"Brit-Am Now"-944
1. "The Green Revolution": Another Blessing from Joseph?
2. Craig Blackwood: More
Comparizons- NZ, OZ, France
3. Jack Flaws:
Pharez and Zerah?

1. "The Green Revolution": Another Blessing from Joseph?
 "The Green Revolution" refers to improvements in agricultural methods and crops
in the 1950s and 1960s that saved millions of people from starvation.
 "The Green Revolution" was an American initiative with American money methodology and
expertise.  Millions of Asians today are alive because of it.
It is often forgotten but should not be since historically it was very important and to our mind reflects another aspect
of the blessing Joseph has brought to the world.
The Ford Foundation apparently played a role in bringing
 "The Green Revolution" about.
In the past Brit-Am has criticized this institution because it funds homosexual propagators of perversion and death
and subsidizes treacherous quislings in Israel.
For example,
#2. The anti-Israelite Nazi Agenda of the Ford Foundation

Jerusalem News-635
#5. Haredim protest planned gay parade in Jerusalem

Nevertheless we must give credit where it is due and it has also done some good.
Green Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Green Revolution is a term used to describe the worldwide transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Ford Foundation and other major agencies.[1] The Green Revolution in agriculture helped food production to keep pace with worldwide population growth.

The term ?Green Revolution? was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution."[2]

The Green Revolution has had major social and ecological impacts, which have drawn intense praise and equally intense criticism.

International spread of the Green Revolution

With the experience of agricultural development judged as a success by many of the powerholders involved, the Rockefeller Foundation sought to spread the Green Revolution to other nations. The Office of Special Studies in Mexico became an informal international research institution in 1959, and in 1963 it formally became CIMMYT (The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).

The second nation to which the Green Revolution spread was India. The Ford Foundation had a presence in the nation, and their social scientists had decided that the technological development of agriculture was important to the future of India . At the same time C.Subramaniam, the former Indian Minister of Steel and Mines, became Minister of Food and Agriculture. The Foundation and Indian government collaborated to import a huge amount of wheat seed from CIMMYT. India then began its own Green Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of agrochemicals. By the late 1970s, the Green Revolution raised rice yields in India by 30 percent and bought India the vital time to curb its population growth without suffering a recurrence of the devastating famines of the 1940s. [5]

The Rockefeller and Ford Foundation jointly established IRRI (The International Rice Research Institute) in the Philippines in 1960. HYVs (high yielding varieties) spread throughout that country, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other non-Soviet bloc countries throughout Latin American, Asia, and North Africa. USAID became involved in subsidizing rural infrastructure development and fertilizer shipments.

In Mexico

The Green Revolution began in 1943 with the establishment of the Office of Special Studies, which was a venture that was a collaboration between the Rockefeller Foundation and the presidential administration of Manuel Avila Camacho in Mexico....US Vice President Henry Wallace, who was instrumental in convincing the Rockefeller Foundation to work with the Mexican government in agricultural development, saw Camacho?s ambitions as beneficial to U.S. economic and military interests.[4]

The Mexican national government invested heavily in rural infrastructure development, and the adoption of new seed varieties became widespread. Mexico became self-sufficient in wheat production by 1951 and began to export wheat thereafter. In 1900, the Mexican population was 13.6 million; by 2005, it had increased to 103.3 million.[5]

Cereal production more than doubled in developing nations between the years 1961 ? 1985.[8] Yields of rice, maize, and wheat increased steadily during that period.[9] The production increases can be attributed roughly equally to irrigation, fertilizer, and seed development, at least in the case of Asian rice.[10]

Some, however, have challenged the purported production increases of Green Revolution agriculture. Miguel A. Altieri, for example, writes that the comparison between traditional systems of agriculture and Green Revolution has been unfair, because Green Revolution agriculture produces monocultures of cereal grains, while traditional agriculture usually incorporates polycultures.[11] Additionally, some traditional systems of agriculture that were displaced by the Green Revolution such as the chinampas in Mexico or raised-field rice farming in Asia are known to be very highly-productive.[12]

The production increases fostered by the Green Revolution are widely credited with having helped to avoid widespread famine, and it is often claimed that Green Revolution agriculture is responsible for feeding billions of people.[13]

The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and most believe that, without the Revolution, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005). The average person in the developing world consumes about 25% more calories per day now than before the Green Revolution.[20]

2. Craig Blackwood: More Comparizons- NZ, OZ, France
From: Craig Blackwood <>
Subject: RE: "Brit-Am Now"-943
#1. Steve Coneglan: Subject: NZ and Oz
Shalom Yair

What a flurry of exchange from Steve Coneglan.  I am enjoying the points
that he is highlighting.  There is only one disagreement however...the
subject of Reuben. It is true there is a presence of Reuben but it is much
weaker than that of the Dutch.  The Dutch influence would account of say 5%
of those in my early circles.  We always thought the Dutch girls were hot.
I even considered some myself.  I have about 40% Isachaar, the rest
Joseph/Judah.  I married a Joseph/Judah.  Our personalities well match this
mix.  My wife is a dreamer and administrater (Joseph) and I am practical
(Isaachar), resourceful and scholarly and secondarily an administrator.

While I can only partially support NZ being Reuben, I fully support OZ being
a larger portion of Simeon.   Gad also is strong but not all the Scot were
Gad.  The Scotts Irish were a different breed, also a strong contingent.

Gen 49:3  Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my
strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Gen 49:4  Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up
to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.

It may not be a welcome historical fact because New Zealanders detest the
French.  Recent historical events involve Muruoa Atoll, French nuclear
testing and Green peace RAINBOW WARRIOR.  I must say French and Reuben
characteristics not savour well with Kiwis.  But what may come as a shock to
Kiwis was that The South Island was only one tide away from becoming French.
Christchurch (Akaroa 1840) is credited with being an English establishment,
the French were strong there too.  Suddenly it occurred to the colonial
powers that no-one had planted that all important flag.  Much to be said
about the easy going French and English settlers, they for once must have
peacefully settled along side each other getting along nicely.  The race was
on once the British, sensing the impending loss of the South Island to
French interests, sent a frigate into Akaroa Harbour to hoist the Union
Jack.  They just beat the French by a tide.  However the French and English
continued to settle peacefully.  (Not all French are [or were] Rueben).  I
think that those French here were less French because of thier character.
These Frenchmen left like the Israelie German.  American German are not (in
my view) the sterotype German, likewise the early French settler.

New Zealanders are more likely to be Monarchist than Australia.  There is
too much English and Scottish heritage to give any comparison to the French.
Our Grandparents practised standing when "God Save The Queen" would sound on
the radio.  Unlike Reuben, New Zealanders are not weak or unstable as water,
they are stable, reliable, dependable, hard working and faithful.  Take the
game of Rugby, the French don't get dirty, they get so emotional, they cry
when they lose and the cry when they win.  They do play a good game however
and that with good flare.  Far be it, the we are Reuben.  We think the
French have bad taste.  Take French artists, Abstract does not tickle the
Kiwi fancy.  Constable did much better.  Like Australians, Kiwis are not
emotional like the French.  Kiwis do not buckle under pressure, they don't
surrender, they don't betray their brother, even their enemy they won't
betray.  They prefer a fair fight and they like Australians are not cowards.
I cannot see the ANZAC MATESHIP comparing one little bit with the French.
The nation fare of ANZAC is BBQ and roast lamb.  The french have frogs and
snails and detestable things (excuse the extreme example).  Even good french
food is not attractive to our palate.   The sheep jokes come because both
Australian and New Zealand economies were BUILT ON THE BACK OF A SHEEP.  One
-I could go on and on, there is more commonality
with Gad than Reuben.

The love of the sea came from the essential elements of survival being
surrounded by ocean but Reuben is not a sea farer.  I have worked with men
who fought in WW2, many would not buy things Japanese, next French products,
they would say, "You could trust a German before a Frenchman".  The French
do have admirable traits, they are inclined to passion and womanising,
romancing.  The Kiwi and Aussie bloke are dead fish when it comes to
treating women like the French.  The French have a bit more class, even
though I think bad class, it is better than the RUGBY, RACING AND BEER
culture of the down-under male.  The French are indeed dignified not like
Kiwis but the Kiwi will fight for the dignity of others, himself last.  True
the French love power, far from the Kiwi to peruse the hight echelons of
power.  Steve's likening of Rueben the FIRSTBORN who lost his inheritance.
Kiwis did not have an inheritance, they were second sons.

As far as Joseph was concerned, Isachaar and Zebulon refused to share in the
spoils bought but the monies obtained from selling Joseph (legions of the

There is another incredible thing about Kiwi INVENTIVENESS.  At one time
several years running NZ put out more patents than any other country PERIOD.
A day after or a day before (disputable) PIERCE flew his plane (on his own)
on his remote farm.  The engine pistons were built out of BAKED BEAN CANS.
Aussie and Kiwi ingenuity with # 8 wire is ingenious.  There has been not
been much not fixed with the stuff.

Another Kiwi invention was the DISHWASHER, JETBOAT.

New Zealand is a world leader in Hydro-power, dams, bridge building
[earthquake technknowlogy].

NZ is the 2nd highest missionary sending nation (per capita next to Denmark)

Of course these are generalities as with everything else said on this forum.

        These Qualities quoted from the Dutch Embassy in NZ are very similar to
Kiwi  CAN DO ATTITUDE. ("If anyone can, a Kiwi can").

        The Dutch are major players in fields like science, the economy, the arts
and sports ? and their country is a beacon of forward-thinking social and
cultural policy.
        Bridge builders
        The country
        Visiting the Netherlands
        Bridge builders
        The Netherlands lies on the delta of three major rivers: the Rhine, Maas
and Scheldt. It owes its existence to feats of hydraulic engineering.

        The Dutch are proud of their conquest of water. Their struggle to keep dry
has helped them develop a can-do attitude. And since controlling water
requires many   parties to meet and plan together, it has forced them to
learn how to work as a team. That is why their European partners and the
broader international community         regard the Dutch as bridge builders and
often ask them to serve as such.  (Netherland Embassy in NZ)

Talk about Bridgebuilding, like the Dutch, Kiwis are good peacemakers,
good-will and aid workers.

Likewise NewZealand is a land full of fast running rivers and deep gorges,
natural and man-made lakes.  New Zealanders are forward thinkers, science,
invention, agriculture, sports, teamsmanship are all similar attributes.

I think that there is just soo much more in common with (Zeal-full) Zeb than
with Romantic Ruby.



3. Jack Flaws: Pharez and Zerah?
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-943
#3. Questions on Bohemians, Faris of Lebanon, and Tea Tephi

Jack Flaws wrote:

Regarding Tea Tephi post an entry in our Brit-Am Web Site
Search Engine
You will probably get hundreds of answers since we have dealt with this subject on numerous
Steven Collins believes in it.
I am not so sure and still fail to see its significance.

The significance that I see is God keeping his promise to David.  Jeremiah brought the Pharez-Judah bloodline to Ireland to be joined with the Zarah-Judah bloodline.  He was setting the stage for the arrival of the Celts and Scythians.   Those Israelites would be ruled, as promised, by the Judah-David line.

Brit-Am Reply: It may be so as you say but much more proof is needed than that which has been advanced up to now.