The Scouring Of The Shire: How Dispossessed English And French Normandy Peasants Rebuilt The Shire In The New World

Screen shot 2014-11-29 at 7.41.38 AM

Agriculture — Per Square Mile: medieval strip farms transplanted into the New World by dispossessed European farmers.


This is rarely taught in American schools today: the series of revolutions and uprisings that swept the English countryside and how the freeing of the serfs led to them creating their own insular political system called ‘shires’.  The concept of a shire is very, very old and predates the Norman Conquest.  The Normans were few in number and quickly figured out how to exploit the shire concept and this is how the Normans moved wide and far, taking over things via the shire system.  Often this could be a bloody business as the old shire masters fought heroically back and this is where Robin Hood legends come from.  We should get rid of local policing. Ferguson shows why the system just doesn’t work. – The Washington Post is an editorial that claims the only way to run America is the Russian Czar system which Jewish immigrants are most familiar with and I say, as the daughter of the English system, this is a terrible solution!



Mr. Sunil Dutta is a former LA cop who comes from India which was ruled first by Moguls and then by British Imperialists and so he thinks a top down rule with a ruler at the center dictating local rule is ideal.


Issues of unprofessional and inefficient policing are rooted in our decentralized approach to policing, allowing some local departments to get away with subpar officer training, shoddy practices and corruption. This fossilized and inefficient system needs to be thrown out. Instead, policing should be managed at the state level, which would provide for higher-quality law enforcement and more oversight.


Law enforcement in the United States is disturbingly fragmented.


My ancestors who brought this ‘disturbing’ system to the New World did this quite deliberately and for extremely good reasons.  I know from personal family tales, all sorts of fun stories about fighting the Crown even one of my ancestors voted in Parliament to behead the King!  Actually, this is why they came to the New World which was a howling wilderness back then when the King’s relatives took over again and banished my family as troublemakers.  Aka, Puritans.


Right now, Thanksgiving is being attacked by the left as an evil holiday due to my ancestors coming here.  You all can imagine how I feel about all this.  All nations on earth without exception are the result of wars, invasions, uprisings, aggression of all sorts from day one, that is, when the crazy apes in Africa picked up rocks and began chipping them into weapons.


Why is the US and Canada both quite different from Central and South America?  The answer is obvious to me: the English shire system which rose to its greatest power, is the fundamental basis of the US/Canadian political systems.  From top to bottom.  This system has been badly warped by heavy immigration from 1870 to today and population growth which has made many former shires into unwieldy cities.


Before discussing this further:  Shire – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In Britain, “shire” is the original term for what is usually known now as a county; the word county having been introduced at the Norman Conquest of England. The two are synonymous. Although in modern British usage counties are referred to as “shires” mainly in poetic contexts, terms such as Shire Hall remain common. Shire also remains a common part of many county names.


The word derives from the Old English scir, itself a derivative of the Proto-Germanic skizo (cf. Old High German scira), meaning care or official charge.[1] The system was first used in Wessex from the beginning of Anglo-Saxon settlement, and spread to most of the rest of England in the tenth century, along with West Saxon political control. In Domesday (1086) the city of York was divided into shires.[2] The first shires of Scotland were created in English-settled areas such as Lothian and the Borders, in the ninth century. King David I more consistently created shires and appointed sheriffs across lowland shores of Scotland.


The shire in early days was governed by an Ealdorman and in the later Anglo-Saxon period by royal official known as a “shire reeve” or sheriff. The shires were divided into hundreds or wapentakes, although other less common sub-divisions existed. An alternative name for a shire was a “sheriffdom” until sheriff court reforms separated the two concepts. In Scotland the word “county” was not adopted for the shires. Although “county” appears in some texts, “shire” was the normal name until counties for statutory purposes were created in the nineteenth century.


My ancestors were often these, that is, the elder son got the castle and ride to London to vote in the Parliament , the second son got this job: SHERIFF while the youngest went into the Church.  All the Norman families including the royals had this internal family rule.  No estate was allowed to be divided between sons.  And if there was no son, the daughter inherited the estate and huge wars were fought over who got to marry her.


Historian W. Morris wrote that “the office of Sheriff is one of the most familiar and most useful to be found in the history of English institutions…….with the single exception of kingship, no secular dignity now known to English-speaking people is older. Author Walter H. Anderson wrote that “The office of the Sheriff is one of antiquity”. Anderson went on to say that the office of Sheriff “is the oldest law enforcement office known within the common-law system and it has always been accorded great dignity and high trust”.


One of the best things about the Norman invasion was the fact that there were so few Normans, they had to spread themselves very thin and unlike at the top, they also intermarried with the Saxon women a great deal.  They spread everywhere and had to live very close to their serfs unlike many great estates in Europe with the nobility living apart from the peasants.  Particularly the second and third sons lived very, very close to the peasants because of the singular primogenitor rules of the Normans.


Ironically, this meant that Norman/Saxon sons raised by their mothers and grandmothers often were champions of the serfs thanks to sending some to the Church.  My own family has this rule: do NOT irritate the serfs or they will turn on you and not support you when you have to fight someone (erg…the KING!) or go overseas to fight others.  Happy serfs are safe serfs!


Serfs are workers.  Getting the serfs to cooperate was highly important.  Stupid estate owners abused their serfs.  Smart ones protected and rewarded their serfs and enjoyed perfect safety at home and were strongholds not oppression points.  The proud Welsh who were not conquered by the Saxons, resisted the Normans to the bitter end and were abused all the way until modern times and the wilder Scots did the same but guess who William Wallace of Scottish fame was most likely a Welsh family!  Who fled to Scotland and became rich.


…in 1215 a group of former Sheriff’s, barons and others banded together and wrote the Magna Carta. Latin for “Great Charter”. This group of noblemen rebelled against King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, bringing a more orderly and diplomatic rule to England. This document became a guideline for which the British and American governments were to proliferate their power. 27 of the 63 clauses of the Magna Carta specifically mention the duties or authority of the Sheriff.


It is believed that the term “Sheriff” is derived from the old English reference to “Shire reeve”. A “Shire”, was a banded group of one hundred families. A “garefa”, or Chief was a person in charge of ten families. The term “garefa” later became “reeve” in the Saxon language. When bands of one hundred families joined to form Shires or Counties, the term “Shire Reeve” was used to distinguish the difference between those in charge of the mere ten families, from those responsible for the whole Shire.


The responsibilities of the “Shire-reeve” included maintaining order and the law of the land. Another duty of the Shire-reeve included the “Hue and Cry”. The “Hue and Cry” made every citizen within ear shot of the Shire-reeve lawfully obligated to respond and form a “posse-commitatas”. The “posse-commitatas” would band together for the purpose of apprehending criminals. The term posse commitatas translates to “the power of the county”. That term was later shortened to “posse”.


Two of my ancestral families were at Runnymeade and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta.  Hue and cry only works when the serfs respond.  They could be quite mischievous and pretend to pursue but really to assist the one fleeing.  So, to keep them on one’s side meant to not be utterly vicious towards the serfs.  Over time, serfs were allowed to own more and more land and the curious condition of the English countryside where there are many long narrow strips tilled by farmers was due to buying and selling these plow lands to each other and a serf could turn into ‘landed property owner’ this way and thus, apply to be a sheriff or reeve!


Then they were no longer called ‘serfs’.  These people who moved out of tyranny to independent landowners are the backbone of modern democracy.  The lord in the castle, if he was smart, would consult with them about political matters and represent them in Parliament to some small degree.  Periodic peasant revolts showed the need to listen to the peassants lest they get out of hand.


When the New World was discovered, a terrible thing happened in England: landowners of the feudal estates discovered they could make huge profits from selling wool to Europe.  So they kicked out nearly ALL the serfs who were not landowners!  This army of dispossessed were forced into cities and to the New World due to the  Enclosure laws in Britain.  All of the ‘beautiful rural landscape’ of modern England is actually former farmland and villages turned into grasslands by ruthless landowners who became very rich this way and built those immense palaces in the countryside like the one in  Downton Abbey.


The many dispossessed came to the New World. Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I – Chapter Twenty-Seven by Karl Marx (yes, he was a fine historian):


The prelude of the revolution that laid the foundation of the capitalist mode of production, was played in the last third of the 15th, and the first decade of the 16th century. A mass of free proletarians was hurled on the labour market by the breaking-up of the bands of feudal retainers, who, as Sir James Steuart well says, “everywhere uselessly filled house and castle.”


Although the royal power, itself a product of bourgeois development, in its strife after absolute sovereignty forcibly hastened on the dissolution of these bands of retainers, it was by no means the sole cause of it. In insolent conflict with king and parliament, the great feudal lords created an incomparably larger proletariat by the forcible driving of the peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same feudal right as the lord himself, and by the usurpation of the common lands. The rapid rise of the Flemish wool manufactures, and the corresponding rise in the price of wool in England, gave the direct impulse to these evictions. The old nobility had been devoured by the great feudal wars.


The new nobility was the child of its time, for which money was the power of all powers. Transformation of arable land into sheep-walks was, therefore, its cry. Harrison, in his “Description of England, prefixed to Holinshed’s Chronicles,” describes how the expropriation of small peasants is ruining the country. “What care our great encroachers?” The dwellings of the peasants and the cottages of the labourers were razed to the ground or doomed to decay. “If,” says Harrison, “the old records of euerie manour be sought… it will soon appear that in some manour seventeene, eighteene, or twentie houses are shrunk… that England was neuer less furnished with people than at the present… Of cities and townes either utterly decaied or more than a quarter or half diminished, though some one be a little increased here or there; of townes pulled downe for sheepe-walks, and no more but the lordships now standing in them… I could saie somewhat.”


Anger about losing their lands which were LEASED to farmers who basically thought they OWNED this land due to holding it for generations, these were not ‘serfs’ being despoiled, they were peasant land renters.  So…when they came here, they wrote laws that made it totally clear who owned the land: themselves from the sky above to the center of the earth.  My property is such.  I own all the way down to the earth’s core!  At least, if I can enforce this and this is where the sheriff comes in: originally, these sheriffs were myself and my family and anyone else who owned land.


They protected our property rights.  My airspace was stolen from me and my kin via fiat from DC when they realized they had no right to fly planes over my home.  This is a serious business because one of my previous homes was first eradicated by the city of Tucson for a parking lot and then a military jet slammed into it.  My brownstone in NYC was two houses away from where two planes collided and fell and burned the houses down.


These landholding peasants were called ‘yeomanry’ and the famous Beefeaters of the Queen are also called the Yeomen of the Guard because this used to reflect their high position relative to serfs.  By the beginning of the 19th century they were gone, wiped out by the change to sheep farming by the nobility.


My own farm here in America reflects this history.  I used to have a fair sized herd of sheep that grazed on my pastures.  I made $200 per head.  Suddenly, Clinton signed that stupid free trade bill and a flood of sheep goods poured into the US.  The price of my sheep plummeted to $50 a head!  The sheep commune I belonged to used to have all sorts of activities and we did business with each other and sent representatives to lobby for us and all was swept aside brutally by the imperialists in DC.


We used to have many sheep owners here in upstate NY.  Now, there are nearly NONE.  Wiped out by government fiat!  Free trade made the rich, richer.  And it nearly destroyed those of us who did business with each other here at home.  Now, everyone buys foreign goods.  We went form a balanced budget economy to a deep in debt trade economy that is decimating our nation relentlessly.


Now, worker’s wages are collapsing.  A flood of dispossessed peasants from Asia and the rest of the New World and Europe and Africa are pouring in making it worse and worse.  Everyone is growing more and more violent and irrational and the lovely vision of the Shire is under assault from all sides.  Tolkien wrote about this with his Lord of the Rings books.  He had the Hobbits help Aragorn to win a throne but what did the new King do?


He went to the Hobbits and said he would protect them but otherwise, keep his nose out of their local affairs.  But no king ever keeps this promise!  Alas, no.  They always come in one way or another and destroy everything.  Just like the free trade deal where I had zero say and which Americans voted to NOT happen but rich lobbyists made it happen.


The problem isn’t our police are mean and brutal.  It is that our nation is filled with serfs the rulers no longer want or need.  You see, once a serf (illegal alien) becomes a ‘citizen’ their value to the rulers crashes to near zero.  And they need new serfs to replace the old ones who must lose all the value of land and be shoved into cities and then…kill each other.  Heed my warning here:








sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



209 Greenhollow Rd

Petersburgh, NY 12138

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.


sunset borger


Filed under Politics

35 responses to “The Scouring Of The Shire: How Dispossessed English And French Normandy Peasants Rebuilt The Shire In The New World

  1. CK

    Clear concise and accurate.
    Thank you EMS for a superb article.

  2. Jim R

    They hang the man and flog the woman
    That steal a goose from off the common,
    But leave the greater villan loose
    That steals the common from the goose!

  3. Ken

    The underlying theme to wanting to nationalize the police force is to continue the trend to give more and more power to the central government. Plain and simple. The Constitution could not be clearer about the limited role of the central government. However, over time more and more power is grabbed by Washington. Now they are in charge of multiple subjects which the founding fathers presumed would always be handled locally, such as the environment, education, marriage, abortion, etc. Seeking to remove the police from local control is just another step in the process.

    I also should point out that it is invariably liberals who favor greater centralized government. Yet Elaine claims to be a liberal and is still in favor of local control. Where is the cognitive dissonance?

  4. Jim R

    Ken, I would venture a guess that the cognitive dissonance is in your own head.

    Centralized government and militarized police are right-wing notions.

  5. Pontiff Holysh*t

    @ # 3

    You may be right about the founding fathers, but they did not get the last word on the Constitution.

    There was a major change between 1865-1870, when it became clear that “local control” was no panacea when it came to securing “liberty and justice for all”.

  6. Christian W

    Speaking of farming. In an indirect way the Finns have had a quite profound impact on US history too.

    Part I

    When William Penn came to Delaware there were already Dutch and Swedish and Finnish settlements there. Finland was part of Sweden at this time and the Swedes had discovered that the Finns were superb woodsmen, hunters, fishers and farmers, so they encouraged them to move to parts of Sweden to break up new land, using slash and burn, and over time turn it from forest to fields.

    Some of these Finns emigrated to the Swedish colony in Delaware. The fun part is that these since Finns weren’t exactly Christian (they were of course in touch with nature) and such excellent woodsmen, they got along swimmingly with the local Indians (the Lenape tribe) so much so that the Lenape people called the Finns “niitappi” – meaning “friend”, “fellow tribesmen” or “those who are like us”. There was a lot of intermarriage between the Lenape and the Swedes/Finns. One Finn even became a chief of a Lenape tribe after he was kidnapped as a child, something the Indians were known to do if they had lost a child of their own.

    Settlers who arrived in the Delaware Valley after 1680 thought that the Indians had intermarried with Swedes and Finns. “The savages and our Swedes are like one people” an observer noted, while another reported that “the Swedes themselves are accused, that they are already half Indians, when the English arrived in the year 1682.”

    When large numbers of English settlers arrived during the 1670’s and 1680’s, many with William Penn, the Delaware Valley landscape altered significantly. In West Jersy ,the Unami sold their territory along the east bank of the Delaware to the Quakers and helped them adust to the land.

    Mary Murfin Smith, who emigrated as a child in 1678, later recounted “that the Indians, very numerous but very civil, for the most part brought corn and venison and sold [them to] the English for such things as they needed.”
    Soon after, many of the natives died of smallpox; in Mary Smith’s account, “God’s Providence made room for us in a wonderful manner in taking away the Indians. There came a distemper among them so mortal that they could not bury all their dead. Others went away, leaving their town”.

    Is there any wonder that the Lenape called these other Europeans “senaares” meaning “alien”.

    Anyway. Of all the European immigrants, only the Savo-Karelians were well adapted to settling the frontier. These Finns were the few remaining Europeans who had maintained a migratory life-style for several hundred years before reaching America. Almost all of the European core groups, the English, German, Dutch, and French had lost the right to bear arms a long time before they reached the New World. [Hm, I see why modern Americans obsess about the right to bear arms :)] Even the Scotch-Irish had stopped hunting before their migration. The Finns and some Swedes were the last of the northern Europeans to hunt and the Savo-Karelians specialized in the long hunt.

  7. JimmyJ

    It’s not just that illegal aliens are serfs, it’s all labourers, technicians etc who’s work can be exported. They don’t have to be evicted if they are made obsolete in situ.

    So far ignoring or arresting and incarcerating the meddlers is working but once the numbers get high enough a more expedient method will arise.

    Eventually troublemakers will have to be killed off so as not to offer significant resistance. Lack of jobs, medicine, food is a modest start to increase mortality but eventually it will have to be some sort of mass extermination. Nuclear war would be one option but it’s a tricky, dangerous tool. Another option is something like Nazi death camps. My bet is death camps but not aligned by race rather simply arbitrary selection so as to sew maximum terror.

  8. Being There

    I think NYC is extremely important to the plutocracy. I hope you all will catch Bill Moyers on PBS to see:

    The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy.
    [“The real estate industry here in New York City is like the oil industry in Texas,” affordable housing advocate Jaron Benjamin says, “They outspend everybody… They often have a much better relationship with elected officials than everyday New Yorkers do.” Meanwhile, fewer and fewer middle and working class people can afford to live in New York City. As Benjamin puts it, “Forget about the Statue of Liberty. Forget about Ellis Island. Forget about the idea of everybody being welcome here in New York City. This will be a city only for rich people.”]…/full-show-long-dark-shadows-plutocracy

  9. Christian W

    1 person in 35 in London is a £ millionaire. Ordinary Brits are getting priced out of London as well. New York and London. Wall Street and the City.

  10. melponeme_k

    Yeah, you would think they would rather die than give up important port towns like New York. But you also have to remember in very recent history, as in our own lifetimes, they let New York burn. Most of the Bronx, parts of Brooklyn and Queens were war zones. The subway system was a no man’s land after rush hour. 42nd Street and the surrounding area was a red light prostitution district. And the rich did not care. Elaine is right they would let New York burn again.

    The elite don’t think of themselves as citizens of nations, states or cities. They only value wherever they put their ugly compounds which they call homes.

  11. Christian W

    Part II

    The influence of Finns continued:

    Swedes and Finns, the first Pioneers

    “The Finns took their slash and burn agriculture and by adding some Indian techniques adapted it to the temperate forests. A family would move to a new location and clear all of the trees under about 16 inches and girdling the larger trees—stripping off a ring of bark to kill them. The first year all of the smaller trees and brush were burned. Spreading the ashes produced fertilizer for instantly productive farmland. The second year, the larger trees were burned making the fields productive fields for an additional 3-5 years. The crops of the Finns grew well but for less than a decade before they had to move on. They often moved before that time. They had restless feet. It was said that if you could hear your neighbor’s dog bark or see the smoke from his chimney, it was time to move on.

    Though Indian corn was their main crop, some rye, squash, pumpkins, cucumbers and turnips were also grown. The crops were planted between the stumps, often in hoed-up mounds. The fields were fenced in with crude worm fences and open range herding of pigs was common. Pigs bred more rapidly then cattle and could thrive even unattended in the woods. The pigs quickly lost most of their domestication, becoming feral and during the butchering season, which occurred after the first frost, they had to be shot like wild game. The meat was preserved by smoking.
    During the fall and winter men and boys went on long hunts, traveling often a hundred miles for skins and pelts. These long hunts provided scouting trips for their next settlement and these emerging backwoodsmen often chose new settlements 20 to 100 miles from the old ones.

    The Finns did not achieve what cultural geographers call the first effective settlement because their economy was self-destructive and forced them to migrate. There were not enough Finns to settle the vast country but they were to take on proteges who would learn their style and carry it into the wilderness. This group was the Scotch-Irish or more correctly the Anglo/ Scots-Irish of the border culture or Border Reivers who settled in Pennsylvania.

    The border culture developed along the embattled border between Scotland and England over a long period. Their culture, (which I will describe in a subsequent post) fit well with that of the Finns and Indians. When many were displaced from their homeland to Ireland, they soon found their leases overbearing (sounds like now) and jumped at the chance to immigrate to the New World. Nearly a quarter of a million Scotch-Irish immigrated before the American Revolution and many of them learned the style of pioneering developed by the Finns.
    With an efficient style and large numbers, the most effective American frontiersmen ever developed in Pennsylvania. Some called them backwoodsmen which is what they themselves preferred to be called. The Indians called them The Long Knives.

    By the middle of the 18th century, 50 years after Penn and 130 years after the arrival of the Mayflower, the colonists in New England and the South had only managed to settle a day’s travel from the coast.The settling of America had to wait for a new breed and special breed, the mix of the Finns, the Lenni Lenape (the Delaware Indians) and the border reiving Scotch-Irish. These new backwoodsmen, bred and learned in the woods of Pennsylvania followed the Great Valley cutting through the wind and water gaps. By 1800 they had settled most of Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, and parts of Indiana and Illinois. In time, some along with their descendents would make their way west again moving through Oklahoma, the Rockies and eventually running into the shores of the Pacific. When I mention names like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, then, perhaps you have a picture of what the Pennsylvania Backwoodsmen were. What they did, was carry the borders of the new country literally from sea to shining see. And they, more than anyone else, are the men who settled America.”

    The article doesn’t mention it, but the Finns also introduced the log cabin technique that made it possible to quickly set up a new home or farmstead, or build block houses for protection.

  12. Silverado

    You said: “Actually, this is why they came to the New World which was a howling wilderness back then when the King’s relatives took over again and banished my family as troublemakers. Aka, Puritans.”

    Oh my….that’s definitely the WASP point of view alright. “There was nothing here in North America before 1492 except vast swaths of wilderness with a few primitive Indian tribes scattered about,” is how the myth goes and you just…perpetuated it again (I believe and I say this good naturedly).

    But according to Myron Paine who’s studied the subject for decades that’s not quite true. Here’s one of his highly interesting websites:

    And who is Myron Paine?


  13. Christian W


    Well, that sounds exactly like what the Israelis are saying about Palestine and the Palestinians too, doesn’t it. Nothing here, just a few primitive tribes. We built this place with our hard toil on the Kibbutzes… yaddayadda.

  14. melponeme_k


    Yeah, it is a Waspy viewpoint. I’m familiar with it from my relatives who were WASPs. However it is essentially correct. Most of the USA at the time was wilderness. The huge Indian empires were in South and Central America and Mexico. Whatever was left of those empires were razed by the Spanish. In the US Indians were in the process of building extensive trade partnerships and alliances. Some think if Europeans had arrived later, the Indian alliances would have been a strong enough bloc to control the rate of white settlements.

    However we don’t live in that universe. We also don’t live in the universe in which the Norse weren’t pushed out of Vinland. Or the Dutch winning out over the English for control of New Amsterdam/New York. There are a lot of what ifs in history.

  15. emsnews

    NORMANS all hunted and bore arms all the time!!! And yes, Normans did settle in America, namely, my own family, way back at the very beginning of the invasion.

    And we married in with the Tribes, too. So many stories about this!

    The concept of ‘we carry arms’ was very strong from day one with many colonists but not all. The Pilgrims tried to be unarmed but then that didn’t work so hot, did it?

    One of my French ancestors in the New World gave me a big laugh when I read a book about Mountain Men (the fur traders on the frontiers in the 1600’s). It starts out: ‘He was a very bad man who killed people,’

  16. emsnews

    The Dutch married into the English families in the Hudson Valley. The later Dutch (Amish) held themselves aloof. But the early Dutch and the French and the NATIVE INDIANS and everyone intermarried during the 16-1700’s because…


    The difference between ‘history’ and ‘my family’s many stories’ is…this is reality.

    Examples abound: one of my ancestors, a comely female, was kidnapped by the Huron tribe. They carried her off from New York to Ohio.

    Her dad, who had some ‘wealth’ due to fur trading, told all the Mountain Men guys, there was a reward for her return.


    The guy who found her bribed the guards to release her to him, took off in a canoe and paddled madly for New York. On the way home she got pregnant and they got married before meeting her dad which he decided was a bit chancy so they remained at Fort Pitt.

    There is a more romantic story about all this written by Cooper, by the way, who knew my family (the Bards, in this case).

    NO particular ethnic group and this includes Finns, were super duper while others were helpless. The helpless pretty much died quickly in the New World while the persistent, the daring and the lucky survived.

    And yes, there was also a lot more sex stuff than in Europe due to the nature of the wilderness, the fact that everyone was outnumbered by everyone else and it was hard work, surviving and people were not very picky about who they had sex with.

  17. emsnews

    Also, my ancestress wrote that she wasn’t molested by the Huron nor even abused because they considered her to have magical healing powers. Ahem.


    And she was kind of scary. 🙂

  18. kenogami

    When the French first settled in Canada, the only means of transportation were waterways: the biggest was the St-Lawrence river and many big rivers flowing into the St-Lawrence. And they built farms close to the rivers, on land that was ribbon shape for several reasons: life conditions were very hard (it was still in the little ice age time) and when they needed help, it was better to have many neighbours nearby than far away, say each farm less than 100m away from the next rather than half a mile away. Furthermore, during the long winters, there was little to do except survive so it was easier to have dancing or singing parties or meetings with friends when they were all relatively close to one another. Also, since waterways were a precious commodity at that time, the government did impose taxes based on the length of the access to waterways, that is based on the width of the land; thus for the same area, a square farm would have to pay much larger taxes than a ribbon shape farm. The french at the time explored the whole north american continent and they built milirary forts all along the Mississipi up to Louisiana. So the ribbon farms in the north eastern US may well have been of French origin.

    When the British conquered Canada in 1763, there were already 2.5 millions english-speaking europeans in North America; the industrial revolution had started already in Scotland- England, and technology was thus not so primitive. Land roads were more important and easier to build.
    After the US became independent, the government of Canada was afraid that the US would claim all the lands in Western Canada. So it started a massive land survey program over Western Canada and Ontario; the survey used patches of squares 1 mile on each side and when farmers wanted a farm, the government would subdivide the square patches in smaller squares. So that is why most of the farms in French Canada were ribbon shape, while most of the farms in English Canada were square shape.

  19. emsnews

    The farms in French Canada were based 100% of how medieval farms in Normandy and Britain were organized with long strips rather than large squares.

    This was due 100% to the use of oxen to till the farms. I used to own an ox team, Chip and Dale.

    Turning an ox team is difficult so they set up the plots to minimize the number of turns.

  20. Christian W

    Aye, there were very few people. The Finns were only a few hundred at most. And there was a lot of intermingling. A couple of generations later someone described a Swedish farmer he visited as “Old John, who looked like an Indian”. 🙂

    The point was simply that these particular Finns had a skill set and life style that fitted well with the early life and the Indian life style, and after mixing with Indian techniques, this skill set was used by the frontiers men and hunters/trappers.

    Also, the Finns didn’t have the superiority complex regarding Indians the Puritans did.

    The slash and burn farming technique was used to turn forest into field. First you burned one part of the forest and grew special kinds of rye there (eg), you did this a couple of times until it was time to leave that plot. Now you burned another part of the forest for your crop. While your new crop was growing so you had food, you worked on the first plot to clear it of stumps and rocks and turn it into a field that you could use for plowing.

  21. emsnews

    The Mississippi valley Indians were farmers. And the European diseases hit them like a hammer blow. Nearly all the deaths of the natives were disease.

    Very tragic. I do recall that Europe also as periodically ravaged badly by diseases from China and other Eastern lands, too….

  22. John

    All nations on earth without exception are the result of wars, invasions, uprisings, aggression of all sorts from day one, that is, when the crazy apes in Africa picked up rocks and began chipping them into weapons.

    This is real talk, right here.

    …Karl Marx (yes, he was a fine historian):

    Karl Marx was known to have declared “I am not a Marxist!” And even that notwithstanding, stopped clocks and so forth.

    Suddenly, Clinton signed that stupid free trade bill and a flood of sheep goods poured into the US.

    Good little Alinsky/Rockefeller shill that he was. And is.

    Elaine, you’ve written a lot of great things over the years. This post is right up there with the best of them, IMO. Your understanding of the long view of history is priceless.

  23. John


    I also should point out that it is invariably liberals who favor greater centralized government. Yet Elaine claims to be a liberal and is still in favor of local control. Where is the cognitive dissonance?

    Elaine is a classical liberal, what is today understood as a “small L libertarian.” The “liberals” to which you refer are really leftists, meaning Marxist/communists who, although they hijacked the term liberal back in the late 50s/early 60s, are about as far from being liberal is its possible to get.

    Jim R
    Centralized government and militarized police are right-wing notions.

    The true conflict is between authoritarians and libertarians. “Right wing” and “left wing” are fallacious constructs, designed to confuse and obfuscate.
    Thank you, Christian W, for an interesting history lesson.

  24. emsnews

    Commies have cops. Liberals have cops. Conservatives have cops.

    Anarchists don’t have cops, they have massive fires, collapsing infrastructure, vendettas and lynchings. And no garbage pickups.

    And it looks like our leaders are anarchists if we look at any of our big cities. Watching poor little bitty Ferguson burn to the ground just like Camden NJ, Newark NJ or Detroit or all those other wrecked cities…yes, our Bilderberg gangsters are anarchists.

  25. John

    No, the Bilderberg gangsters are psychopaths with delusions of Deity, who want to burn off 90% of the human race, and keep the remaining 10% as serfs/thralls.

    The Bilderbergers are actually jackbooted authoritarians, not anarchists, but since they see themselves as genetically superior to the whole of humanity, they have no problems employing tactics like anarchy to wipe us out. The ends justify the means, after all.

    Here’s one way I think they are planning to do it: Ebola – Fear, Lies And The Evidence If Ebola becomes endemic, it will wipe a good 80% of the human race off the map by itself, and infant mortality rates will be astronomical for centuries.

  26. Christian W

    They are Laissez Faire Capitalists in my book. Meaning the anarchy part comes from the ‘anything goes as long as we maximize our profits, or as John put it – the end justifes the means’ part. With anything I mean absolutely anything, never mind if they kill many, many millions of people to get their profits.

    The jackbooted authoritarian part comes from the Capitalist part absolutely detesting even the slightest whiff of genuine competition and threat to their profit making machines (cartels and utterly controlled markets).

  27. Jim R

    “They are Laissez Faire Capitalists in my book.”

    No. They are only capitalists when it comes to you. If one of their own gets in a spot of trouble, they’ll print a trillion dollars to help ’em out. They are socialists when it comes to other elites.

  28. Christian W

    True. The reversed socalism goes under ‘the anything goes to maximize their profits’ part. They sure hate socialism that is outside their control ie benefits for the people that doesn’t lead the profits straight back into their own pockets again (maximizing profits).

    Inside their own profit machines they have been known to tear each other to pieces. I think they enjoy that kind of thing, makes them feel superior and like winners. But I wonder if they stop doing that once the cartels reach a certain maturity level, or when things are unstable.

  29. emsnews

    The royals did that too! They intermarried like crazy gerbils to make ‘alliances’ and then…they savage each other while killing literally millions of serfs in the process.

    WWI was all about this.

  30. Christian W

    Queen Elisabeth II of Windsor is actually a Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.

    Queen Elisabeth II’s family is the very root of the Bilderbergers and the London City system (which is the US Fed system) and the tax haven treasure island system sitting on tens of trillions of loot. The Royal British Empire really never went anywhere but under the radar.

    Side comment: These people probably own the Russian Central Bank too (the Russian Central Bank is privately owned and not under full Russian control), which is why they hate Putin with such fervour since Putin threw a big spammer in their looting operation of Russia.

    Queen Elisabeth II in England had lots of relatives fighting in Hitler’s Wehrmacht and SS Divisions (she was born in 1926). I’m sure Hitler was well aware of that fact that England was ruled by the same aristocracy he relied on to fight his wars. I think that is part of the reason he held back an invasion across the channel in 1940. It was only later the war turned total.

    Here is the root of the Bilderbergers (the Bilderbergers’ name comes from the hotel in Amsterdam where they first met in 1954 to plot what later became the EU):

    “House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (/sɑːksˈkoʊˌbɜrɡəndˈɡoʊθə/; German: Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha) is a German dynasty, the line of the Saxon House of Wettin that ruled the Ernestine duchies including the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

    Founded by Ernest Anton, the sixth duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, it is the royal house of several European monarchies, and branches currently reign in Belgium through the descendants of Leopold I, and in the Commonwealth realms through the descendants of Prince Albert. Due to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I, George V of the United Kingdom changed the name of his branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The same happened in Belgium where it was changed to “van België” (Dutch) or “de Belgique” (French).


    ELAINE: The deposed king was a Nazi. Not his replacement.

    Secondly: Hitler began frantically bombing London and all the ports right after invading Holland and France. Immediately, with little pause. Very frantically. And then he suicidally decided to turn on Stalin who he invited to invade Poland, too so the Soviet army was right next door.

    Stalin defeated Hitler in the end. Not the US. Not England. Stalin did it…barely. With the sacrifice of literally millions of Russians.

  31. Christian W

    “The original conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May 1954. It was initiated by several people, including Polish politician-in-exile Józef Retinger, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting Atlanticism – better understanding between the cultures of the United States and Western Europe to foster cooperation on political, economic and defense issues.[4]

    Retinger approached Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands who agreed to promote the idea, together with former Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, and the head of Unilever at that time, Dutchman Paul Rijkens. Bernhard in turn contacted Walter Bedell Smith, then head of the CIA, who asked Eisenhower adviser Charles Douglas Jackson to deal with the suggestion.[5] The guest list was to be drawn up by inviting two attendees from each nation, one of each to represent conservative and liberal points of view.[4] Fifty delegates from 11 countries in Western Europe attended the first conference, along with 11 Americans.[6]”

    When you read this it is not hard to see who are using Ukraine to target Russia, and why Merkel is just a tool for the Bilderbergers and why the Bilderbergers have no problem with the Nazis in Kiev and why the Poles are used as a NATO springboard and support for the Kiev regime etc.

    Btw. i saw a US state department document from 2006 on wikileaks that talk about Poroshenko as “our [US] mole in Ukraine”.

    I doubt there are many leaders in Europe that are fully independent of US “influence” now. Especially now after internet and NSA spying. The US openly admitted they had spied on the Norwegian Prime Minister to ensure he was “suitable” as General Secretary of NATO. That he still took the job tells a lot about the man doesn’t it. He is just a complete tool.

  32. Christian W


    John, where would do you place European style social democrats in your system? It seems to me there is no place for them there as they are not Marxists/Communists.

  33. emsnews

    They are socialists with their workers wishing very strongly that they were NATIONAL socialists (aka: Naziism before Hitler did the ‘let’s kill everyone’ thing).

    Socialism with strong borders is quite strong. With open borders is a disaster.

  34. Luke

    Socialism with open borders is a disaster.

    And where is USA, Canada, EU on the spectrum of immigration from Third world and giveaways?

  35. John


    I would say that it’s just a watered down form of Marxism; as I’ve noted before, socialist + machine gun = communist.

    My problem is NOT with helping the less fortunate! It’s that governmental redistribution of wealth is a bad way to do it. Only about 25 – 35% of the money taken in taxes actually goes to help the disadvantaged, at best. The government wastes the rest, except for what the well-connected cronies get.

    Contrast that with “best practices” charities, where over 90% of the money goes to the purpose for which it was given. And charities are VOLUNTARY. Government taxation is ultimately at the point of a gun. Refuse to pay your taxes and the jackboots show up at your door.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s