What American Independence?

Two years ago, I wisely wrote A Strange Utopia, which remains relevant even unto this day with Trump taking the place of Jeb (both are essentially the same figure for the purpose of the short story, as far as I’m concerned -look at how Trump has kept DACA in place and failed to remove sanctions on Russia).

Today is the day America celebrates its independence. And today is, as a prominent alt-right Twitter poster said (can’t find the tweet; I forgot the exact wording, spent some time searching for it), the first year in which I’ve become rather detached from the whole idea of American independence. What meaning is American independence when the country is bound down by the chains of endless immigration, to promote big government, and ultimately, its decline and supersession by firstly China and, secondly, yes, Russia and Japan, those infinitely media-maligned countries notorious for their low native fertility. Yet, what is the purpose of high native fertility if it is dysgenic; a transformation of the United States into Mexico or, just as bad, the tragic coast of Southern California (where my fellow American George Michael Grena lives, in one of the congressional districts with the most disgusting politics in the country -I, in Michigan, empathize!). Take a look at the Mississippi exit polls by age if you do not believe what America is becoming. Any hint of the expression of the great Democratic platform of 1852, by the 2030s, will be dead. The McGovernites will have won.

Likewise, America remains bound down by the toxic-fruited chains of foreign obligation -and look how its partisans admire them! All but four deeply conservative representatives out of four hundred thirty five -and not one Senator- voted to reaffirm America’s commitment to the horrendous and obsolete (despite the President’s statement to the contrary) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which binds this relatively great (if not as much as it used to be) country to foolishly commit to the defense of such great (if one has low standards) nations as Albania, Montenegro, Romania, and Latvia. Happy slaves so many of your fellow citizenry are, American! And how they cheer their slavery! Independence? Bondage.

And as a final insult, America remains forced by its so-called “representatives” to pay billions of dollars a year in tribute to Israel, a country that has taken advantage of us so much -how can, as the President used to say, we call America great when the other countries are taking so, so much advantage of us in every arena? Now Israel, though a typical Southern European country in many respects, is certainly one that is an example for all the world in its commitment to its national sovereignty. Look at its border fence, its infinite arms and pockets stretching into so many of the great capitals of the world, its pro-natalism, its commitment against being forced to defend, pay tribute, or invite the residents of any other country. And how foolish is America not to follow in that example?

The reason I remain so detached is precisely because of the presidency being occupied by the only man who could even remotely break these chains binding America to slavery -and his consistent refusal to do so.

As long as America is bound down by the chains of immigration imperialism, the toxic terrorist organization known as the NATO alliance, and its perpetual and obliging treatment as puppet by the Jewish state, how can we celebrate Independence Day with any honor?

On preventing sectionalism

John Cochrane makes the only even barely persuasive argument for the U.S. electoral college method of selecting presidents I’ve ever heard, which is that the electoral college, by making votes in already very heavily partisan states worthless to candidates, discourages presidential candidates from fanning the flames of promoting their own party’s most safest section of the country above all the others. Of course, James Madison made a similar argument, but for a somewhat different system of selecting electors to the electoral college. Madison argued for winner-take-all by district (the closest the U.S. has to this currently is the system used in Maine and Nebraska, though Madison supported having all electoral votes be allocated by district, without any statewide component), in place of winner-take all by state, on the basis that

The States when voting for President by general tickets or by their Legislatures, are a string of beads; when they make their elections by districts, some of these differing in sentiment from others, and sympathizing with that of districts in other States, they are so knit together as to break the force of those geographical and other noxious parties which might render the repulsive too strong for the cohesive tendencies within the Political System.

that is, winner-take-all by district would be less prone to sectional parties and be more likely to promote truly national ones than winner-take-all by state.

Now, granting the truth of this -there would be no point for Democrats to campaign in Nebraska or Republicans to campaign in Maine were their electoral votes allocated statewide-, and assuming the districts were drawn by independent commissions (as in California, Arizona, Minnesota, etc.) to eliminate all complaints of gerrymandering, what would be the result of the U.S. moving to a system of allocating electoral votes entirely by district? It would lead to politicians ignoring the vast majority of the country, an even larger portion than that ignored by the current winner-take-all the state system of allocating electoral votes. It would result in presidential candidates promising all sorts of favors to the tiny number of swing districts in, say, southern California, suburban Minnesota, southern Nevada, and rural Iowa at the expense of the entire rest of the country. It would lead to political apathy in every portion of the country outside those key swing districts. It would make Americans subject to the vicissitudes of the thoughts of a few over the general opinion of the many. This would be a great deprovement on even the present way of candidates concentrating on key swing states. But these same criticisms of the district method apply equally as well to the current method of winner-take-all by state.

The electoral college rewards presidential candidates who prioritize the interests of swing states at the expense of those of safe states. Thus, while hemorrhaging margins in the vast, but safe states of California and Texas, Donald Trump sacrificed their interests to those of the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by promoting protectionist and nativist policies. Is such dictatorship by the minority befitting of a democracy? And though it is true that the electoral college as it exists today does result in the winner’s margins more evenly spread out within the states he wins, it also allows his offensiveness to the states he loses to be as large as is conceivable without any trouble for his political fortunes. Is a Republican candidate today being able to ignore California’s slide into becoming a 90% Democratic state or the Republican candidates of the late 19th century being able to totally ignore the South truly healthy for government? Abraham Lincoln, whose election by the swing states of the electoral college caused the War Between the States by his disregard for the interests of the South, could never have won a national popular vote precisely due to his extreme unpopularity in the South. Thus, the present electoral college permits -indeed, encourages- the infinite increase of sectionalism within the states that comprise the losing coalition by incentivizing the winner to promise benefits for the swing states to be paid for by the residents of those states he cannot win. Under a national popular vote, however, if a presidential candidate aims to increase his votes by fanning the flames of sectionalism, whether of the safe states of his party or of the swing states, he is likely to symmetrically alienate the voters of the other sections of the country, thus bringing these efforts at boosting vote share to nought.

In short, even the best argument for the Electoral College over the national popular vote as a method of selecting presidents is badly lacking. Politicians are much more incentivized to play sectional zero-sum games in the electoral college than under a national popular vote.

Now; this is not to say Trump did not deserve to win; far from it. Both candidates knew the rules of the contest beforehand, they would have had very different strategies were the rules different. Trump had the better electoral college strategy under current rules, and there’s nothing wrong with following the rules as they exist.

Why are Indian-Americans Democrats?

Simple. Because the Republican Party stresses immigrant assimilation, while Indian-Americans aren’t planning on assimilating. Koreans and Vietnamese (who are less Democrat-leaning) at least have some intent to assimilate into American identity and lose the nonessential parts of their Old World culture. It is always simultaneously funny and encouraging to experience the very common occurrence of meeting an East Asian with a Western first name and an East Asian last name. Indians in America have no such intent to assimilate. Instead of converting to Christianity or accepting their atheism, like many (most?) East Asians in America, Indian-Americans set up Hindu and Sikh temples and Muslim mosques. Indian-White marriages in the United States remain rare, and their products identify as Indian. Though Indian-Americans have no particular love for American Blacks (they certainly do not attempt to assimilate into the American Underclass Black culture), they are willing to vote for a Black Presidential candidate because that candidate’s history resembles that of most Indian Americans far more than that of most American Blacks. An icon of WASP [even if Mormonism is not a branch of Protestantism, it is still a 100% American religion] identity such as Mitt Romney or assimilators like Governors Jindal and Haley simply will not appeal to the great majority of Indian-Americans. Many Indian-Americans still follow Indian politics and have no intention of voting for any candidate advocating the impractical doctrine of quick assimilation for all immigrants.

I like most of the Indian-Americans I’ve met as people. They, as the products of a selective immigration policy, are certainly superior in every manner to those I’d regularly meet were America to have Open Borders. But I accept that they are practically unassimilable hyphenated Americans. I’d be fine with that, were it not for the excessive lean towards the Democratic Party this unassimilability gives them. Were Indian-Americans lacking political bias, I would full-heatedly oppose placing any sizable restrictions on present Indian-American entry into the United States. Though I’d shiver at an Open Borders policy in the U.S., I’d cry at the massive waste of talent a post-1924, pre-1965 U.S. immigration policy would produce. Tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of fundamentally competent individuals would be forced to scrape out their lives in a corrupt third-world shithole.

Inspirations [though not sources] for this Post:

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-indian-americans-love-barack-obama-democrats-859890

http://www.firstpost.com/world/5-reasons-why-indian-americans-heart-obama-436869.html

NBC: Congress scheduled to cast first Syria vote on Wednesday

First anniversary of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Twelfth anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks. Bashar al-Assad’s 48th birthday. And, just as I suspected, the day when Congress casts its first vote on whether to attack Syria. This is an especially funny/tragic coincidence. Fortunately, the Republican-dominated House doesn’t seem to be likely to approve of the attack.
UPDATE: Vote delayed some days.

An Honest Map Series of Changes In Political Control of Palestine

complete12
Behold, in place of a dishonest map series, an honest one! Be sure to spread it on the Twitters, Websites, and Facebooks, and make it viral!

Why did I pick the years 1946, 1965, 1975, and 2012?
Mid-1946 was a time in which Jordan had already been granted independence by the British, yet the British Mandate for Palestine had not yet expired, British troops in Egypt were still not solely confined to the Suez Canal zone, and the U.N. partition plan for Palestine had still not been created. The map for this year was created to underline the fact that in the years immediately prior to the creation of the State of Israel, Palestine was occupied by the British, not ruled by the natives.
1965 was after the All-Palestine Government had been dissolved by Egypt and after the dissolution of the United Arab Republic, but before the 1967 war.
1975 was chosen to completely avoid depicting the Lebanese Civil War and to accurately show the Israeli gains in the 1967 war and the 1973 ceasefire lines in the Golan Heights.
2012 was the most recent year that had fully gone by at the time this map series was created.

I full well understand my labels are made up of a confusing mix of proper adjectives and proper nouns. Deal with it.

“Occupied” indicates a military presence, but not formal annexation. As the West Bank was formally annexed by Jordan, even though its annexation had little international recognition, I am still marking the West Bank in the second map in Light Green, rather than Dark Green.

I had two difficult decisions to make regarding the coloring of this map: whether or not to color the Sinai Peninsula in red in the first map and whether or not to add a separate color for non-Israeli areas governed by Israeli law. If you consider my decisions incorrect, argue against them in the comments.

Ooh, Looky Here-A Useful and Usable Map of Every Site Surveyed By Israel in the West Bank

The actual map is available on its own here. The sourcebook is not fully reliable.

Right here. Of course, Price is much, much less a ‘pseudo-archaeologist’ than those who are typically called as such. As the good Israel Finkelstein states,

Let the truth be known: Most of the looting in the West Bank (as well as in Israel!) has been carried out by Palestinians. In addition, the viewer should remember that since the 1993 Oslo agreement about 50% of the West Bank has been administered by the Palestinian Authority. If looting there continues, it is being done under Palestinian rule.

Nobody claims the James Ossuary itself is “fraudulent” except the truly ignorant. The misconceptions that “Actual discoveries in the region rarely make headlines. [utterly untrue]” and “Cultural strata in Israel and Palestine lack the lavish treasures and mystique associated with the power centers of the ancient world [also utterly untrue], such as Egypt or Mesopotamia.” is also stated in the article. The wise Alex Joffe and Ron Hendel have added their correct opinions to the Disqus comments. I responded to he-who-must-not-be-named in the comments by sheer accident-I did not read his name!

Over One Hundred Views Five Days In A Row

This has never happened before in the history of this blog! Also, in humor news, Aren Maeir has described the platform of the ‘Yesh Avar‘ party. I am not at all confident “[c]omplete vessels for all” is an achievable goal. In other news, Aren Maeir is reported to have ‘liked’ the following video:

Make Your Own Conspiracy Movie Within A Year, Get $, Dupe Millions of Credulous 20-Something Males

As we all know, conspiracy movies are all the rage these days (I’m not going to name any, you know what they are). Thus, I have decided to make a series of guidelines for any producer of conspiracy movies.

1. Be entirely unoriginal. Originality confuses you (not the viewer) and is unsustainable as originality breeds more originality. Eventually, if you are in any way original, you have to make up a claim every quarter-second just to make your story coherent. Don’t be original.

2. Make sure to have a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory must be made up entirely of pre-existing ones. It does not have to make sense. Indeed, making sense takes the novelty out of your conspiracy theory. Note: novelty to the viewer and originality are different things. You must remember this. The conspiracy in your theory must be made up of a very small number of people. Add in a few wealthy banking families into your conspiracy that had their best days c. 1900 AD (indeed, you are almost obligated to do so). Liberally use the liberally-used phrase “New World Order” to describe your conspiracy.

3. Talk negatively about the energy industry, pointing out some true facts and some untruths about them. Have promises of unlimited, cheap, and clean electricity. Make sure to either talk about pseudoscientists or have them talk in your movie. Portray them as brave mavericks persecuted by the establishment. Do not in any way suggest ‘the establishment’ might be right.

4. Talk about the bullshit that is fractional reserve banking. Instead of advocating hard money, advocate Congress-controlled inflation (or its equivalent). Complain about debt, not about over-expansion of the money supply. Make promises of unlimited prosperity if debt and restrictions on expansion of the money supply are eliminated and Congress (or its equivalent) has total control of the money supply. Pretend it is possible to print prosperity. Pretend the Federal Reserve System is a ‘private bank’ (ignoring the fact the Banks of the United States in the early 19th C AD were far, far more ‘private’-like). Pretend ‘private’ is a swear word. Make sure to have G. Edward Griffin in your movie complain about central banking (but not a monopoly over money production).

5. Complain about the erosion of the Values of the Constitution (no, not like that). Beardism is not recommended, though having the Founding Fathers be part of your conspiracy is A-Okay, as long as you don’t quote any Founding Father (except Hamilton, Madison, and Jay). If Jefferson is not to be treated as a saint, he should be treaded upon lightly. Remember, your conspiracy does not have to make sense.

6. Pick a 9/11 conspiracy theory and run with it. Add some actual conspiracies of the U. S. government to make your conspiracy seem plausible to the viewer. During this process, make Leftist tyrannies seem like joy-bringing fruits of all the wishes of the people. Ignore the Cold War. Pretend this book does not exist, or, at least, does not apply to every scenario of a revolutionary Leftist government (preferably, do the latter). Make sure to add plenty of untruths into your section on 9/11, especially about this publication.

7. Add the U.N., CFR, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission into your movie as part of the conspiracy. Ignore the fact the U.S. Government freely ignores the recommendations of all these organizations when convenient. Ignore the fact the CFR YouTube channel is unmoderated (heck, even my YT channel is moderated as much as my blog). Make all (not-so-)secret meetings of powerful or ‘well-connected’ (though not always publicly prominent; you have to keep the element of novelty) people be viewed as somehow Constitutionally treasonous.

8. Pretend globalization is bad, criticizing managed trade agreements. Ignore the fact the world is richer because of globalization. Point out the real evil of poor governments being in debt, but blame the only the creditors, despite the fact there are two parties to every transaction. Mention the evil of GMO patents, but ignore the evil of all the rest of intellectual property (the controversy over which is more ideological than anything else).

9. You are free to integrate any kind of quackery into the movie at your choosing. The more divorced it is from reality, the better. Cancer quackery works best. Mention a few ‘Brave Maverick Doctors’. Castigate ‘the medical industry’ (this includes medical doctors/scientists whose research is entirely funded by the government) for not curing everyone’s illnesses with a panacea. Say they are in a conspiracy to ‘keep people sick’. Do not talk about s**llpo*, or if you do, deny it ever disappeared. Suggest (nay, boldly push) a(n entirely unoriginal) panacea. Say the conspiracy is ‘offering solutions to problems of their creation’. Make sure to integrate the food industry into your medical conspiracy.

10. You are free to talk about ancient megalithic architecture, though not to mention the terms ‘ropes’, ‘ramps’, ‘manpower’, ‘sand’, ‘centralized organization/administration’, ‘pulleys’, ‘hammers’, ‘cranes’, ‘sleds’, ‘saws’ or ‘chisels’ except in a dismissive manner. You are absolutely prohibited from using the term ‘quarries’. You are absolutely prohibited from discussing the ashlars at the Temple Mount. Pretend this megalithic architecture is the product of ‘ancient wisdom’, not necessity or despotism.

11. You are free to imply or suggest the (American) Government has far higher technology than it claims to have or does have. You are free to ignore physical possibility when discussing this technology. Bash Bush and Obama on their expansion of executive power and their assertive/aggressive/disingenuous/backstabbing/perfidious foreign policies. Always claim the U.S. military has done more harm than good since WW II.

12. You must imply the (American) Government has total power and does not know of the existence of a YouTube video with over a million views (again, your conspiracy does not have to make sense). Mentioning the Bush administration’s management of Katrina or failure to control the insurgents in Iraq is absolutely prohibited unless you integrate it into a plot for weapons manufacturers and ‘high business interests’ to make ever-larger profits. Mention ‘FEMA camps‘ as though they are a real possibility.

13. You are free to mention the idea the conspiracy you mention likes eugenics. Ignore this news story, or if you don’t (which is not preferable), mention it as a way the conspiracy you mention is planning to make the world’s population poorer (if so, ignore this graph). You may cast the continuing increase of the U.S. population in the same light.

14. Mention extraterrestrials or do not mention them. There is no in-between. If you mention them, make them a big part of your movie, either influencing the conspiracy or providing the free energy. You could sprinkle crop circles and the Roswell incident into your (wholly unoriginal) ideas about extraterrestrials.

13. You are almost obligated to mention Freemasonry, treat it as part of the conspiracy you mention, and look for even the slightest Masonic symbolism anywhere, anytime, and treat it as evidence of the pervasiveness of the conspiracy.

15. Mention a conspiracy to make anonymity illegal except for conspiracy members. Ignore the preponderance of anonymity on the Internet. Mention the ‘rise of the surveillance state’ while ignoring the hilarity of Google attempting to make every YouTube user use their real name (hint: no YT user who has allowed Google to know his/her real name hides his/her real name from the public). Ignore the fact sockpuppetry is almost impossible to prevent by any government.

16. Criticize the Roman Catholic Church-indirectly (you don’t want to offend a fifth of the U.S. population). You are free to use a few 19thearly 20th C AD cranks to argue that Christianity was made up by the grand conspiracy from paganism. If you don’t do that, you can at least argue that the Roman Catholic Church corrupted the True Message of Jesus (which should not be anything like what Jack Chick makes it out to be). Make sure to make New-Agery the religious ideology of your movie. Make sure to keep lip service to rationalism.

17. Make sure to use an implicit argument from authority by either quote-mining credible experts or allowing the opinions of discredited MA’s or PhD’s to be heard.

18. You are free to mention ‘sacred geometry’ as either connected with aliens, free energy, the wisdom of the ancients, or all of these combined. If you have no ‘sacred geometry’, at least have a ‘satanic geometry’ (which can also be used as a contrast to the ‘sacred’ variety) connected with the Freemasons. Pyramids are to be connected with hierarchy and the conspiracy.

19. Never be critical of David Icke.

20. Make sure you mention that the conspiracy also wishes to keep the environment polluted. In order to not alienate your AGW denialist audience, make sure to take either a neutral or dismissive stance on anthropogenic global warming. Imply fossil fuels cause more harm than good. Add some chemtrails and antivaccinism into your movie.

21. Pretend commonly-accepted government institutions exist for evil purposes. Do not recommend the abolition of Medicare, government road-building, or Social Security. Pretend government schools encourage dogmatism (even though APUSH teachers are notorious for openly challenging students’ most cherished patriotic beliefs). Pretend schoolkids learn less from the Internet than from government schools.

23. Last of all, if your movie contains too much common knowledge (e.g., smoking is bad), you’re doing it wrong. Novelty to the viewer is key to the success of your movie.

Stylistic Details:

1. Have a male narrator. A female voice may remind people of their mothers or teachers, which will possibly repel your predominantly male audience from continuing to watch. Females are often viewed as less rational than males. Avoid attractive female ‘experts’-adding these, especially early in the film, will make the YT commentators focus on these females’ breast sizes and will make them ignore your movie’s novelty.

2. Have music playing throughout the movie. As music is the enemy of rational thought, this will distract the viewer from noticing the falsehoods in your movie. When the supposed experts are talking, have at least some (preferably, a good dollop of) ominous music playing.

3. Make sure something on the screen is moving at all times. This distracts the viewer from noticing the falsehoods in your movie. Include at least one picture of computer-generated men in suits marching forward in neat rows and columns-this will institute a spirit of rebellion against ‘convention’ in most of your audience who are still watching your movie and will make them more likely to continue to blindly accept your movie’s claims.

The Location of Dilmun, Part 1

Since the late nineteenth century, Dilmun (transcribed in earlier works as “Niduk-ki”/”NI-TUK” or, in some, as “Tilmun” or “Telmun”) has commonly been taken to be Bahrain, partially due to an Old Babylonian inscription (pg. 213) found there from a palace. The inscription refers to Inzak (Ensag), a god who is described as “Lord of Dilmun” in “Enki and Ninhursaga” and is associated with Dilmun in other Mesopotamian texts. As it was later found that Bahrain was not inhabited significantly until the Akkadian period (pg. 38), scholars have generally agreed that earliest Dilmun was located in Eastern Arabia.

Perhaps the person who has questioned this hypothesis most persistently has been Walter Mattfeld of bibleorigins.net. Walter believes that Dilmun was a city located on an island on the Euphrates in the marshes of Iraq (the “Sealand” of the Akkadians and Sumerians), inhabited continuously for over three and a half thousand years. One of his hypotheses is that this city may be an “Umm Daleimin” at the join between the Karkheh, Tigris, and Euphrates (this reminds one of the description of the Garden of Eden’s location in Genesis 2). He agrees with Daniel Potts that the sea level of the Persian Gulf was not more than two meters above today’s. Mattfeld quotes frequently from Potts in the “Sealand” article, pointing out many good arguments for the idea sea levels stayed more or at the same level as they are today throughout the past five thousand years, including that tides make use of Euphrates water near the coastline of the Persian Gulf impossible due to the water’s salt content and that many archaeological sites known to have been inhabited before the Roman era would have been submerged below the Gulf’s waters had the sea level of the Gulf been significantly higher than it was today.

Walter Mattfeld’s case against an Arabian/Bahraini and for a Sealand location for Dilmun is built on several pillars. I will discuss the first of these pillars below.

Pillar 1: Dilmun is described as being in the marshes and having a river bank in “Enki and Ninhursaga“, a work composed sometime in the late third millennium BC.

Response to Pillar 1: Dilmun is, indeed, described as having freshwater pools and “great basins” which Bahrain had. Grain production, also mentioned in E&N, is also not impossible on Bahrain. While Dilmun is described as not having a river quay before the transformation of its pools into freshwater ones in lines 33-39, it is described as having a quay, though not a river quay, in lines 55-62, after the transformation. The part of the narrative that clearly takes place in the marshes of southern Iraq (probably of Eridu) and along a river bank, from line 63 and onward, is apparently a flashback, as Ninsikila, who is described as having sex with Enki at Dilmun in Lines 5-10 and asking Enki to ask Utu and Nanna to civilize Dilmun in Lines 29-43, is described as being made out of the head of Enki by Ninhursaga in Lines 254-263 and being made lord of Magan (Oman, a copper-producing land) in Lines 272-280. In short, Mattfeld has here confused two portions of the narrative as one, the first describing the origins of the civilization of Dilmun (and, possibly, of Qal’at al-Bahrain) and the second describing the origins of Ninsikila and Ensag, who become the gods of Magan and Dilmun (though, for some reason, Ninsikila, not Ensag, is portrayed as asking Enki to civilize Dilmun, possibly due to Magan’s reliance on Dilmun for exports to Sumer).

This Land Is Mine-A Few Comments

Since any comments I will make on the viral (and non-copyrighted) video “This Land is Mine” by cartoonist Nina Paley will most assuredly be buried in the comments section, I have decided it would be appropriate to post my remarks on it here.

Firstly, while there was direct confrontation between the Egyptian and Assyrian Empires (in 701 BC), the Egyptian Empire had practically no control over Canaan throughout almost all of the 11th and 9th-8th centuries BC-this was mostly a period of either local control (unmentioned in the video) or vassalage to the Kingdom of Damascus (under Hazael and Ben-Hadad), which is curiously also not mentioned in the video. Secondly, Josiah did not free himself from Assyrian vassalage-Assyria transferred the territory between Lebo-Hamath and the Brook of Egypt to Psamtik I of Egypt in 623 BC, in the same year that Sin Shar-Ishkun captured Uruk from the Babylonians and the ‘Book of the Law’ was found in Jerusalem. Thirdly, while it is safe to say that the transition between Babylonian and Persian rule in Palestine was relatively peaceful, it is not fair to show the Babylonians-Persians atop of the heap of bodies for such a short period of time as the video did. Fourthly, could not the Star of David of Josiah have been scrapped in favor of the rosette? I also like the parallel, whether intentional or unintentional, between the heap of bodies and the stereotypical Palestinian tell, as the heap of bodies ceases to exist in the video after the Roman conquest, as it is in the Helleno-Roman period the tells of Palestine (e.g. Hazor, Megiddo, Shechem) tend to be abandoned in favor of cities in the valley.