same applied to Muslims or non-conforming Christian sect which didn't recognize the sole authority of the Vatican as well). 

It's worth noting that even before reaching the Holy Land, those of the First Crusade (aka the "People's Crusade"), in keeping with the Pope's instructions, attacked Jewish communities in Germany in what became known as the "Rhineland Massacres of 1096". As many as 2000 Jewish men, women, and children were murdered; some were burned while others were hanged or simply run through by a pike, sword, or whatever was handy in the name of God.  

Throughout history, Jews were forced to move from one town to another, or from one country to the next; whoever would let them settle, at least for a little while. Special taxes were almost common place and restrictions were routinely placed on them. Most notably where they could live. In the east, most were limited to the "Pale of Settlement" which encompassed parts of modern Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. It was extremely poor and diseases were commonplace.

 In other places, be it in Poland, Germany, France, Spain, or England, they were herded into small, cramp sections of cities known as "ghettos". These areas were often known to be largely run down, rat infested, with little in the way of sanitation or access to fresh water. Residents had strict curfews. Failure to comply meant beatings caught by authorities. It was often much worse, especially if you were female.

Permission had to be requested to live outside of the ghetto (which could just as often be revoked). It often involved paying another tax or fee (bribe). Jews were often prohibited from owning land (though they may work for someone else who owned the land) just as some occupations were closed to them.

Have you ever wondered why Jews are associated to certain types of jobs such as pawn shops, rag collectors, "patchers" (individuals who patched or repaired pots and pans), or tailors?  That's because in most countries Jews weren't allowed to own property, particularly farmland. They could work on farms or even manage large estates, but never own them.

As a result, many moved into towns and cities where they could find other lines of work. Many would become tailors, and since they were often prohibited from joining trade guilds, were only permitted to fix broken items such as pans, pots, or furniture. In time, some became plumbers, roofers, painters, glaziers, and so forth. Ragmen collected bits of cloth and made them into towels for instance.

A few became loan brokers or ran pawnshops. Some became accountants and managed the money of wealthy...Christian...families, especially among the aristocrats. This is how the famous (or infamous) Rothschild financial house got their start. In a very few countries, some managed to become advisers of members of the elite, particularly in politics, and fewer yet ran for office (such as England's Benjamin Disraeli) and even became titled themselves. It wasn't uncommon, however, they had to leave their Jewish heritage behind in order to do so.

However, these were very few and far between. In fact, you could say they were rare to the point of hardly being believable even at the time itself. For the overwhelming majority, stories of the Rothschilds or Disraeli were the stuff of legends . For the rest, there was the constant and ever present danger of eviction on a moment's notice; forced to leave with just a few hours advance warning.

That meant leaving pretty much everything behind or selling (if you could) whatever you didn't need to virtually nothing since the only ones remaining were your Christian "neighbors". For those who were even only slightly better off, there was always the jealousy and rumors. Most just scavenged whatever remained of your existence.   However, perhaps what was worse were the pogroms.

Pogroms were little more than orchestrated violent riots directed at the closest Jewish settlement (commonly referred to as a "shtetl" in Eastern Europe). Generally these protests were result of some trumped up claim that a Jew from the shtetl stole of goose or seen after curfew. In reality, pogroms were just an excuse to intimidate Jews (such were the way Jews were thought of).

Worse is when a local child went missing or was found dead (usually accidently drowning, etc). Jews were often seen as the culprit. In the case of missing children, they were accused of "blood libel", which was perhaps one of the most heinous of charges which could be brought against a Jew. Essentially, it accused the individual of murdering the child and then using their blood (sometimes their bones) in the making of matzo or unleavened bread, to been eaten of the Jewish Sabbath (or especially on one of the special Holy days like Passover).   

Homes and businesses were burnt down, and if caught out, Jews were often beaten, robbed, raped, or in worse cases, murdered.  There was little that the local could do about it. Reporting the crime to authorities was useless. The pogroms were often ordered by the local lord who also happened employed some of the Jews since they couldn't own land. 

Thus they risked losing their income, home, a small tract to grow their own meger crops, all of which they desperately needed by reporting the crime! Church authorities were also often involved with these pogroms and it was frowned on to even speak with the priests and forbidden to enter a church. Then there were the inquisitions.  

Beginning in 1194, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith was founded for the sole purpose of flushing out what the Church defined as "heretics" through investigations and trials. In reality, they sought out and eliminated those perceived to be enemies or threats to the Church. Like the Mafia of old, they were the "enforcers". They inspired terror wherever they went. They relied on rumors, lies, circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and even considered moles and birthmarks to be direct evidence!

They were often summoned at the request of a monarch or powerful lord who used the act of calling for an inquisition as their own personal "proof" of devotion to the God and the Church. Many used the inquisition as a means to rid themselves of potential threats to their authority, thus preventing or reducing the chances of being assassinated, a coup, and ensuring loyal.

They were also handy for getting rid of troubling groups ranging from gypsies, various religious sects such as the Cathars and Waldensians, Hussites, or emerging Protestants following the Reformation. During the subjugation of South America by the Conquistadors in the 1500's, the Church used inquisitions against the native populations (which later expanded into what's now southwest United States).

Punishment by the Church appointed court could consist of anything from simple confession of your "guilt" and the utterances of a few prayers ("donating" a few coins didn't hurt either) all the way up to being burned at the stake (the Church often took possession of whatever you owned to boot).

Beatings and other tortures such as waterboarding or the rack were commonly employed as was "dunking" in vats of boiling or freezing water to force your confession (interspersed with prayers and promises of "divine forgiveness"). Individuals could be stripped naked and intimately "inspected" for signs of demonic or Satanic possession (including females and children) by these allegedly chaste priests. Conviction was often viewed as random, but assuredly, the "guilty" would be found out.

Technically, the torture couldn't endanger the life of the accused. It could not result in the permanent injury or loss of one's arms or legs (including hands, feet, nose, eyes, ears, or tongue) although nothing were off limits when it came the application of torture itself. In addition, once used the torture may not be reapplied, therefore you got one trip to the torture...err...I mean confession chamber. But, how does this apply to Jews and Anti-Semitism?

While officially the Inquisition could not be applied to Jews or Muslims based on previously issued edicts, the use of pogroms were seen as a way to circumvent the edicts. Violent attacks were often conducted against Jewish and Moorish (Muslim) communities. However, since Christians were prohibited from attacking other Christians, if these individuals would convert, they could be spared the beatings, lootings, pogroms, and special taxes. They could be welcomed into the trade guilds and into society in general. The incentives were enormous. All you had to sacrifice was your identity. 

As a result, thousands of Jews and Moors converted and became known as "Conversos" or "Marranos". However, many would later convert back to their original faith. This is where the Inquisition came in. One of the goals of the Holy Office of the Inquisitor was to ensure to loyalty of the masses to the Church and the "sincerity of their faith". 

Thus, a Converso who reverted to their prior faith was seen as "endangering their soul" which, of course, was of primary concern of the Vatican. Therefore, the Inquisitor would round up all the lapsed Catholics they could find and remind them of their commitment. Think of it as a revival with whips and thumbscrews!

In 1478, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the Castilian Queen Isabella of Christopher Columbus fame ordered up one of these "revivals" in what became known as the Spanish Inquisition (as an aside, Columbus is believed to have been a Converso). What was different from other Inquisitions was that the royal couple were deemed "most Catholic" enough by the Holy See to oversee the Inquisition independently of Vatican, although it's general operation was still staffed by appointed clergy. 

All Jews who had not converted by 1492 were ordered out of the country (Columbus went a step further, he left the continent). All Moors were ordered out by 1501. Anyone who remained would be subject to continued used of the Inquisition. All possessions were to remain.  Not to be outdone, King Philip of Spain applied the same standards to his possessions in the New World starting in 1569.

Portugal got into the act in 1520 with the appointment of a "Grand Inquisitor" by Pope Paul III. Not only were and Moors, it extended to "witchcraft" or form divination (including playing cards) and bigamy. The purpose was to exert political, social, economic, and religious control over the population.

One of the most notorious Inquisitions was requested by the Jesuit priest Francis Xavier in 1540 which became known as the "Goa Inquisition", which was applied almost exclusively on "New Christians" (Jews who had been forcibly converted) reverted back to Judaism, however, it also included Muslims and even Hindus!

There's no existing data telling us how many individuals died during the pogroms or Inquisitions nor the financial loss which resulted. No doubt the loss of lives must have been in the tens of thousands at the very least. We have a general idea that when it came to the various Gnostic Christian sects or other that the Church referred to as "heretical" (such as the Cathars, Arianians, Merovingians, Pelagianism, or orders like the Knights Templars) suffered in the millions.

In terms of financial loss, one can only guess but it was likely in the billions by today's standards, not mentioning the historical artifacts which have been destroyed or hidden away in the caverns of the Vatican's archives. However, to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, no price was too high to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.

Fascist Spain, Italy, and Argentina, with its close Catholic traditions, continued to tie itself to this absolutist orthodoxy while they reigned. Nazi Germany tried to replace it with more vulgar version harkening back to a mix of mythical past and pseudoscience with Hitler as the "New Martin Luther". Communism equally sought to replace organized religion with a purely secular faith where ideology of Marxism, the party and the state served as the three prong godhead. Politicalized Christianly and Critical Race Theory each offer the same possibility today as does radical Islam does.   

Faith, in the form of spiritualism, has been with this from the beginning whereas religion with its dogma, pageantry, and sacrifices sprung in unison with government as means of awe and control. One temporal and the other eternal. We must be aware of all things created by Man for no matter how noble their intent, they inherently contain at least a kernel of vanity and greed, which given time, will block out all light of freedom and poison the soil of enlightenment.

 

   If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 Anti-Semitism in America is Nothing New. Don't Deny Jewish Culture or Culture by Calling Us "White"

Anti-Semitism

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

 

List of Crusades

Inquisition

Religion in Nazi Germany

Communism and Religion

Marxism and Religion

 

 

 

 

 

America's Withdrawal From Afghanistan: Revenge's End or Justice Served?

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden announced that starting on May 1st---"May Day"---U.S. troops will begin the process of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.  The withdrawal of our approximately 2,500 troops is to officially end on September 11th, which marks the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and our involvement in Afghanistan.

Biden said in his speech that the U.S. "closely consulted" the pending exodus from Afghanistan with our allies in the region and most especially with Afghan's President, Ashrif Ghani. That's a polite way of saying "everyone grab what you can, we're out of here" and to President Ghani, it was a heads-up that he was on his own. It's time for him, his family, and cronies to start making arrangements to live elsewhere (which, as usual, also means to start opening a lot of foreign bank accounts).

America has been militarily engaged in Afghanistan longer than in any other place.  Our involvement in Europe and the Pacific during WWII was just three years.  In Korea, it was about three years too. The Vietnam War lasted 19 years. Then there were all the small "police actions" such as Granada, Panama, and so on. Those lasted anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.

Our presence in Afghanistan began in 2001, following the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, not to mention the downing of Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field; the result of passengers and crew who took matters into their own hands rather than to allow themselves to be sacrificed by a few terrorists.

At the time, then President George W Bush promised the nation and the world that we would hunt down those who planned and helped carry out the cowardly attacks. It took time, and despite some duplicity by a supposed ally (Pakistan), we were ultimately able to track down Osama bin Laden, the (by then) nominal head of Al Qaeda, who was living in a windowless three story mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan just 1400 yards from Pakistani Military Academy (their version of West Point).

It took the U.S. Military and its allies ten years to corner bin Laden and just 40 minutes to dispatch bin Laden to whatever Hell awaited him thanks to the U.S. Navy's SEAL Team Six (officially known as "Task Force Blue" or NSW-DEVGRP, which is short for Naval Special Warfare Development Group). Along the way, before and since, the top leadership of Al Qaeda and its various hydra-like splinter groups have met the same fate.

Of course, we suffered too. Many members of the same Navy SEAL Team were ambushed in Afghanistan's Tangi Valley and killed a short 90 days later in what some intelligence experts believe was a setup by informers.  The attack killed 30 U.S. troops, including 15 members of SEAL Team Six, along with eight Afghanis.  

In total, we've lost 2,312 military personnel since 2001. 20,066 have been wounded. From a historical perspective, those are low numbers. We lost over 2,501 in just one day--- June 6, 1944--- during our landing on the Normandy beaches in France. From 2001 until 2009, we had approximately 20,000 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. After that, the numbers rose to 100,000 due to the increased enemy activity. Compare that to just under 600,000 troops in Vietnam at its peak in 1968.

On the other side of the bloody coin, almost 40,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001. As for the Taliban, the exact number of dead or wounded can't be determined with any accuracy, but it's estimated to be between 67,000 and 72,000 killed and well over 100,000 wounded.

In terms of financial cost, against the price tag is hard to pin down due to overlapping accounting between allies, not to mention the use of quasi-private "contract security" forces (aka mercenary troops which are typically paid and supplied under the table by the CIA).  Nevertheless, best estimates put the cost of the war at right about one trillion dollars.

Of this one trillion or so dollars, about $88 billion has gone to rebuild the Afghani military and security forces. $36 billion has gone for governance costs as well as infrastructure and humanitarian aid.  There has been tens of millions more spent on "unreported" costs such as buying the loyalty of tribal and village leaders, funding poppy production, supplying of weaponry to various anti-Taliban militia, and so forth.   Of course, none of this includes the "reassignment" of U.S. military and non-military equipment over to non-government forces.

So, after 20 years, four presidents, and one trillion dollars, what have we gotten out of it? War is one of those endeavors which has plagued Mankind forever. Despite the belief of men like General George Patton, there is no glory in war. No one really ever wins except the arms dealers, industrialists, and the undertakers. Nevertheless, evil must be stopped wherever it's encountered.

We went into Afghanistan in 2001 for the sole purpose of getting those responsible for 9/11. Intelligence agencies identified Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as being behind the attack. At the time, the Taliban, a strongly repressive Islamic government, controlled Afghanistan, and were allegedly protecting both bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

We were told that the Taliban leadership refused to hand over bin Laden or any members of Al Qaeda. The truth, as we found out years later, was a little different. It seems they wanted hard proof that bin Laden was directly responsible. Perhaps it was just a matter of semantics, but nevertheless it provided the excuse to invade in what was called euphemistically "Operation Enduring Freedom". As a result, we found ourselves (not for the first time) facing two determined enemies.

Ultimately, we deposed the Taliban from power and installed a more cooperative "pro-Western" government (albeit, not exactly one known for not being easily corruptible). But, as the expression goes, "they may be sons of bitches, but they're our sons of bitches".  And, of course, we not only decimated the Taliban, we accomplished our professed objective of "bringing Osama to justice" (ie: kill) and nearly eradicated  Al Qaeda.

The cost to America and its allies was considered by those calling the shots as minimal, and it even came with an acceptable casualty rate. Not only was Osama removed, a pro-Western government was installed, and billions were made all around. We also gained accessed to Afghan's natural resources, which includes gold, copper, ore, chromium, lithium, as well as natural gas and oil.

As an aside, the attack on 9/11, also allowed the passage of the Patriot Act, which restricted various freedoms under the auspices of "national security" (many people have equated the Patriot Act with Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act), laying the groundwork for today's surveillance state.  A pleasant bonus for those who would become our ruling Oligarchy.

However, we must still address the additional ten years after the elimination of bin Laden. Were they worth it? After all, bin Laden and his top leadership were the primary objective weren't they? Could we have done it differently? Perhaps simply used our intelligence agencies and special forces to do a quick and dirty "find and seek" operation? After he was taken out, there really wasn't any reason to be in Afghanistan after that except for the fact that there was still a lot of money to be made.

Personally, I think we could have spent that one trillion dollars on other things like education, rebuilding our badly decaying infrastructure, care for seniors and veterans, shelter for the homeless and so forth. I agree with President Eisenhower, who once said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed". 

Even though we lost "only" 2,312 soldiers and suffered 20,066 wounded or injured, that's 2,312 mothers and fathers who lost a child, not to mention the loss of a brother, sister, spouse, or a child who lost a mother or father of their own. And those 20,066 wounded or injured represent a life disrupted; some permanently (and I speak as a disabled veteran).

Of course, none of this includes those who will forever suffer from the "silent wounds" of what they experienced.   I also don't want to forget or minimized the 40,000 Afghani civilian lives lost or the hundreds of thousands wounded, injured or maimed; caught up a conflict not of their making. 

As for the Taliban, they were remove from power while a Western puppet regime was put in its place. Perhaps that's not so bad if the Afghani people benefited, but they haven't, at least not in any long lasting way. The government of President Ashrif Ghani isn't long for this world. As soon as the U.S. and allied troops leave, the militant Islamists will be back in power, just as they were when the Soviets were forced out in 1989, leaving then President Karmel swinging in the breeze (he was replaced in 1986 by Mohammad Najibullah, who was murdered by the Taliban in 1996).

As an aside, it's worth noting that the Soviets spent over $800 million dollars during their involvement in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989, with a loss of 26,000 personnel (Afghanistan was the called "Soviet Russia's Vietnam"). Their Afghani allies lost 18,000 with an unknown number of insurgent dead and wounded. The Afghani people, as always, suffered the most with approximately 562,000 to 2 million dead and about 3 million wounded.

The reason I mention this is because as far as the Taliban and the remnant of Al Qaeda are concerned, they withstood the full onslaught of two of the most powerful nations on the planet and their allies; they defeated the USSR and the USA. Al Qaeda, though devastated, remains functionally intact. In fact, since 2001, dozens of similar radical Islamic terrorists groups like ISIS/ISIL, Boko Haram, and Abu Sayyuf have sprung throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.  

Women and young girls in Afghanistan can expect to return to a third class status with little or no educational opportunities, freedom of expression, child brides, sexual and political repression. It's a place where everyone has few freedoms or rights. Anyone who speaks out or resists is brutally punished. Such was rule under the Taliban in the past and will be again in the future.  

As Alexander the Great learned over two thousand years ago, Afghanistan is not a country that's either easily conquered or controlled. Afghanistan will continue being Afghanistan as it has done for thousands of years, regardless of which empire currently dominates the rest of the world.

The Taliban will likely soon be back in charge while America's attention turns elsewhere. The only question is whether they will be more conciliatory in their dealings with the West or will they align themselves with a hostile Iran, which itself has become much closer to the China orbit.

 

White House Fact Sheet: Normandy Landings

Biden Announces Full U.S. Troop  Withdrawal From Afghanistan by Sept. 11

As U.S. troops prepare to pull out, a look at the war inAfghanistan by the numbers

Christmas Time in 2018: Some Lessons To Consider

Well, Christmas time is upon us once again, and once more we hear the refrain of "Peace of Earth and good well to all", yet when it comes to shopping for Christmas gifts, we're hardly very "peaceful". It seems that it's all about grabbing what you can, including elbowing, punching, scratching, and outright knock downs and drag outs over some toy, piece of technology, or item of clothing which will be obsolete in a matter of months. People have complained for decades about how commercial and materialistic Christmas has become with all its glitz and glamour, around the clock advertising, and mindless buying sprees.

There are currently some 26 wars or conflicts being waged around the world as I write this with Ten of them have the potential to escalate, and none of them have anything to do with Donald Trump being the President. In fact, the majority of them involve religious extremism led by a militant version of Islam versus everyone else (as an example, two young girls on vacation in Turkey were recently murdered---beheaded---by extremist). The next biggest cause resulted from the usual economic reasons, which is control of resources including the Civil War in Syria, the growing situations in East China Sea and the Crimea and the political/economic instability in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere , followed by ethnic violence.

Often these situations overlap with religion, economics, politics, and ethnic or sectarian violence all playing a factor in varying degrees. There is the increasing likelihood of violence in other places, which are currently simmering, such as Europe due to the increasing violence and strain on the social infrastructure caused by the mostly under educated and poorly skilled "migrants"; many of whom having embraced a radicalized Islam.

In today's America, we are facing increasing problems with our decaying infrastructure,an antiquated tax system, and some would argue, even our social system as "Identify Politics" continues to grow, pitting groups and individuals against each other along every conceivable line. Income inequality is growing. Internationally, we are facing challenges not just from old enemies, but from new ones as well.

The old adage, "Peace on Earth and good well to all" seems far more appropriate today than ever before. It seems that not only is America spinning apart, but so too is the whole world. Perhaps we should remember that Christmas celebrates the symbolic birth of Jesus approximately 2000 years ago (scholars will tell you that the actual birth likely took place in the Spring. Early Christians celebrated the nativity on March 28th before the adoption of December 25th). This was a time when Judea was an occupied country, militarily, politically, and religiously by the Romans military along with a puppet government (in those days politics and religion were merely different sides of the same drachma), a corrupt and collaborating religious elite, a pervasive Greco-Roman religious pantheon, and by Greek philosophy.

There was social chaos, uprisings, protests, and violent reprisals, especially in the northern area of the Galilee, known for being a hotbed of troublemakers. Just 9 months prior to his birth, there had been a serious uprising against Roman authority just a short sling shot's throw away, in nearby Sepphoris (Sepphoris, which is largely forgotten today by all but a few biblical historians and archaeologists, was the major Greco-Roman city in region and considered a bustling "modern" city of its time where there was able work to be had).

The short lived revolt was led by a certain Judas ben Ezekias just shortly after Herod the Great died, and when Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have been about 13 or 14 years old. Part of the revolt included attacking the royal palace and its armory. The initial success of ben Ezekias' revolt resulted in other protests and revolts breaking out all over the country. The Roman governor of Syria, who oversaw the Galilee, a nasty individual by the name of Publius Quintilius Varas, led three Roman legions and auxiliary troops, mostly from Greece, to crush the uprising in typical Roman fashion; that is to say, with utter ruthlessness.

As an aside, women, or rather young girls were typically married off within a month of having their first period. Boys were deemed men, and thus subject to marriage on their 13th birthday. Marriages were almost always arranged by their parents; usually within the same village or at most, the next adjacent community. In some cases, if there were no available children of marrying age, an agreement would be negotiated (along with fee or down payment) with any women in the village who happened to be pregnant that if their child was healthy and of the suitable gender, they would be "promised" upon reaching the age of maturity. As a result, most villages were heavily interconnected through marriage.

Sepphoris, which had fallen into rebel hands, was burnt to the ground on orders from Varas and thousands of Romans and auxiliary troops laid waste to almost all of the Galilee, including neighboring Nazareth (which likely had under 30 families living there at the time) with the usual Roman efficiency and zeal , which naturally included executions, beatings, and rape (since this was viewed as a revolt against Roman authority, anyone found or even suspected of being guilty was subject to the Roman punishment for treason par excellence, crucifixion.

Men and even some women would be nailed to a crossbeam and hoisted onto a fixed post all along the main roads and left to die, which could take up to a week, after which their bodies were ordered to be left to rot where they would be devoured by birds and wild animals (as an aside, because wood was so scarce, the crosses would be repeatedly reused; often removed and transported to where they were needed except in Jerusalem, where there was a fixed point for execution of those convicted of treason). The point of this form of punishment was to both inflict a slow painful death and to serve as a warning to all to might think about defying the power of Roman. So, in effect, it was to inspire terror). The trauma of Varas' brutal response left the entire region in shock and fear of the Romans for years to come...as intended. Those rebels not killed in the fighting or later executed were sold into slavery with many going to the mines in Spain or Britain, which was as good as a death sentence.

It was into this particular world that Jesus, or Yeshua as he was actually known, was born (the fact that he survived childhood was itself something of a miracle given the extremely high rate of infant mortality and death of the mother). Life in occupied Judea was never easy. In addition to be a political/religious hot spot, it was also one of the more poorer areas where there was few private ownership of land except by rich estate holders. Many worked for these individuals, working their fields on the few arable tracts of land which was available or tending to the grape or olive orchards (wine and olive oil were major commodities).

Others earned a living fishing and selling their catches in the local marketplaces while others, who tended to be on the lowest end of social totem pole just above beggars, were the tradesmen. Common belief was that Jesus, like his father, Joseph, was a carpenter. However, that's not accurate. Wood was a rare commodity and usually only used by the well to do. Thus, most tradesmen were engaged in some sort of stonework, though they were by necessity, jack-of-all-trades (the term used to describe Joseph's occupation is "tekton" which actually means simply a builder and typically applied to someone who built with stone, which was the most common building material available. By the way, unlike today, children started helping out almost as soon as they could walk. In fact, everyone contributed in some way as a matter of survival. Women would tend to the children as well as weave if they were able, or make and/or paint pottery, help their husband sell their wares or catches in the marketplace, and whatever else they could do.

Life was a daily struggle, and under the yoke of Roman rule, it could be especially hard especially when it came to taxation, which could take the form of coinage or produce (by weight). In addition, religion was not something optional; something you did one day a week. It was a daily thing. Practically everything act was governed by some religious law, which is one reason many younger or particularly ambitious Jews decided to embrace the Greco-Roman influence of their occupiers. Greco-Roman philosophy and especially its religion still involved a certain amount of religious "duty", but far less than required under strict Judaic law. However, there were certain obligations that even the most lax Jew tended to follow, and that included donations to the Temple during High Holidays such as Passover, which was hard especially for the poor, which, no doubt, Jesus' family was.

For example, when Jesus was born, his parents were required to participate in practice called "Redemption of the First Born". In theory, the first born child or animal had to be "redeemed" based on a passage in the Bible which said that the first born child or animal belonged to God (Numbers 8:17). Obviously no one was going to sacrifice their first born child, so they were required to buy them back. The costs was five silver shekels. In lieu of cash, a lamb could be offered. Well, if you were wealthy, that wasn't a problem, but if not, that became an issue. Heck, you may not even own a lamb or know anyone in your village who owned a lamb! But there was an out. The Torah stipulated that in case of dire poverty, the parents could offer either two doves or two pigeons as a burnt offering (Leviticus 12:8).

Is this what Jesus' parent's did? Well, they were likely poor enough to qualify. Well, in the Book of Luke (Luke 2:24), that's exactly what we're told they did. Both Joseph, Mary, and Jesus make a trip to the Temple in Jerusalem (which was no easy day trip. They likely had to travel the 65 or so miles on foot, which could also be dangerous, and likely spend the night beside the road if they were unable to complete the journey during the day. Once there, they likely made the Temple their first stop. While there, they may have stayed with relatives in order to save money, which they didn't have much of to begin with. They may have done some sightseeing, as long as it was free, and headed back as soon as possible. I can imagine Joseph seeking a day job in order to earn extra money to feed his family. After all, this wasn't a vacation. If they weren't working, they weren't eating.

Education was a luxury which only a very small handful of individuals could afford, and those were mostly the elites such as the political and religion class, and certain individuals in the upper echelons on the military and perhaps a few well-to-do merchants. In Jesus' case, it's extremely doubtful that he was literate, at least not fully. He would have been taught a passage or two for his Bar Mitzvah. Whether or not he was able to read the passage or simply memorized it is open to debate. If he did learn any more than that, he was indeed a lucky child because that meant that he lived close enough for someone educated to teach him (for free, which was rare in itself) and that his family could afford for him take time away from work (highly unlikely), but there were some extremely rare exceptions.

Most learning took place after work and the evening meal, and was primarily oral (the day started just before sunrise and ended when there was just light enough to walk home, which was about 45 minutes to an hour from Sepphoris to Nazareth). Learning by listening and memorizing stories was the most common form of education, especially among the poor. Even in Greece, known for its higher learning, the use of oral traditions was still common. Children would either listen to stories told by their parents, or other parents and the village elders (if there was an actual reading taught, this would have been the time and place).

It would have been a difficult childhood for anyone of this place and period. Life under Roman occupation could be brutal, especially in a place known for its active opposition as the Galilee was. However, the Romans did tend to be tolerant of most religions, including Judaism. By and large, most religions had no problem with the Romans when it came to religion. As a general rule, subject peoples were usually denied the right to practice their religion by a conquering power. A conquered people were typically required to destroy their old gods and adopt the new ones. Temples or other places of worship were either destroyed or "purified" with fire to make temple fit for the new religion. In the case of the Romans, they allowed their subject peoples to believe as they saw fit provided they paid at least a nominal homage to the Emperor, usually in the form of a statue in the main temple. Normally, this wouldn't have been a problem, except for the Jews of Judea. Their religion explicitly prevented them from doing so (Exodus 20:1 -17). Specifically, it was the Second and Third Commandments which were the problem.

The Second Command read "Thou Shall Not Have Any Other Gods Before me". The Third Commandment, which followed along the same lines, said "Thou Shall Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image(s)". Plus, we have to recall that the Temple was considered sacred in the extreme, and while local Roman appointed governors might contribute money and labor to its repair or building, there was simply no crossing the line when it came to placing a statue of the Emperor or Imperial eagle or any other symbols on or near the Temple. Ultimately, this was to the result in being the biggest source of opposition by the Jews, and to their downfall.

We can try and imagine what this moment in history must have been like, but truthfully it's difficult at best. It's almost as if we trying to look at an alien society. It was one which, on one hand, was devoted to the Torah and to its religious institutions and priestly class, which it followed to the letter. On the other hand, it had become unwieldy and corrupt. It's most powerful religious leader, the High Priest, was appointed by the Roman governor, who also made the recommendations for the Sanhedrin who were then appointed by the High Priest. In short, Roman controlled the religious life of the people.

Roman also controlled its social and economic life through taxation and the issuance of licenses (which usually came with a nice kickback). Judea also face the encroachment of a fundamentally different religion, along with a system of philosophy which attracted its young people (some males went as far to reverse the procedure of circumcision, which was extremely painful, just to fit in with the sons of Greeks and Romans). It was increasingly common for young Jewish men not just to abandon the faith of the fathers, but to even adopt the customs of the Greeks and Romans; of going to public baths and exercising in the nude, which was forbidden under Jewish religious law. They stopped learning the Torah and started learning Greek or Latin, and studying the works of Greek authors (many of those Jews who could afford an education usually sought out a Greek one instead of a religious based one). Thus, it was feared by the more traditional that Judaism and Jewish Identity may fade away along with the nation itself.

This was the world into which Jesus was born. Perhaps by knowing a little more about the reality of it, we may come to appreciate ours a little bit better, and that just might help us strive a bit harder to find "Peace on Earth and good well to all".




10 Conflicts to Watch in 2018



CFR: 26 Global Conflicts

A Place To Belong: Assimilation or Conquest?

The history of the world has been primarily one of conflict. The main source of the that conflict has been the result of a clash of cultures, resulting in wars, conflicts, genocides, brought about by manufactured starvation through the withholding or deliberate destruction on natural resources, the intentional infection of various people by some biological agent (whether they actually understood as such or not), enslavement, or simply being breed out of existence. I'm sure there are many more examples, but you get the picture.

Direct conflict seems to be the most common. We don't know how many people have died as a result of wars or conflicts down through history, though we can make reasonable guesses with increasing accuracy we come closer to the actual event, but even that's occasionally sketchy since no one really takes time to count the dead during a battle and often, war crimes are hidden or written off as something else. We do know, for instance, that approximately 100 million died just in the 20th century alone; perhaps more when events like trauma, wounds, the long term effects of disease or radiation are factored in.

So what happens when cultures come into conflict? Well, first, I think we should define "cultures" to get a better understanding of what we're talking about. Webster's New World Dictionary defines culture as "the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc of a given people in a given period: civilization". It also includes in the definition "mannerisms or speech". I would expand this to includes values based not just on a common history, but also on a common religion when that religion has been thoroughly integrated throughout society to the exclusion of all others.

Hinduism, which is prevalent in India, is a good example. It, along with a common historical tradition, has created its own value system, including moralistic code of conduct and behavior towards others. It has superimposed a caste system and specific conduct both within the caste and in dealing with those outside of one's own caste for instance (of course, the caste system has, to a large degree, broken down due to outside influences, the least of which being improved education. We can find the same thing in Japan (which has its own history of a caste system as well), China, and throughout Asia and Africa.

Again, most of this has faded due to the influence of mostly outside factors, especially as they became increasingly in contact with the West, which has tended to be more egalitarian by comparison. Both China's and Japan's feudal systems began to lose their influence after contact with American, British, Dutch, and Portuguese sailors increased. Initially, contact was based on the notion of trade; mostly of goods, etc, but pretty soon it encompassed the trade of ideas. I guess we can chalk that up to natural human curiosity! After all, Mankind is an inquiring species. We are hardwired to investigate and explore; to learn through trial and error.

But what if we must deal with two (or more) cultures which come into conflict? Where both are firmly entrenched through their own common histories, evolved laws, values, especially those based on religion or a political ideology? What happens then? When we look at Rome, with its Greco-Roman values and religion(s), we generally find conflict; often violent conflict. We find two competing social systems struggling for dominance. Eventually, it comes down to the one with the strongest military and best social organization which is able most successfully to impose itself on the other. Of course, it's not entirely a "one-way street". Even the weaker culture is sometimes able to imprint itself on the more dominant culture, especially if its stronger than the other in that area (certain medical practices or engineering techniques for instance).

The Celts were, to varying degrees, able to withstand the Roman legions, and thus avoid complete assimilation. The Germanic tribes were much more successful since they were militarily superior to their Celtic cousins as well as made better use of natural barriers. Eventually, Rome began to adopt and adapt to other cultures, languages, and even religions in the name of multiculturalism, even though many had little or no skills which could benefit the Empire; many didn't even bother to learn the language. However, everyone followed the same Roman laws and paid homage to the dominance of the Roman State, at least for a time. But in time, even that failed and Roman collapsed into a series of petty kingdoms, which rose and fell in relation to their own interactions with other cultures. China suffered a similar fate, despite a relatively homogenous population.

However, religion, is often see as a unifying factor, which it is; at least except for the religions it's seeking to replace. It's not uncommon to see the new religion replace the old religion by adopting some of the more popular traditions of the previous religion, including sacred sites. In England for instance, the Christian missionaries would often take over a sacred pagan site by dedicating it to a certain religious figure or "saint" (especially if the "saint" is a native to the region) and/or rededicate it to a specific "miracle" similar to, but slightly different, from the previous religion.

Also, another form of eradication of the previous religion is by converting their gods into sometime to be feared or made fun of. For instances, fairies and sprites, and gnomes became "demons". Snakes, once seen as symbols of power and knowledge, were now reinterpreted as harbingers of evil, like black cats or ravens were. Some are ridiculed, or simply made to be forgotten. The Celtic god of the hunt, Cernunnos, also known as the "horned god" which represented the male aspect of nature, became the prototype of the "devil" or Satan. The more dominate female aspect of nature, such as "The Great Mother", Isis or Hera, was now viewed as evil and twisted; something designed to trick or corrupt Man. Meanwhile, other popular gods and goddesses were renamed and remade as a "saint" or a venerated individual of the new religion such as the Celtic goddess "Brigantia" who became the Christian "Saint Brigit".

So, while religion can be a unifying factor, it can--and usually is---used as a tool of conquest. A more direct form of conquest is, of course, political ideology. Political ideology is pretty straight forward. It's a system of ideas, both theoretical and practical (if based on historical precedence) designed to create a form of societal governance. Out of this, laws to guide (or rule) society are created. These laws tend to evolve out of common practice or traditions and common values (which are, themselves, are strongly influenced by religion or prominent philosophies). Naturally, the dictates of unfolding events and the Will of the King or ruling elite, has a big influence as well.

What happens when a society, which has had time to incorporate a single religion into not just its government (thus becoming a theocracy), but also throughout every aspect of its society into one where the lives of ordinary people are solely governed by the dictates of its religious and political leaders? Historically, we often find that society stagnate. They can evolve and develop as one would expect of a society because of their strict religious dictates. Now, that's not to say they remain frozen in place. They do develop along certain, often very restricted lines so long as the authority of their religion is never brought into question.

That's the cardinal rule which can never be violated under any circumstances. One bright spot is that despite the monolithic structure of a religion, there are always variations within its structure; however, these are usually well defined distinctions. So, while one sect may not be as strict or repressive in one area, that isn't to say it isn't as or more repressive or strict in other areas. It also doesn't keep one sect from attempting to impose its interpretation on the other either. This brings us to the most pressing and relevant question.

What happens when two entirely different cultures, with wholly unique religions, traditions, values, and political ideologies come into contact? Let's look at the West. As a whole, the West tends to be very independent oriented; the individuality of the individual is paramount. It tends to be open when it comes to expressing new ideas or even values. Government is, at least in theory, democratic in that the majority decides based on the present needs of society (in some countries, this still holds true to a degree, while in others, such as the US, it's devolved into an Oligarchy where voters are given the illusion of choice by picking from pre-approved candidates who will represent the needs and wants of a small economic elite).

In terms of social values, there is little variation of the value of genders. Women and men are basically treated the same. Females have equal access to education and opportunities to succeed on their own, as well as hold any position they desire. The same goes for those who step outside traditional gender roles (ie: the LGBTQ communities). This is also true of races. Despite the recently manufactured "racial crisis" in America, anyone who applies themselves can succeed, but equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Much of that depends on the individual themselves, irrespective of their race or gender.

When it comes to religion, the West is highly diverse. At its core, the West has been Christian since roughly the 10th century. At one time, it was nearly unified in that belief, being either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox until the Martin Luther and the Protestant Revolution or Reformation in the 16th Century (and the subsequent Counter Reformation by the Catholic Church) which spread throughout Europe.

Nevertheless, Christianity has been the dominant religion of the West. Judaism has also had a strong presence in the West, beginning with the ancient Romans (most were teachers, slaves, or traders). Of course, Jews were never entirely accepted by Christianity despite its claim of common roots in Judaism. In more recent years, we've seen a decline in organized religion and a rise in more secular beliefs (or in no religious beliefs at all), as well as alternative beliefs. In past centuries, such beliefs were as good way to get tortured, hanged, or burnt at the stake by religious/state authorities. However, it has been the expanse of democratic beliefs; the sovereignty of the individuals, which has made this possible.

Now, can you imagine what would happen with this society comes into contact with another which holds that the state, not the individual, is superior; where gender differences are seen as absolute and any variations (such as education or having a profession, especially one of authority) are ruthlessly enforced or those who cross traditional gender lines are simply beaten, raped, murdered or disfigured out of hand for violating religious laws? What happens when the very notion of democracy and rule of the people by and for the people is seen as abhorrent and in direct conflict with the accepted religious laws? Even basic notions of free expression or speech are largely forbidden; where questioning religious or political authority could be fatal.

What about the notion that female children can "marry" men three or four times their age or that small boys are allowed to be raped? Even females, regardless of their age, may be attacked or raped if out alone or even in pairs, unless they are accompanied by a male relative? How do you feel about being attacked, raped, or beaten if you aren't properly dressed as dictated by someone else's religious laws? How do you feel about having no pets? What about not being allowed to drive or vote? How about watch movies in public, dancing or go clubbing?

How do you feel about slavery? What would you say to a society which, based on its religion, says anyone not of their religion may be stripped of everything and sold into slavery...or murdered indiscriminately? Your only possible alternative would be to pay a steep tax. What would you say if you were told you have very few personal, or even basic, rights because of your gender or religious beliefs? What about demanding that your religion must not "interfere" with theirs, or simply demanding that you not smoke, drink, or eat pork products---or even that none of these can even be advertised? Now, how would you feel if this same society requires you to follow their religious/societal dictates regardless of your personal beliefs?

What do you think the outcome would be if these two vastly differing societies came in close contact with each other? Which of the two would ultimately dominate the other and enforce its will on the other? Well, that's the situation Europe now finds itself in, and that may soon be the situation that the US, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, and Australia may find itself in. The notion of opening one's home to strangers in trouble is an old one; a compassionate one. However, how does handle that same situation when you're inviting individuals into your home who intend on seizing your home and all its possessions; even demanding that you leave?

Historically, differing cultures have rarely coexisted in peace, at least for long. One of two things usually happen. The first is that the host country, under the naive guise of multiculturalism, is fractured; balkanized or divided internally with the gulf becoming wider and deeper until the nation effectively stops being one. At that point, there is usually a Civil War or revolution to decide the country's fate. Sometimes these divisions are based on mythological claims of empire, but like all wars, are often violent and affects everyone, but especially more so if religion is a factor since one is fighting--- murdering and dying---for their god. Obviously, there can be no compromise. That's where we now stand in the West. The only real question is who will dominate; who will be vanquished and who will conquer?

The Las Vegas Massacre: A New Argument for Gun Control?

Well, it didn't take long for the anti-gun group start baying at the moon following the recent gun attack at a outside concert, the Route 91 Harvest Festival, in Las Vegas. Before we get into that, let's recap what we know thus far. The shooter, a 64 year old real estate investor and high stakes gambler by the name of Stephan Paddock opened fire from two adjoining rooms that he rented at the Mandalay Bay Casino and Hotel a few days before the attack. The lethal episode played out over approximately horrific ten minutes, with Paddock using two semi automatic rifles which had been converted using a simple-to-use "bump stock" conversion kit, which can be bought almost anywhere guns and/or gun supplies are sold. In addition, the shooter had set up several surveillance cameras and a monitor in order to watch for anyone approaching his rooms. When it was over, some 59 individuals were dead and 527 were wounded, making this the deadliest mass shooting since Wounded Knee in December of 1890.

Paddock had been staying at the hotel for several days prior, while the three day long concert, which covered a 15 acre concrete lot, took place almost directly across from his rooms. During that time, Paddock lugged some ten suitcases full of guns into each room, along the hundreds of rounds of ammo and two shooter platforms. Despite this, no one associated with the hotel noticed anything suspicious: not the cleaning crew who came in to changes sheets or tidy up the room. Not room service which bought up meals. Not other guests. No one apparently saw anything out of the ordinary.

It appears that just moments before the shooting started, Paddock knocked out a window in each room (presumably using a hammer), and from a nearly perfect advantage point, positioned himself on the shooter platform set up in each room and opened fire on the unsuspecting crowd below which was enjoying the last set of the event. In video recordings, you can clearly hear the rattling of the converted rifles with several quick bursts in rapid succession. As people began to be hit, the crowd, which seemed momentarily dumbfounded, realized what was happening and began to disperse. Ironically, while most of the spectators simply dropped their chairs, coolers, blankets and whatever else they brought and ran while others either just stood there and others walked away as bullets sprayed all around them.

Many in the crowd immediately called 911 to report an active shooter (and in several cases, reports of a second shooter came in): some even providing details such as floor location. These individuals maintain that there was shots coming from the second window and they could see two sets of muzzle flashes; they also claim that there was a distinct difference in sound between the guns. One had a duller sound while the other was higher pitched as if it was a different caliber. When the police arrived, their primary attention was moving spectators to safety as quickly as possible (as hard as it is to believe, many were standing completely upright and casually walking away while a few stopped to watch). Some individuals came forward to report that just prior to the concert starting, a female, accompanied by a male, confronted several of the attendees and told them that they were going to die that night. Both individuals were escorted away by security and released.

Nevertheless, officers made their way as cautiously as possible to the 32nd floor. When they reached Paddock's room, they used a standard ram to force entry. However, when they were able to finally burst in, they found Paddock already dead on the floor; the result of an apparent suicide, with a pistol laying just above the right side of his head. A canvas of the room revealed 18 guns, ample ammunition, and two shooter platforms. In addition, they found where Paddock had set up surveillance cameras inside and outside of his rooms, along with monitor so that he could monitor the entire situation. At Paddock's home, which he shared with his live-in girlfriend, authorities found additional firearms---approximately 23---plus explosives. As for his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, she had taken a flight back home to the Philippines. Paddock had also wire transferred over $100,000.00 to her just days before and paid cash (just over $14,000) for a new car for her.

Now, as if this wasn't bad enough, what has happened since is even more intriguing. The terrorist group ISIS, posted on their website that they were responsible for the attack. They added that Paddock had been converted to their brand of extremist Islam. However, Paddock's family and friends refuted that. They said that aside from gambling, Paddock was a quiet unassuming individual with no vices. He wasn't much of a drinker and didn't do drugs. They added that he was unpolitical and didn't even own or like guns. In addition, he didn't have the interest or technical wherewithal to do any type of gun conversation, set up surveillance equipment or knew how to make bombs. Finally, according to family and friends, this type of behavior was completely out of character of the person they knew, and added that he was basically a "boring guy" with a knack for numbers.

In response to their denial of any political leanings, ISIS took the rare step of reposting their claim on their website and added that Paddock had been to the Middle East several times over the last years, where his indoctrination and training was completed (there is some indication that Paddock and possibly his girlfriend took a cruise a year ago which included a port of call in the region). Meanwhile, Paddock's girlfriend has returned to the US for questioning. As an aside, the Philippines have a large, mostly rural, Muslim population are currently engaged in a guerilla war with the government in addition to a long standing Maoist insurgency. Of late, ISIS has become involved in the conflict. I suspect that police, FBI, and ATF officials are going to be very interested in her responses, especially with respect to any changes in his personality, his recent purchases and trips, new acquaintances, unaccounted for absences, and any large money transfers. After all, for someone who didn't like guns, he managed to acquire quite a collection, not to mention rounds of ammo. Plus, one would expect that there some basic arms training as well.

However, at this point, authorities haven't been able to identify any motivation for the shooting, or account for Paddock's ability to haul all these weapons, ammo to his rooms, in ten suitcases, all the way up the 32nd floor (no easy task given the weight) and avoid detection for days, as well as being able to set up surveillance cameras and a monitor. Heck, I can't even seem to take the soap without housekeeping knowing. I suppose that over the next days and perhaps even weeks or months, new information will become available. Of course, given the spin that the corporate controlled media puts on news coverage, we need to take what they spin...err...report with a generous helping of salt.

Meanwhile, as I alluded to at the beginning, gun control advocates haven't missed a beat in pointing out how we need greater gun control, up to and including prohibiting gun ownership (or requiring guns be stored at the police department and checked in and out like you would do books at a library. In addition, there are demands to require that all gun purchases or acquisitions (such as inheritances or bought at yard sales, gun shows or flea markets) regardless of being new or used. Perhaps not unexpectedly, these same individuals are also calling for prohibiting "bumper stocks" and all other gun modification devices, along with kits to build "silencers" or mufflers, along with restricting magazine capacities as well as certain types of ammo. From their perspective, taking away guns are the only way to prevent gun violence. The police have, for years, offered special events to either turn in guns in exchange for coupons or some other prize, as well as occasionally buying the guns back. After the guns are surrendered, they are checked to see if they're stolen or used in a crime, they are destroyed. Of course, common sense will tell you that the bad guys aren't likely to be standing in line to sell back their guns. The end result will be unarmed and mostly defenseless citizens facing off against armed thugs. Sorry, that's not the type of situation I want to be in, nor for any of my family or friends.

Now, while I'm a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment, which was intended to protect us from the government in the event it become tyrannical, corrupt and/or fails to adhere to the Will of the People (you know, kinda like nowadays). The 2nd Amendment was meant to be our "stay free" card and legal means to remove a corrupt government by force if necessary in the event it tries to ignore or usurp the Constitution or Bill of Rights (again, ditto). Meanwhile, in addition to preserving our nation and self-defense, many people use guns for hunting or target practicing, which is a good thing I think.

However, I do see a possible problem with conversion kits which turn semi-automatics (which are completely legal) to essentially the equivalent to machine guns (which are legal, but very restricted). I mean, do you really need a "machine gun" to shoot rabbits or quail? Ok, perhaps a bad example. But seriously, is that what you need to hunt deer or elk? Maybe you just want it to target practice or simply to have. It might make for a great weapon for home defense, but I'll take a pump shotgun any day. There's nothing like the sound of that slide to change a person's mind. What about "silencers" or mufflers? Is there a reason you don't want the other squirrels not to hear? Maybe it's to help protect you from the gun's noise, but you can buy ear plugs for that. Maybe you fantasize about being an secret agent or double naught assassin cum international person-of-mystery (hey, I'm not judging). Frankly though, I don't know what you'd want a "silencer" or muffler for. Maybe some of you can let me know.

In addition, some of the individuals who are pushing for revised gun control laws are arguing for a cap on the number of guns and amount of ammunition individuals should be able to own, including registering the type and quantity of ammo purchased similar to how guns are bought and registered. Paddock reportedly purchased "thousands" of rounds of ammunition, mostly .308 and .223 calibers, going back to 1982, in addition to the small arsenal he had with him at the hotel and at home. While reports differ, most seem to indicate that Paddock owned between 47 and 53 guns. He brought 23 weapons with him to the hotel. In addition, he had purchased 33 guns over the last 12 months. So, obviously this begs the question---should there be a limit on the number of guns and ammo that an ordinary citizen can own? Or perhaps instead, should there be a cap as to the type of guns or ammunition someone can own? What do you think?

So, again America struggles to understand what drove an otherwise average older rich white guy to want to commit mass murder. Perhaps we'll have a clearer idea as to what motivated Paddock in the days and weeks to come, but it's just as likely that we'll never really know and may be left with suppositions and theories from so-called "experts" (his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, has told authorities that over the past few months, he seemed like he was mentally and physically "deteriorating"). Certainly, despite the tragedies and losses of life, there were many examples of courage too from police officers and ordinary people who were either attending the concert like everyone else or just simply nearby and decided to act. For now though, we just have to become more vigilant of our surroundings, while remembering to scope out possible exit routes wherever we will be spending any length of time, be it a movie, restaurant, a mall, or public event.


How the police zeroed in on the Las Vegas gunman



Who Was Stephen Paddock? The Mystery Of A nondescript 'Numbers Guy'



What guns were used in the Las Vegas shooting?