#Shay's Rebellion

[quinnfebrey]

“the jewish people never did anything bad against the nazis so clearly violence is never the answer”

bff i guarantee if the holocaust lasted for 75 years my ancestors would have absolutely formed what you’d consider a terrorist group lmao

[neverlandmylove]

EVEEEEEE HAPPY BIRTHDAY

HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!!! 🎉🎉

WOO YAY TY MARCE !!!!

[frogsare-friends]

saw someone say that if you ever wondered what people would think of you as a fictional character just write a fanfic about your life and honestly?? what's stopping me??

[yatescountyhistorycenter]

Jacob: the man, the brook, the street

By Jonathan Monfiletto

Who was Jacob, and was he upset when the village of Penn Yan re-named the street that was named for him?

When I began a project to investigate the origin stories of the names of various streets in Penn Yan and then shifted my focus to learning the when, why, and how of the re-naming of several streets in the village, I had hoped – somewhat tongue-in-cheek – to answer these questions. The centerpiece of my project was East Elm Street, which was renamed from Jacob Street in the 1920s.

Actually, the answers to both of these questions are quite simple – the original name of the street likely came from, though I have not yet found any official record stating so, Jacob Fredenburg. The street crosses over the basin for Jacob’s Brook, which was likely also named for Fredenburg. Alongside the brook is the area where Fredenburg – on the lam from possible treason charges following his participation in Shay’s Rebellion – lived in a cabin with his wife and children, where the Senecas still in the territory allowed them to remain under certain limitations.

And Fredenburg probably wasn’t upset when the street named for him was re-named, depending on one’s belief in a body’s ability to literally turn over in its grave. Fredenburg died nearly 75 years before the Jacob Street became East Elm. So, it is possible someone remembered him from their younger years, but the street remains East Elm to this day – though Jacob’s Brook remains a well-known entity.

I actually pulled out our file on Jacob Fredenburg in hopes of finding out more about the street and the brook and perhaps a little bit about the man to mix into that article. Instead, I uncovered someone who was quite a character in his lifetime and worthy of his own article – someone who might have been appeared in a dime novel adventure story.

Fredenburg was born at Taghkanic on Livingston Manor in Columbia County in September 1759, the first child of Isaac Vredenburgh (Jacob’s surname varies in spelling across various sources) and Cornelia Whitbeck. Though his exact birthdate appears to be unknown, even to Jacob himself, records show he was christened on October 28, 1759 in the Gallatin Reformed Church in Gallatinville. Growing up, Jacob likely lived in several different locations around Columbia County with his parents; his siblings’ christenings are recorded in various churches in the area.

Around age 16, like many young men of the time, Fredenburg joined the American Revolution in May 1776 after being drafted into the Columbia County militia. Discharged in the fall of 1778 after serving two and a half years, the 19-year-old Fredenburg fought in several important battles during his enlistment – most notably appearing at the surrender of British General Burgoyne to Continental General Gates at Stillwater following the Battle of Saratoga.

Returning to Livingston Manor, Fredenburg married Contente Rollins in 1780. The couple had two children together before Mrs. Fredenburg died, perhaps in childbirth with her second child. Fredenburg remarried to Catrina Kohl and had more children with his second wife. From Columbia County, Fredenburg apparently ventured to Massachusetts to participate in Shay’s Rebellion – a violent protest by Revolutionary War veterans and other groups against harsh economic conditions and civil rights injustices in America’s infancy.

When the rebellion – which contributed to the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the U.S. Constitution – was put down, several of its instigators and participants fled into the wilderness beyond the former colonial borders. This included Fredenburg, who landed in the territory of the Senecas; indeed, Daniel Shays himself ended up about 30 miles away in modern-day Livingston County.

The Senecas offered Fredenburg and his wife and children – who lived in a cabin along the brook that now bears his first name – hospitality with restrictions. For example, he could fish only in the brook and he could hunt only within certain limits. He was also allowed to raise a small crop of corn. Thus, while Fredenburg may have been the first non-native person to reside in what is now Penn Yan, he isn’t considered the first settler because he didn’t really settle here. In fact, the Fredenburg family left after about three years, when permanent settlers did begin arriving in the area.

Fredenburg returned to “the eastern part of the state,” according to a file on Fredenburg in a source titled “Genealogical Abstracts of Revolutionary War Pension Files.” Whether that eastern part was his home area of Columbia County or another area is unclear. What is clear is Fredenburg returned in 1800 to what became Yates County, then a widower for the second time. He settled in Kinney’s Corners – nowadays, the Bluff Point and Keuka Park area – and married Margaret Shaw, who was also a widow. Her large Scottish family knew the couple as Uncle Jake and Aunt Peggy.

Following his third wife’s death, Fredenburg lived with his youngest daughter of his second marriage, who had married Joseph B. Haviland and resided near Rushville. Fredenburg died in Rushville August 11, 1850 at almost 91 years old, though where he is buried – and whether he is buried in Yates County – is uncertain. And while the street once named for him no longer is so, the brook that he first lived along still bears his name.

[jamiedc-they-them]

Blood and Water (Platonic)

Requested Imagine: "can i request a Stilgar x child reader? basically Child reader (8 years old) escapes into the desert with their parents because the harkonens are hutning them down, (reader and their parents left the city because readers parents found a weak spot in the citys foundation that can lead to a rebellion or something like that), the harkonens catch up and readers parents stay behind to give reader time to escape, child reader does and escapes into the rocky mountains but one harkonen catches the reader and thats when Stilgar saves child reader and he is instantly protective of this little child and starts acting like a father to child reader.

if that is okay!!"

AN// Hi Anon! I hope you enjoy this piece! It's quite a long one and spiralled into it tying into Dune Parts I and II, but the central focus is still Stilgar and R's bond! I also had Chani be there as well due to the Tribe as a whole. Thank you for the request! <3

SPOILERS FOR DUNE PART II

Your parents raised you well. They taught you about the Harkonnens and their violent oppression of you and your people. They told you, as well, about the Fremen – in terms of different beliefs and territories.

You were young, about 8 when they died. You were forced to flee when your parents were discovered. Word got to them from friends, but you weren’t quick enough. Your mother held your hand tightly as you ran, your father already had stayed behind. But, despite your age, you know what it means that the Harkonnen’s are still behind you.

He’s died.

Your mother gets you to an exit, a small gap you used to crawl through when younger with friends. Friends you haven’t seen in a while. Maybe they’re dead, too.

“You have to go,” your mother tells you, cupping your face in her hands, “you have to live.”

“What about you?” You ask back, tears running down your face.

Your mother wipes your tears, “do not shed your water, my child,” she says, “not even for the dead.”

“Will – will I see you —?” You don’t get to answer your question, as a knife is stabbed through your mother’s chest. You fall back, on instinct diving through the hole in the wall. A hand grabs you, you just about escape the grip.

You’re out now. Out of a Arrakeen and in the desert itself. You immediately feel the heat, not used to being exposed to it so bluntly.

You hear something above you, an Ornithopter. You can’t outrun these, you’ve seen how fast they can go.

Still, as fast your legs will take you, you run. You run for all the worth that your water has.

You don’t even feel the vibrations on the sand at first. To you, it’s just the vibrations from the Ornithopter above. That is, until you hear it. The low shriek of your god. Of Shai-Hulud, bursting out of the sand, and taking the Ornithopter down.

You don’t even realise how far you have actually made it, making it a rocky hill. Your distraction of the Sandworm appearing means that you don’t see the Harkonnen’s still chasing you on foot, and you find yourself being tackled to the floor. You feel your head hit something, and the world becomes a blur. You try and fight back, but with the disorientation alongside your age and size, you can only wait for the end.

Maybe some Fremen can find some use with your water, maybe that would be useful in some way.

You get your wish, sort of.

You hear voices, and clashing of blades. Then, for a moment, silence.

You fade in and out. You feel yourself being carried.

When you reopen your eyes, you’re in what your parents told you is a Sietch. You never thought you’d see one.

“Calm, child. Calm,” you hear a voice say. You look over, seeing man much older than one you have ever seen. He wears a robe, eyes blue. His voice is deep, but soft in this case, “you are safe now. You are safe.”

You look around your area, seeing no one else, but beds are here all the same.

The man seems to see your silent question, “I brought you here to rest peacefully.”

You nod, thankful in a way.

The man gets up, he holds a hand out to you, “when you are ready, join us.”

He leaves after that. You sit in your bed. You feel the emotion inside of you for the losses you have just gone through, through everything that just occurred so quickly.

But, your mother was right, don’t waste your water. You can grieve for them by fighting back. By continuing it.

You join the man, but instead find this place filled to the brim with other people. Other Fremen. Some dressed differently than others, but maybe that was just the difference between the north and south Fremen tribes your parents told you about. You never fully understood how they knew this though, given that you lived (lived is a strong word, more like just about survived) in the city under the thumb of the Harkonnen’s.

The people stop, and stare at you.

You hear a girl clear her throat, she looks at you – almost doing calculations in her mind – before turning to the group, “Stilgar,” she calls out.

The crowd part as the man from before, now known to you as Stilgar, approaches you.

“Are you well, child?”

You nod. He does as well.

“Come. Chani,” the girl who was looking at you before looks to Stilgar, “fetch the child some food, please?”

She nods, silently going to do so.

Stilgar puts a hand on your shoulder, “come child. There is a lot to discuss.”

Despite your young age, he treats you like a person rather than a young child. Part of you likes that.

He takes you to a corner as everyone starts to eat. Chani hands you some food, before going to join her friends.

“Don’t mind Chani,” Stilgar says, “she is weary of new-comers. She will ease to you with time.”

You nod. You know it’s supposed to be comforting, but it just once again reminds you of your parents.

Stilgar sighs, putting his bowl down and looking at you, “you will be safe with us.”

“My parents…their water…”

“Arrakeen is not a place so easily entered. But, if we can, we shall try and retrieve what we can. We did that with the Harkonnen’s you had following you. It was contaminated, but it does still have uses.”

You nod, at least they got something out of this.

“Why were you so close to the city?”

Stilgar is impressed. Young, but inquisitive.

“We did not mean to be,” he admits, “we heard commotion, and saw Shai-Hulud, so followed and found you.”

“Thank you.”

“No need to thank us. You are Fremen, we are all equal here.”

You look around at these people, your people. You are such a small part of a massive place.

“My parents fought back against the Harkonnen’s,” Stilgar nods, seemingly knowing this, “do you think I could help?”

He smiles and nods, “we will show you the ways of the desert.”

He does. They all do. Chani starts to learn how to fight, and so Stilgar has her be the one who teaches you the most. You’re both decently close in age, so it allows you both to know someone else as well in the tribe.

Stilgar also teaches you about the prophecy and legends that are more so within the southern tribes. About Lisan Al-Giab (or “The Voice From the Outer World”). One who will come down and lead you all to victory and bring Arrakis back to glory.

You notice more about the divide between the North and South tribes in regards to this one time when you are training with Chani:

“Stilgar keeps telling me about the Lisan Al-Giab,” you say, as you and Chani lock training blades.

“It’s superstition. A prophecy all about control and imbalance. A story.”

“How can you be so sure?” You don’t entirely believe it yourself – despite the hope it can give you sometimes, that all this isn’t for nothing – and yet you find yourself defending your closest companion here despite that.

Even Chani notices that within you, “how can you be that you this person will show up?”

It stays with you. However, despite that, you remain close to Stilgar. He teaches you all he can, both through action – like helping you craft your Cysknife or learning the ways to traverse the Dunes without alerting the Worms – and words – telling you about the Fremen ways and legends passed down through time.

He makes sure you’re fed, and always helps you with your Stillsuit, making sure it is secure. If he has to fix something with it, he explains what the error is. With food and water, if he has any spare, he gives it to you. He’s a guiding figure in your life. He is the one who took you in after all. He’s taught you all he’s known. He’s given you something you once thought lost:

A family.

That family all cheers for you when you successfully ride a Sandworm on your own. It’s not massive, but it’s big enough. Stilgar hugs you tightly, and proudly proclaims you as his child, and a sibling of the tribe. The tribe had always teased him for the fatherly ways he had with you, but now it was done in a genuine way. They all celebrate you that night.

Before you know it, several years have gone by. You have fought back how you can. Sometimes big things, like destroying Carryall’s or Harvesters in big assaults, or by eliminating a squad of Harkonnen’s.

Stilgar, as time goes on, still holds that protectiveness, but also knows you can hold your own. You’re equal. Father and child, working in sync, both learning from each other – him in terms of your creativity and your thoughts on the planet and plans (being equals, all opinions are taken in, but your ones are ones they listen to more). For you, it’s learning how to survive and about your people and the history of this planet. Sometimes it's found by what other Fremen have left behind, sometimes it’s stories from him.

Then you all meet someone new: Paul and Jessica Atreides.

Stilgar looks to you and Chani – you’re weary of this outsider, but if he wins against Jamis, then he has earned his place.

“Why did I never have to fight?” You asked Stilgar as Jamis and Paul prepare.

“Because, I took you as my charge,” Stilgar answers, “you were my child when I chose that. I am also Niab, no one could challenge me on it, either.”

You don’t waste your water, but he can tell it has meaning to you. He just gives a nod.

Paul wins his battle. You don’t acknowledge it until it’s too late, but you feel something shift within your father.

At first, Paul and Jessica follow you for mere survival. But, things soon start to change, especially Jamis’ water is collected. Jessica drinks the water of life and…survives; and Paul starts picking up on more and more Fremen techniques like they were his own.

Stilgar starts to drift away from you. He still cares about you and checks in with you everything, but you can feel him pulling away.

Even Chani, your closest friend in the tribe, begins to pull away. But, she doesn’t believe as much within Lisan Al-Giab as she does instead Paul himself and his ability to help you all

One night, when you sit on a Dune, looking out at your home planet, she joins you.

“Something’s different, Chani,” you confess.

“I know,” she says, “but they can help us.”

“Your love for Paul blinds you.”

“And your loyalty to Stilgar blinds you.”

“We are Fremen, Chani. We are family and tribe. He is — he is not.”

“He will be Fremen. Tomorrow.”

You don’t hate Paul, he’s listened to you and helped you – it’s Jessica, the Bene Gesserit Witch, that you don’t trust. She’s pulling strings, you just can’t see them.

“I’m sorry,” you say to your best friend, “I’m not angry at you.”

“I know,” she says, “I’m not angry at your or Stilgar. Well, maybe Stil a little,” you chuckle a bit, “but, he loves you, Y/N. He loves all of us. He’s our Niab, he won’t let anything happen to us.”

You nod, “I’ll talk to him tomorrow.”

Chani understands your concerns but doesn’t voice them (she wishes she did later).

The night before Paul’s Sandworm test, you go and find Stilgar.

“What troubles you, child?” He asks. Despite being in your teens now, he still refers to you that way. A reminder of the home you always have with him.

“I’m worried for Paul,” and you, you want to say, but can’t find it in yourself to say it.

Stilgar nods, “I am too. But, I was when I also sent you out on your own ride, and the other tests. But, you survived, and so shall he.”

“How can you be sure?”

“He is Lisan Al-Giab.”

“But I am not.”

His eyes dart to you, “no, you are not. You are my child. You have my knowledge, but your own strength. It was why you have survived.”

Despite the growing distance, you smile at his words.

The day of Paul’s ride comes, and even your eyes widen at the size of the worm. Even you cheer when he masters it in the end. Even you, for a moment, believe. But, you then look to your father, and how wide his eyes are. How taken he is by this legend, by the faith he had in this story; in what the rewards would be in the end.

Your smile dims a bit.

Paul wants revenge? Understandable, so do you for your parents and all other fallen Fremen – but, with the influence Paul is having over your tribe, with the followers he is gathering and the army he is building up in his name alone of Maud’dib  - or, more importantly, Lisan Al-Giab – it scares you. You want freedom and revenge, but you also want to know what would be next. This freedom is for your people, not Paul. He’s even reuniting with people, Gurney Halleck, a brilliant fighter and musician. But, once again, another outsider. This one not even proving himself, just following.

And then you find the old cache of Atreides atomic weapons. A weapon you thought banned in the universe. And yet, here you are, capturing them for you own use.

You don’t know who to turn to with your worries, your fears. Everyone has been taken in by Paul and Jessica, even Gurney. Chani, you don’t know if she is completely blinded by her love, but she hasn’t voiced anything to you yet, so you can’t be sure.

For the first time since you were 8 and on the run, you feel alone. Totally alone.

Or, not totally alone, as Chani slaps Paul as soon as he wakes after drinking from the Water of Life, and the only person she looks to is you before she leaves. She’s as alone as you are. Two people caught up in this madness.

The straw that breaks you is the Southern Tribes being forced to meet after Sietch Tabr falls. You’re glad your father gets to live, don’t get that misunderstood – but you aren’t sure if the person you are begging to see reason and stop what Paul is about to do is the man who took you in and gave you a family and a home all those years ago. You plead, even shouting “father!” To him loudly, startling the other Fremen and even almost getting yourself kicked out. It’s Gurney, of all people, who pull you down alongside Chani.

“Stay hidden, and stay quiet,” he tells you both. Chani removes his hand from your arm.

“This has nothing to do with you,” Chani spits to him.

According to him though, with his thirst for revenge, and a scar he was given, it has everything to do with him.

Paul is declared leader, officially becoming Lisan Al-Giab – all you and Chani can do is dispear and look on in horror.

When it comes to the battle plans, Paul interrupts you before you can even speak, telling you:

“I do like the idea, Y/N, I am glad you told it to me,” his vision must’ve shown him your ideas. Thus, in the meeting, you are left to be mute.

You play your role, just being in the mix of the soldiers. Everything the tribe has taught you with combat and awareness coming into play. It helps you focus. You don’t have any training of a Bene Gesserit witch, but you have your methods.

You picture each Harkonnen you kill being the ones who murdered your parents. You like to image all their water being embraced by Shia-Hulud and the sand.

You win. And all it comes down to is Paul vs Feyd-Rautha. Despite your fears, this is all your efforts have led to. You want Paul to win, but a lesser evil is still evil.

Paul does. Barely, but he wins. You see Chani’s relief. Your father proclaims once more that Paul is Lisan Al-Giab, and kneels. Everyone else follows, even the Emperor after kissing Paul’s ring.

Only yourself, Chani, and Princess Irulan stay standing.

Paul looks to you both, respect and something else in his eyes when he looks to you.

You look to your father, seeing him begging with his eyes for you to kneel. You see the horror there of what could happen to you. The care he shows once again there, but it’s too late now.

Your mind is already made up, however. Whatever happens, it will be because of your choices. Not faith. Not some false hope.

“You will come back,” Paul says, “one day, you will.”

You leave. Chani leaves after you.

You keep walking, ignoring Chani calling after you.

You love her, you do. She’s your best friend and sister. You love Stilgar, he’s your father. But you can’t be around this. You can’t sit and watch this ‘Holy War’ go on. You may be a victim of it due to your leaving. You don’t care.

You’re an orphan once again, it seems. Cast away to the unforgiving deserts of Dune. You’ve just traded in one ruler for another.

You hope you’re wrong. You don’t think you are, but you hope you are.

And maybe Paul is right; maybe one day, you will return.

But not today. And not for many more days.

You’ll see your father again though, you’re sure of that.

In one world, or the other.

So, you thank the Maker and bless them for Stilgar and the family it brought you, and then get your hooks ready and place a thumper of your own down and wait.

Wait to ride off to your next destination.

As far away from Arrakeen as you can possibly get.

You don’t shed a tear. You don’t waste your water. Not even for the dead, metaphorically or otherwise.

[whencyclopedia]

Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention was held at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 25 May to 17 September 1787. Spurred on by economic troubles left over from the American Revolution and compounded by the weak Articles of Confederation, delegates from twelve states met to draft a new framework of governance, the United States Constitution, which created a stronger federal government.

Background

In March 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect as the framework of governance for the fledgling United States, after having been ratified by all thirteen states. Under the Articles, each state essentially operated as a semi-independent republic, bound to one another in a loose 'perpetual union'. The federal government – which at the time consisted only of a unicameral Congress – was intentionally kept weak, to ensure the sovereignty and independence of the states. Congress' only real powers were those relating to war and foreign affairs, and even then, it needed the consent of at least nine states before it could declare war or borrow money from foreign lenders. The framers believed that they needed to keep the federal government weak to protect the rights and liberties of American citizens; their recent experience with the British Parliament seemed to suggest that a powerful central authority would not hesitate to squander those rights. But, before long it would become apparent that weak governments carried their own sets of issues that would be just as dangerous.

The most glaring problem was Congress' inability to levy its own taxes. Rather than raise its own money, Congress instead had to rely on donations from the states to fill the national treasury. But, especially after states began to focus on their own interests after the end of the American Revolutionary War, these donations were not consistently forthcoming. This left Congress with no funds to pay federal soldiers or meet its many other financial obligations. Nor did Congress have the power to compel the states to send money or comply with any other federal legislation. Several attempts to amend the Articles to allow Congress to raise money through tariffs were vetoed by the states. Additionally, a lack of unified foreign policy left Congress ill-equipped to deal with foreign powers, with Britain, France, and Spain all putting restrictions on American trade that the federal government could not retaliate against. Finally, Congress had been unable to respond to Shays' Rebellion when it broke out in western Massachusetts in late 1786. Although the rebellion was eventually suppressed by a privately funded army, it led to fears that future insurrections would not be crushed so easily.

For these, and other, reasons, many Americans became convinced that the Articles of Confederation were not working and that unless the Articles were revised, the United States would soon unravel. This reality weighed heavily on the minds of the delegates who met in Annapolis, Maryland, on 11 September 1786. Representing five states (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia), the delegates had merely been sent to discuss trade between states. But as their discussion touched on other issues caused by the weak Articles of Confederation, the delegates realized that something drastic had to be done. In their final report to Congress, drafted by Alexander Hamilton of New York, the delegates proposed that a constitutional convention should be held in Philadelphia the following May to discuss revisions to the Articles. On 21 February 1787, Congress endorsed the suggestions of the Annapolis Convention, and stated that it would write up a report on which changes to the Articles were necessary. Ultimately, twelve of the thirteen states decided to send delegates to the upcoming Constitutional Convention – the sole holdout was Rhode Island, which believed there was nothing wrong with the existing Articles of Confederation and refused to send delegates to amend them.

Continue reading...

[blueiscoool]

Four 1,900-Year-Old Roman Swords Found in a Judean Desert Cave

Apparently stolen by Jewish rebels, the incredibly well-preserved weapons are ‘an extremely rare find, the likes of which have never been found in Israel’

Archaeologists have discovered four 1,900-year-old Roman swords in a cave in the Judean Desert, which experts believe were captured by the Judean rebels during the Bar Kochba revolt and placed in a narrow crevice in the rock.

“We’re talking about an extremely rare find, the likes of which have never been found in Israel,” Dr. Eitan Klein, one of the directors of the Israel Antiquities Authority’s Judean Desert Survey, said in a video accompanying the announcement of the discovery. “Four swords amazingly preserved, including the fine condition of the metal, the handles, and the scabbards.”

The preliminary article on the swords is published in the volume “New Studies in the Archaeology of the Judean Desert: Collected Papers,” which explores new archaeological finds discovered in the Judean Desert Survey Project. A conference launching the book is taking place Wednesday in Jerusalem.

The four swords were discovered shoved into a small fissure in a cave near Ein Gedi National Park, near the Dead Sea. The cave is already well-known to archaeologists, as it contains a stalactite with a fragmentary ink inscription written in ancient Hebrew script characteristic of the First Temple period.

Recently, Dr. Asaf Gayer of Ariel University, geologist Boaz Langford of Hebrew University, and Israel Antiquities Authority photographer Shai Halevi returned to the cave to photograph the stalactite with multispectral photography, which can decipher additional parts of the inscription not visible to the naked eye. While inside the cave, Gayer spotted an extremely well-preserved Roman pilum — a shafted weapon — in a deep, narrow crack in the rock. He also found pieces of carved wood in an adjacent niche that turned out to be parts of the swords’ scabbards.

The researchers reported the find to the Israel Antiquities Authority and returned to the site with the Judean Desert Archaeological Survey Team, which is conducting a multi-year comprehensive survey of more than 800 caves in the Judean Desert to find and preserve archaeological remains before they are looted.

It was then that they discovered the four swords, three of which were found with the blades still inside their scabbards. Researchers also found ornate handles made of wood and metal with leather strips nearby. The arid climate in the Judean Desert helps preserve fragile artifacts that might otherwise be lost to the ravages of time, including materials such as leather and wood, which are rarely found in wetter parts of the country.

Three of the swords are Roman spatha swords, with blades 60 to 65 centimeters (23.5 to 25.5 inches) long. The fourth weapon, a ring-pommel sword, is shorter, with a 45-centimeter (18-inch) blade. The swords likely belonged to Roman soldiers and were stolen by Judean rebels who hid them in a cave either for later use or to avoid being caught with them.

“The blades have been preserved so well, they look like they could be picked up and used right now, even 2,000 years after they were forged,” said Langford. “You just realize that you are touching history, because here you are touching a find whose story you know.”

The Bar Kochba revolt, from 132 to 135 CE, also called the Second Jewish Revolt, was a Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in Judea led by rebel leader Simon Bar Kochba. Archaeologists believe the swords were likely hidden in the crevices inside the cave sometime during the revolt, as it was dangerous for Jews to be found with Roman weapons.

“This is a very rare and unique find on an international level that will shed light on the last moments of the war between the Jewish rebels and the Roman army at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt,” said Klein.

‘A unique time capsule’

The cave survey is being undertaken by the IAA in cooperation with the Archaeology Department of the Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, and has been funded in part by the Ministry of Jerusalem Affairs and Heritage. Each body allocated about a third of the project budget.

Earlier this year, archaeologists carrying out the Judean Desert cave surveys discovered a rare half-shekel coin minted by the Bar Kochba underground economy.

The cave survey started in 2017 and helped archaeologists discover at least 20 new caves they had not previously known. In 2021, archaeologists announced that one of the caves contained previously undiscovered fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some 60 years after the last pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

Following the discovery of the swords, archaeologists carried out an extensive excavation of the cave, discovering artifacts from the Chalcolithic period (around 6,000 years ago) and the Roman period (around 2,000 years ago). At the entrance to the cave, researchers found a Bar Kochba bronze coin from the time of the revolt that could help pinpoint the dates when the weapons were hidden.

“This is a dramatic and exciting discovery, touching on a specific moment in time,” said Eli Escusido, director of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Noting that not all are aware that the dry climatic conditions in the Judean Desert enable the preservation of artifacts that do not survive in other parts of the country, Escusido called the area a “unique time capsule” where it is possible to find “fragments of scrolls, coins from the Jewish Revolt, leather sandals — and now even swords in their scabbards, sharp as if they had only just been hidden away today.”

By Melanie Lidman.

[eschergirls]

Shay Guy submitted:

"I still use Twitter for some reason, and this popped up in my feed today. C.C.'s tuchus is about half the distance from the "camera" as the small of her back, the proportions of her left arm… uh, exist, and I'm not even sure if that's her right hand or Lelouch's left doing the grabbing on the other side. She's still one boob short of an Escher Girls Triple Crown, though."

It almost looks like she's standing next to him and they're both jointly grabbing a big pair of fake buttocks and legs to hold out to the viewer. xD

And yes, that's almost an Escher Girls Triple Crown* except we see only one breast.  I suppose if she was also in a boobs and butt pose that would be even more horrific but it already looks quite frightening.

Incidentally, I think C.C's right hand is around Lelouch's back and holding his shoulder (you can see her fingers), so that's his hand.

(Ad for Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion, Sunrise)

*boobs, butt, and crotch

[bonefall]

BB!Houndstar

An ancient leader of ShadowClan, who saw Darkstar's Commandment be added to the code following the death of Mapleshade's kittens.

[ID: The Better Bones version of Houndstar. She is a brown-and-white molly with smooth fur and amber eyes. She has a brown hood, fingerless 'gloves,' and cape, a flopped ear, and a beauty spot under her eye. There is a resin star in her claws.]

Clanmew Name: Bayaoshai (Bayao = A gigantic, baying dog + Shai = Star)

Alignment: ShadowClan

Children: Batear, Mousewing

Time Era: Chivalric Period

I just think she's neat!

Houndstar inherited ShadowClan from Marshstar, who was thrust into power when Ripplestar's rebellion ended in disastrous failure. For his entire reign, Marshstar resented the circumstances that gave him power and only did the bare minimum to keep the Clan together. Once the ambitious Houndfang became deputy, he simply allowed her to run things how she pleased.

And when she took power, Houndstar decreed a new age for ShadowClan, one of renewed honor and glory. She became known for being one of the most ferocious leaders in modern memory, launching vicious, brutal attacks on the other Clans and laying claim to anything she could win. Houndstar was a notorious kitten stealer, even claiming two for herself!

So, when Darkstar and Oakstar were commanded by StarClan to amend the Code, that all kits should be protected regardless of their origin, Darkstar knew that Houndstar would be an opponent. The fearsome leader was only cordial at Gatherings, a sacred time of truce.

But in the end, Houndstar's ferocity was only outmatched by her piety. Her tune changed as soon as Redthistle, her loyal cleric, advised her that this truly was the will of StarClan.

Bonus trivia below the cut!

Batear was her son! It did not help him after Palefoot's mysterious disappearance. Houndstar did not need direct evidence, she knew Batear did it.

It was only by the grace of being her child that she offered him the ability to escape exile by telling the Clan where Palefoot's body was.

Unfortunately, he's just as proud and stubborn as his mother.

Houndstar's reign ended about halfway through the Crusade Era, she jumped on board with Oakstar's idea in a heartbeat.

ShadowClan was full of enthusiastic Crusaders, and she herself lost several lives and a deputy in the raids.

She chose Cedarpelt as her third deputy, a practical and organized cat, to run ShadowClan so she could spend more time fighting.

Canon!Houndstar is a tom but I said no. ShadowClan needs more female leaders.

The little resin star is the closest I can get to a valuable in-universe cross. For the record, Clan cats don't have access to true amber (a type of fossil), but they can make resin (which can become amber over a few million years of heat and pressure)

Houndstar owns a few religious items like this.

Mousewing's daughter was Foxheart, whose son was Wolfstep, whose son was Badgerfang. The line named their children after animals, until the horrible death of Badgerfang when Wolfstep decided to end the practice out of grief.

Her flopped ear is actually because of an injury. There's a hole in the middle; it is not a feature she was born with.

I'm unsure of who Mousewing and Batear were stolen from; but I have half a mind to make them the stolen siblings of Perchshine from RiverClan. Darkstar's nespring. More reason for Houndstar to accuse her of just trying to make a commandment for sore losers.

After her death, she's one of ShadowClan's favorite War Patrons. Skystar is more popular across the Clans, but Houndstar is more personal to ShadowClan specifically.

She's also sometimes invoked for faith in StarClan.

[discordiansamba]

was rotating the beta concept for cosmic dust while making dinner and somehow I rotated it too hard and came up with a concept that I basically like to call. oops! all Galra!

(well, except for Allura and Coran)

Keith is half-Altean, half-Galra and grew up on Altea as Allura's childhood friend. His mother Krolia worked as an ambassador to Altea, and ultimately sided with King Alfor over Zarkon. Keith was sealed away in a cryopod alongside Allura and Coran, while Krolia left before Altea's destruction to ensure that a rebellion against Zarkon would remain among his people and founded the Blade of Marmora.

They wake up on their own and have to figure out where to go from here. They know Keith has the potential to fly the red lion, but they'll need to find the rest of the lions and the rest of the paladins if they're going to have any hope of defeating Zarkon. They concentrate on finding the lions first, since perhaps they can use them to find their paladins.

Pidge is a low-ranking Galra working at a work camp for prisoners. She's not fond of the Empire, half because she's a runt and they treat her poorly- ignoring her talents and forcing her to work a terrible job that no one else wants instead. But half because she's used her talents at hacking to see things the Galra Empire doesn't want it's citizenry to see, and she's horrified. She strikes up a small friendship with a human prisoner named Matt, and when rebels come raid the prison, she helps bust him out.

He in turn asks if she wants to come with him- a chance which she seizes. She becomes a rebel, working alongside Matt who gradually becomes like a big brother to her.

(Matt holding up Pidge under the arms: hey mom. hey dad. I adopted a little sister while I was in space. hope you don't mind.)

Hunk is a low ranking Galra foot soldier stationed on a Balmera, but the lifestyle of a Galra soldier has never sat well with him. He's inherently kind, something which the Empire has tried and failed to stamp out. He sneaks extra rations to the Balmerans, doing what little he can for them, even though it's not much.

(Also there's a cute Balmeran girl named Shay he kind of has a crush on? He wishes he could do so much more for her, though...)

Lance is a member of the Blade of Marmora... in training. He has years to go before he can actually have a shot at the trials, even though he's got a burning urge to go out there right now and do something. Understandably, when he meets the literal son of their founder and he turns out to be a hotshot pilot who was personally trained by the Krolia, he feels the brewing of a rivalry.

(Keith still does not notice. Some things never change.)

Shiro was raised to be one of the Galra Empire's elite. He was promoted to Lieutenant at a young age, and served Zarkon loyally- until he was sent was sent on a mission to help locate the four remaining lions. He crash-landed on Earth and lost his memories, but was found by Adam. Without his memories, he became a kinder, gentler person- and falls in love with Adam in the process.

When a second scouting party arrives two years later, he's forced to confront his past- and vows to do better. To be better. He reveals himself to the Galaxy Garrison and works with them to strengthen their defenses. The true purpose of the Kerberos mission was to set up deep space sensors that would alert them of any incoming ships into the system... they were successfully installed, but what a bitter irony it was that they were too late for the Kerberos crew.

[piece-of-the-pie-if]

you've said that most of the ros have some sort of sexual experience, right? can we know what that is? romantic experience too, maybe?

you sure can! marked as not safe to bake for obvious reasons.

The farthest Dylan has gone is a good ol' fashioned snogging/make out session. They technically haven't ever been in a relationship but have had a couple situationships where they didn't put a label on anything. Which means Dyl is a virgin but! they're not innocent and they don't get particularly shy about sex and sexual activity, they just haven't found the person (people?) they feel like they could go all the way with yet. (not without risking friendship anyway)

Shay has had one partner, a girlfriend─gina─ before he moved to the states and they broke up about a year ago. He's not a virgin but he hasn't had the most experience with sex and sexual activity (other than masterbation but that's a different story) so Shay's not exactly the most confident in that particular area! His first kiss was actually with Bennett, his best friend, when they were around thirteen!

It may be a little surprising but Kinsley is actually still a virgin! She's had about five significant others before (four boys and one girl) but she's never had penetrative sex before. She's a little experienced in a few other aspects of sex (like oral or finger/hand play). A couple of her ex boyfriends weren't exactly the kindest and when she wouldn't... "put out" they broke it off with her──she got them back in her own ways though so don't be too worried for her! Kins' longest relationship was for around six months!

J has the most experience... by far. They're a bit of a serial dater and 'player'. It started as their initial rebellion against their father, dating random people, especially people J knew their father would... disapprove of. (which is mostly how they got introduced to the crowd they're apart of right now!) They usually have a casual one night stand hookup when they attend a party. They're not really the romance type of date, not really having a “significant other” for more than a couple weeks at most──they don't like being vulnerable at the best of times and sharing themself so intimately (as in their heart) is terrifying to them.

Theo... Theo has had a (one) partner before. The relationship lasted half a year tops because they were very on-again-off-again. That being said, Theo is very new to most things romantic and sexual, not even having their first real kiss before──and certainly not going farther than that!

[chaneajoyyy]

BLACK PANTHER WRITERS WHO (AND THEIR PAGE) ARE STILL ACTIVE (PART 1)

@impremenior

@blackandfair

@youreallyshouldtalkmore

@blackgirloneshots

@blackmarvelfics

@blackmissfrizzle

@blackpantherimagines

@blackpantherimagine

@blackpantherismyish

@blackpanthersmut/imaginembaku

@blackrainboes (search erik killmonger x reader)

@blacksteel-art

@honeyandpeaches

@brownmuse

@brownsugarcocoabutterwildflowers

@dashhoney25

@muse-of-mbaku

@cocoflowerss

@cecereads209

@cgotwat ***

@cmonkillmonger

@issajuju-bug

@essaysbyciara

@ctrlsznwrites

@curls-and-crosses

@janelledarling

@daddy-killmonger

@dadinhas-heat

@daughterofyeezus

@dc418writes

@desiraypark

@destinio1

@devnicolee

@dramaqueeenamby

@dreamingoftchalla

@elixirtchalla

@dumbchickwrites

@dynastylnoire

@elixirmixer

@cancerianprincess

@erikismybitch

@eriksjournal

@erikftglitter

@erikkilldispussy

@lostgalaxies

@im5ftbutmythroat66

@shyblackgurl

@shay-iamiam

@forbeautyandlife

@uzumaki-rebellion

***IF I MISSED ANYONE PLEASE HIT MY LINE SO I CAN ADD YOU!!!***

[shitpostingkats]

Yu-Gi-Oh Review Roundup: Arc-V!

Favorite main character: Shay Obsidian

Raidraptors slap. Every era of this show has one archetype that makes the twelve year old inside my brain start cheering in adoration, and this time, it’s raidraptors. What can I say. I like birds.

Shay himself also does a whole lot to sell the coolness factor of his mechanical falcons. The blunt, to-the-point, selfassuredness he carries himself with is almost intimidatingly edgelord, but some great voice acting work by Matt Shipman keeps him on the humaner side of anime emos. (Also, if you didn’t know, Matt Shipman, also voice of Reki in SK8 the Infinity, and if you hadn’t made the connection between season one Shay and breakup arc era Reki, I’m sorry that is in your brain now.) 

His design is the wonderful kind of harmonizing amazingly well with his monsters without being overbearing. With all the old fighter plane influence of the raidraptors, it makes perfect sense for Shay to sport his trademark leather trenchcoat that comes complete with the asymmetrical zipper and wide collar of an aviator's jacket. I particularly love the red scarf being the unofficial uniform of the XYZ rebellion, and it going completely unremarked on in the story. It’s clever to see how it’s worked into everyone’s outfit without it being pointed out to the viewer; it’s like an easter egg hunt. On Shay, he wears it in mimicry of a silk flight scarf, another visual nod to WWII pilots. 

And in Shay’s case, it makes perfect sense he would need the outfit of a pilot, because asides from Yuya, he is the one who most routinely rides around on the backs of his monsters. I never get tired of Shay flying onto the scene on a 3,000 pound eagle shaped warmachine, completely nonchalantly. Why is he the only one taking advantage of having his monsters around outside of duels. Let everyone have terrifying monstrosities as their main form of transportation.

Favorite antagonist: Sora Perse

The candy munching warcrime gremlin of all time. While it’s a little weird that Arc-V out the gate started exploring the ramifications of being a card game child soldier, Sora’s arc as he grapples with it is the emotional core of season 1, and it genuinely gets pulled off pretty well. Also, he plays fluffals.

Fluffals is the pitch perfect archetype for Sora. I’ve said before how much I love in yugioh when the cards someone plays tells you more about their character, how I go off the wall when their archetype is a mirror of their personhood. Fluffals is also just great on its own. Perfect yugioh design. Cutesy cuddly monsters that are actually filled with KNIVES and SAWS like they are being dissected by a deranged weird little child. Then the double meaning of fluffals being innocent and adorable, but secretly hiding a darker side, just like Sora. He is constantly switching back and forth between frighteningly competent and “oh my god he’s just a kid”. 

On of my favorite moments in the show is when he and Zuzu reunite and she says farewell by doing the fusion summon salute, only for Sora to jokingly correct her posture. Their friendship is so wholesome okay. Deep down, this kid is genuinely hurt and doesn’t know how to make friends, so he’s reaching out with the only way he knows how, by taking the role of teacher but that's only a facade to get to hang out, and that line is where we first hear them acknowledge it to each other, grins on their faces, happy to still be teacher and student, but also, friends. 

This is in the same stretch of episodes as Sora casually stowing away on a helicopter by jumping fifteen feet into the air and grabbing the wheel well.

Favorite side character: Yugo

I guess they just put a special sauce in the Arc-V blue haired bois.

Why do I list Yugo as a side character? Surely, by virtue of being an au version of the main character, he should be counted with equal narrative status?

Nope! He shows up maybe a dozen times, usually randomly, to yell and crash his motorcycle into things. Then disappears again. I love him.

Yugo has, unlike the other two blue haired bois, this endearing puppy quality that makes every conversation he’s in feel playful and exuberant. And that lends itself well to the few dynamics he does find himself in, whether it’s bouncing off Yuri’s smirky villainy, or having genuinely a more emotionally intelligent discussion with Zuzu about what going on than Yuya ever manages to have with her in the whole series. And while I would have loved to get more time between him and Rin, it’s clear from just a few minutes with him how deeply he cares about her. Winning him the coveted medal of “#1 straight relationship in yugioh I would 100% believe in”. They’re just really sweet. And I would storm the Konami headquarters to get them the happy ending they deserved.

Favorite duel: Shay vs. Sora

They’re my favorites for a reason. 

Shay v. Sora is peak, not only for both characters, but the entire show. It’s certainly in my list of Top 5 Yugioh Duels Ever. Everything about this duel is pure character expression. Shay’s cold and unemotive dueling crashes right up against the peppy dueltaining that Sora has spent the past few weeks learning. At first, Sora doesn’t even seem to take the duel seriously, countering audience expectations that this duel is going to be important. Because we know at this point, that something is up with Sora. That he knows more than he is letting on and this Shay guy is someone who can seriously engage with him about the larger mystery, unlike everyone else who is still in the dark on the dimensional wars.

Then Sora’s slow burn of the facade melting away. All that theatricality can equally double as a dang good yugioh villain performance. The way the duel slides from using its standard duel cinematography to more of a Marik Ishtar unhinged closeup. There is more dramatic tension in the increasing ferocity that Sora chews on his lollipop with than a full fledged horror movie.

On Shay’s side of the duel, we get dramatic monologues of backstory, finally filling in our understanding of the larger plot, delivered by a seriously shaken refugee who is finally able to traumadump about what he and his friends had to live through. It’s chillingly intense, especially contrasted by Sora’s increasing villainous theatricality. While Sora cartwheels and flips around the crumbling city like an acrobat, Shay’s got a utilitarian body language as he dodges debris. He’s not here to put on a show. He is here to survive and get revenge.

And the conclusion. By gods. There’s something haunting about seeing Sora, who has up to this point been laughing and gloating, crack. Not at the thought of being hurt. But at the thought of losing. Of being second best. He screams as Shay walks away, no longer violent and dramatic, but just a broken kid, terrified of receiving a bad grade.

Gods. Good duel.

Favorite arc: Arc league championship

Shay v Sora may be the highlight, but it’s not the only banger duel from that arc. And there’s also a great variety of good duels. From character duels like Julia v. Zuzu, or plot important duels like Sora v Yuto, to just plain fun duels, like Gong v Grizzlepike. And once the finals get going, it’s basically a nonstop duel fest, cutting between a half dozen parties finding eachother and splitting off again, while some duel and others just try to sit down and figure out what on earth is going on. Which shouldn’t work, but it does. 

Listen, if battle city worked the first time, the second time, the third time, and the fourth time, it’ll be good the fifth time. Trust us. We did the math. Now go out and duel in [interesting environment] and wager [this tournament’s gimmick item] on duels until you have [arbitrary number]. 

And hey! The formula works once again! This isn’t sarcasm, I genuinely think this is a great way to make tournament arcs interesting. The citywide split of four biomes allows for some cool backdrops, and every duel being able to happen basically simultaneously means we can simply cut between whatever's most interesting at the moment, instead of having to see every duel start to finish. 

Also, Moonshadow gets introduced in this tournament, and he is the unsung mvp of the entire series.

Greatest strengths of the series: Polish

The Arc League Championship also stands out to me because I was startled by the quality of its episode-to-episode writing. Plot information is slowly revealed on a regular basis, instead of thirty episodes of Shenanigans that’s interrupted by a lore dump. There’s genuine mystery, and intrigue, as we try to figure out what is up with these mystery xyz summoners and Declan’s master plan. And it’s not just scenario writing that’s received a massive punch-up! Dialogue is flowing better than ever, and effects animation is legible and looks awesome, instead of hyper-compressed pixels. Heck, Yuya has a really good looking 3D model, and his eyes aren’t covered by a helmet, and his jacket realistically flutters with his movement!

This may not sound like that big a deal, but the very premise of Arc-V gives us such a clear point of comparison for “How It Started” versus “How It’s Going”. It warmed my little 5Ds adoring heart to see turbo duels back, and rendered in such believable and genuinely excellent modeling. (Though points off for making Jack’s duel runner drive sideways. You guys know it can’t do that.) Aside from a few minor nitpicks, almost everything that made previous shows awesome is lovingly given a fresh coat of paint, from summoning to landscapes. 

And the writing is also pretty good on the au versions of prior characters! I particularly love Actually Not Problematic Celebrity Jack Atlas, the fun writing challenge of taking a character whose story is so deeply rooted in his setting, then trying to figure out what he’d look like without those factors. Happily Married Crow Hogan. Rebellion Leader Alexis Rhodes. Genuinely Lost His Family And Turned Murderhobo About It Kite Tenjo. There’s something so fun about seeing the paths certain characters could have taken, if only their environments had been different. And it’s a far more challenging premise to convincingly pull off than I see it get credit for. On so many levels, yugioh shows, on a purely technical level, have just gotten better as time goes on, and I absolutely adore seeing what each new series manages to perfect.

Weakest points: Scope

Unfortunately, Arc-V just has a lot to juggle. The devotion to quartets means the math spins out of control. incredibly quickly. Four versions of the protagonist, four versions of the female lead, four story arcs in four separate worlds. A handful of cameo appearances for each dimension, but also two to three original characters as well, bloats the main cast to nearly three times that of any previous show. Four different types of playstyles to write, and for characters that use blends of all four, duels four times as complicated in a single turn. Let’s never forget that this is the era that gave us the infamous D/D/D spreadsheet.

Individual moments stand out as excellent, but there simply isn’t enough time for any of them to really shine. All of the characters I’ve stated as loving, Shay, Sora, Yugo, I love in spite of the fact that their stories never really go anywhere. Shay and Yugos’ primary motivations are to find and reunite with their bracelet girls. And they don’t. Sora? After a wonderful bleed from “no morals allowed” to “one moral allowed”, after struggling for almost a season and a half to rationalize his child soldier upbringing, the camera just stops looking at him. And that’s one of the most complete stories Arc-V manages to tell. Even Yuya, our protagonist, ends the series having not confronted anything about his father, or his blatant mental health issues, both things that he is literally introduced with being shockingly core to his character. Very few plotlines are resolved in a satisfying way, if they’re resolved at all.

In the end, I can’t help but feel that Arc-V wrote more ambitious checks than its writing budget could cash. 

Most yugioh moment:

The entire episode where they break out of prison by hosting a talent show. Specifically, the cheer in Yuya’s voice when he says “Good night, FACILITY! <3”

[xinanigans]

I got Shay’s rebellion and Stoner rebellion mixed up wtf

[dailyanarchistposts]

G.3.1 Is “anarcho”-capitalism American anarchism?

Unlike Rothbard, some “anarcho”-capitalists are more than happy to proclaim themselves “individualist anarchists” and so suggest that their notions are identical, or nearly so, with the likes of Tucker, Ingalls and Labadie. As part of this, they tend to stress that individualist anarchism is uniquely American, an indigenous form of anarchism unlike social anarchism. To do so, however, means ignoring not only the many European influences on individualist anarchism itself (most notably, Proudhon) but also downplaying the realities of American capitalism which quickly made social anarchism the dominant form of Anarchism in America. Ironically, such a position is deeply contradictory as “anarcho”-capitalism itself is most heavily influenced by a European ideology, namely “Austrian” economics, which has lead its proponents to reject key aspects of the indigenous American anarchist tradition.

For example, “anarcho”-capitalist Wendy McElroy does this in a short essay provoked by the Seattle protests in 1999. While Canadian, her rampant American nationalism is at odds with the internationalism of the individualist anarchists, stating that after property destruction in Seattle which placed American anarchists back in the media social anarchism “is not American anarchism. Individualist anarchism, the indigenous form of the political philosophy, stands in rigorous opposition to attacking the person or property of individuals.” Like an ideological protectionist, she argued that “Left [sic!] anarchism (socialist and communist) are foreign imports that flooded the country like cheap goods during the 19th century.” [Anarchism: Two Kinds] Apparently Albert and Lucy Parsons were un-Americans, as was Voltairine de Cleyre who turned from individualist to communist anarchism. And best not mention the social conditions in America which quickly made communist-anarchism predominant in the movement or that individualist anarchists like Tucker proudly proclaimed their ideas socialist!

She argued that ”[m]any of these anarchists (especially those escaping Russia) introduced lamentable traits into American radicalism” such as “propaganda by deed” as well as a class analysis which “divided society into economic classes that were at war with each other.” Taking the issue of “propaganda by the deed” first, it should be noted that use of violence against person or property was hardly alien to American traditions. The Boston Tea Party was just as “lamentable” an attack on “property of individuals” as the window breaking at Seattle while the revolution and revolutionary war were hardly fought using pacifist methods or respecting the “person or property of individuals” who supported imperialist Britain. Similarly, the struggle against slavery was not conducted purely by means Quakers would have supported (John Brown springs to mind), nor was (to use just one example) Shay’s rebellion. So “attacking the person or property of individuals” was hardly alien to American radicalism and so was definitely not imported by “foreign” anarchists.

Of course, anarchism in American became associated with terrorism (or “propaganda by the deed”) due to the Haymarket events of 1886 and Berkman’s assassination attempt against Frick during the Homestead strike. Significantly, McElroy makes no mention of the substantial state and employer violence which provoked many anarchists to advocate violence in self-defence. For example, the great strike of 1877 saw the police opened fire on strikers on July 25th, killing five and injuring many more. “For several days, meetings of workmen were broken up by the police, who again and again interfered with the rights of free speech and assembly.” The Chicago Times called for the use of hand grenades against strikers and state troops were called in, killing a dozen strikers. “In two days of fighting, between 25 and 50 civilians had been killed, some 200 seriously injured, and between 300 and 400 arrested. Not a single policeman or soldier had lost his life.” This context explains why many workers, including those in reformist trade unions as well as anarchist groups like the IWPA, turned to armed self-defence (“violence”). The Haymarket meeting itself was organised in response to the police firing on strikers and killing at least two. The Haymarket bomb was thrown after the police tried to break-up a peaceful meeting by force: “It is clear then that … it was the police and not the anarchists who were the perpetrators of the violence at the Haymarket.” All but one of the deaths and most of the injuries were caused by the police firing indiscriminately in the panic after the explosion. [Paul Avrich, The Maymarket Tragedy, pp. 32–4, p. 189, p. 210, and pp. 208–9] As for Berkman’s assassination attempt, this was provoked by the employer’s Pinkerton police opening fire on strikers, killing and wounding many. [Emma Goldman, Living My Life, vol. 1, p. 86]

In other words, it was not foreign anarchists or alien ideas which associated anarchism with violence but, rather, the reality of American capitalism. As historian Eugenia C. Delamotte puts it, “the view that anarchism stood for violence … spread rapidly in the mainstream press from the 1870s” because of “the use of violence against strikers and demonstrators in the labour agitation that marked these decades — struggles for the eight-hour day, better wages, and the right to unionise, for example. Police, militia, and private security guards harassed, intimidated, bludgeoned, and shot workers routinely in conflicts that were just as routinely portrayed in the media as worker violence rather than state violence; labour activists were also subject to brutal attacks, threats of lynching, and many other forms of physical assault and intimidation … the question of how to respond to such violence became a critical issue in the 1870s, with the upswelling of labour agitation and attempts to suppress it violently.” [Voltairine de Cleyre and the Revolution of the Mind, pp. 51–2]

Joseph Labadie, it should be noted, thought the “Beastly police” got what they deserved at Haymarket as they had attempted to break up a peaceful public meeting and such people should “go at the peril of their lives. If it is necessary to use dynamite to protect the rights of free meeting, free press and free speech, then the sooner we learn its manufacture and use … the better it will be for the toilers of the world.” The radical paper he was involved in, the Labor Leaf, had previously argued that “should trouble come, the capitalists will use the regular army and militia to shoot down those who are not satisfied. It won’t be so if the people are equally ready.” Even reformist unions were arming themselves to protect themselves, with many workers applauding their attempts to organise union militias. As worker put it, ”[w]ith union men well armed and accustomed to military tactics, we could keep Pinkerton’s men at a distance … Employers would think twice, too, before they attempted to use troops against us … Every union ought to have its company of sharpshooters.” [quoted by Richard Jules Oestreicher, Solidarity and Fragmentation, p. 200 and p. 135]

While the violent rhetoric of the Chicago anarchists was used at their trial and is remembered (in part because enemies of anarchism take great glee in repeating it), the state and employer violence which provoked it has been forgotten or ignored. Unless this is mentioned, a seriously distorted picture of both communist-anarchism and capitalism are created. It is significant, of course, that while the words of the Martyrs are taken as evidence of anarchism’s violent nature, the actual violence (up to and including murder) against strikers by state and private police apparently tells us nothing about the nature of the state or capitalist system (Ward Churchill presents an excellent summary such activities in his article “From the Pinkertons to the PATRIOT Act: The Trajectory of Political Policing in the United States, 1870 to the Present” [CR: The New Centennial Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–72]).

So, as can be seen, McElroy distorts the context of anarchist violence by utterly ignoring the far worse capitalist violence which provoked it. Like more obvious statists, she demonises the resistance to the oppressed while ignoring that of the oppressor. Equally, it should also be noted Tucker rejected violent methods to end class oppression not out of principle, but rather strategy as there “was no doubt in his mind as to the righteousness of resistance to oppression by recourse to violence, but his concern now was with its expedience … he was absolutely convinced that the desired social revolution would be possible only through the utility of peaceful propaganda and passive resistance.” [James J. Martin, Men Against the State, p. 225] For Tucker “as long as freedom of speech and of the press is not struck down, there should be no resort to physical force in the struggle against oppression.” [quoted by Morgan Edwards, “Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty & the Strategy of Anarchism”, pp. 65–91, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 67] Nor should we forget that Spooner’s rhetoric could be as blood-thirsty as Johann Most’s at times and that American individualist anarchist Dyer Lum was an advocate of insurrection.

As far as class analysis does, which “divided society into economic classes that were at war with each other”, it can be seen that the “left” anarchists were simply acknowledging the reality of the situation — as did, it must be stressed, the individualist anarchists. As we noted in section G.1, the individualist anarchists were well aware that there was a class war going on, one in which the capitalist class used the state to ensure its position (the individualist anarchist “knows very well that the present State is an historical development, that it is simply the tool of the property-owning class; he knows that primitive accumulation began through robbery bold and daring, and that the freebooters then organised the State in its present form for their own self-preservation.” [A.H. Simpson, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 92]). Thus workers had a right to a genuinely free market for ”[i]f the man with labour to sell has not this free market, then his liberty is violated and his property virtually taken from him. Now, such a market has constantly been denied … to labourers of the entire civilised world. And the men who have denied it are … Capitalists … [who] have placed and kept on the statue-books all sorts of prohibitions and taxes designed to limit and effective in limiting the number of bidders for the labour of those who have labour to sell.” [Instead of a Book, p. 454] For Joshua King Ingalls, ”[i]n any question as between the worker and the holder of privilege, [the state] is certain to throw itself into the scale with the latter, for it is itself the source of privilege, the creator of class rule.” [quoted by Bowman N. Hall, “Joshua K. Ingalls, American Individualist: Land Reformer, Opponent of Henry George and Advocate of Land Leasing, Now an Established Mode,” pp. 383–96, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 4, p. 292] Ultimately, the state was “a police force to regulate the people in the interests of the plutocracy.” [Ingalls, quoted by Martin, Op. Cit., p. 152]

Discussing Henry Frick, manager of the Homestead steelworkers who was shot by Berkman for using violence against striking workers, Tucker noted that Frick did not “aspire, as I do, to live in a society of mutually helpful equals” but rather it was “his determination to live in luxury produced by the toil and suffering of men whose necks are under his heel. He has deliberately chosen to live on terms of hostility with the greater part of the human race.” While opposing Berkman’s act, Tucker believed that he was “a man with whom I have much in common, — much more at any rate than with such a man as Frick.” Berkman “would like to live on terms of equality with his fellows, doing his share of work for not more than his share of pay.” [The Individualist Anarchists, pp. 307–8] Clearly, Tucker was well aware of the class struggle and why, while not supporting such actions, violence occurred when fighting it.

As Victor Yarros summarised, for the individualist anarchists the “State is the servant of the robbers, and it exists chiefly to prevent the expropriation of the robbers and the restoration of a free and fair field for legitimate competition and wholesome, effective voluntary cooperation.” [“Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse”, pp. 470–483, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 475] For “anarcho”-capitalists, the state exploits all classes subject to it (perhaps the rich most, by means of taxation to fund welfare programmes and legal support for union rights and strikes).

So when McElroy states that, “Individualist anarchism rejects the State because it is the institutionalisation of force against peaceful individuals”, she is only partly correct. While it may be true for “anarcho”-capitalism, it fails to note that for the individualist anarchists the modern state was the institutionalisation of force by the capitalist class to deny the working class a free market. The individualist anarchists, in other words, like social anarchists also rejected the state because it imposed certain class monopolies and class legislation which ensured the exploitation of labour by capital — a significant omission on McElroy’s part. “Can it be soberly pretended for a moment that the State … is purely a defensive institution?” asked Tucker. “Surely not … you will find that a good nine-tenths of existing legislation serves … either to prescribe the individual’s personal habits, or, worse still, to create and sustain commercial, industrial, financial, and proprietary monopolies which deprive labour of a large part of the reward that it would receive in a perfectly free market.” [Tucker, Instead of a Book, pp. 25–6] In fact:

“As long as a portion of the products of labour are appropriated for the payment of fat salaries to useless officials and big dividends to idle stockholders, labour is entitled to consider itself defrauded, and all just men will sympathise with its protest.” [Tucker, Liberty, no. 19, p. 1]

It goes without saying that almost all “anarcho”-capitalists follow Rothbard in being totally opposed to labour unions, strikes and other forms of working class protest. As such, the individualist anarchists, just as much as the “left” anarchists McElroy is so keen to disassociate them from, argued that ”[t]hose who made a profit from buying or selling were class criminals and their customers or employees were class victims. It did not matter if the exchanges were voluntary ones. Thus, left anarchists hated the free market as deeply as they hated the State.” [McElroy, Op. Cit.] Yet, as any individualist anarchist of the time would have told her, the “free market” did not exist because the capitalist class used the state to oppress the working class and reduce the options available to choose from so allowing the exploitation of labour to occur. Class analysis, in other words, was not limited to “foreign” anarchism, nor was the notion that making a profit was a form of exploitation (usury). As Tucker continually stressed: “Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour.” [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 157]

It should also be noted that the “left” anarchist opposition to the individualist anarchist “free market” is due to an analysis which argues that it will not, in fact, result in the anarchist aim of ending exploitation nor will it maximise individual freedom (see section G.4). We do not “hate” the free market, rather we love individual liberty and seek the best kind of society to ensure free people. By concentrating on markets being free, “anarcho”-capitalism ensures that it is wilfully blind to the freedom-destroying similarities between capitalist property and the state (as we discussed in section F.1). An analysis which many individualist anarchists recognised, with the likes of Dyer Lum seeing that replacing the authority of the state with that of the boss was no great improvement in terms of freedom and so advocating co-operative workplaces to abolish wage slavery. Equally, in terms of land ownership the individualist anarchists opposed any voluntary exchanges which violated “occupancy and use” and so they, so, “hated the free market as deeply as they hated the State.” Or, more correctly, they recognised that voluntary exchanges can result in concentrations of wealth and so power which made a mockery of individual freedom. In other words, that while the market may be free the individuals within it would not be.

McElroy partly admits this, saying that “the two schools of anarchism had enough in common to shake hands when they first met. To some degree, they spoke a mutual language. For example, they both reviled the State and denounced capitalism. But, by the latter, individualist anarchists meant ‘state-capitalism’ the alliance of government and business.” Yet this “alliance of government and business” has been the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed. They were well aware that such an alliance made the capitalist system what it was, i.e., a system based on the exploitation of labour. William Bailie, in an article entitled “The Rule of the Monopolists” simply repeated the standard socialist analysis of the state when he talked about the “gigantic monopolies, which control not only our industry, but all the machinery of the State, — legislative, judicial, executive, — together with school, college, press, and pulpit.” Thus the “preponderance in the number of injunctions against striking, boycotting, and agitating, compared with the number against locking-out, blacklisting, and the employment of armed mercenaries.” The courts could not ensure justice because of the “subserviency of the judiciary to the capitalist class … and the nature of the reward in store for the accommodating judge.” Government “is the instrument by means of which the monopolist maintains his supremacy” as the law-makers “enact what he desires; the judiciary interprets his will; the executive is his submissive agent; the military arm exists in reality to defend his country, protect his property, and suppress his enemies, the workers on strike.” Ultimately, “when the producer no longer obeys the State, his economic master will have lost his power.” [Liberty, no. 368, p. 4 and p. 5] Little wonder, then, that the individualist anarchists thought that the end of the state and the class monopolies it enforces would produce a radically different society rather than one essentially similar to the current one but without taxes. Their support for the “free market” implied the end of capitalism and its replacement with a new social system, one which would end the exploitation of labour.

She herself admits, in a roundabout way, that “anarcho”-capitalism is significantly different that individualist anarchism. “The schism between the two forms of anarchism has deepened with time,” she asserts. This was ”[l]argely due to the path breaking work of Murray Rothbard” and so, unlike genuine individualist anarchism, the new “individualist anarchism” (i.e., “anarcho”-capitalism) “is no longer inherently suspicious of profit-making practices, such as charging interest. Indeed, it embraces the free market as the voluntary vehicle of economic exchange” (does this mean that the old version of it did not, in fact, embrace “the free market” after all?) This is because it “draws increasingly upon the work of Austrian economists such as Mises and Hayek” and so “it draws increasingly farther away from left anarchism” and, she fails to note, the likes of Warren and Tucker. As such, it would be churlish to note that “Austrian” economics was even more of a “foreign import” much at odds with American anarchist traditions as communist anarchism, but we will! After all, Rothbard’s support of usury (interest, rent and profit) would be unlikely to find much support from someone who looked forward to the development of “an attitude of hostility to usury, in any form, which will ultimately cause any person who charges more than cost for any product to be regarded very much as we now regard a pickpocket.” [Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 155] Nor, as noted above, would Rothbard’s support for an “Archist” (capitalist) land ownership system have won him anything but dismissal nor would his judge, jurist and lawyer driven political system have been seen as anything other than rule by the few rather than rule by none.

Ultimately, it is a case of influences and the kind of socio-political analysis and aims it inspires. Unsurprisingly, the main influences in individualist anarchism came from social movements and protests. Thus poverty-stricken farmers and labour unions seeking monetary and land reform to ease their position and subservience to capital all plainly played their part in shaping the theory, as did the Single-Tax ideas of Henry George and the radical critiques of capitalism provided by Proudhon and Marx. In contrast, “anarcho”-capitalism’s major (indeed, predominant) influence is “Austrian” economists, an ideology developed (in part) to provide intellectual support against such movements and their proposals for reform. As we will discuss in the next section, this explains the quite fundamental differences between the two systems for all the attempts of “anarcho”-capitalists to appropriate the legacy of the likes of Tucker.

[geekcavepodcast]

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver Teaser

Kora and the surviving warriors "prepare to sacrifice everything, fighting alongside the brave people of Veldt, to defend a once peaceful village, a newfound homeland for those who have lost their own in the fight against the Motherworld. On the eve of their battle the warriors must face the truths of their own pasts, each revealing why they fight. As the full force of the Realm bears down on the burgeoning rebellion, unbreakable bonds are forged, heroes emerge, and legends are made." (Netflix)

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver stars Sofia Boutella (Kora), Djimon Hounsou (Titus), and Ed Skrein (Atticus Noble). Zack Snyder directs from a screenplay by Snyder, Shay Hatten, and Kurt Johnstad.

Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver hits Netflix on April 19, 2024.