|
|
|
Sheeple
by Sam Aurelius Milam III On December 8, 1994, a lone man armed with a knife walked through Rackham's in Birmingham, England, slicing people's throats. According to ITN, witnesses mostly just watched until the cops finally arrived and subdued the fellow. Now wait a minute. There was a whole store full of people and one lone man with a knife. He didn't have a gun. He had a knife. I'll admit that a lunatic with a knife can be terrifying, but at the same time I can't help but ask a few questions. Wasn't anybody gutsy enough to throw something at the creep from behind and then run? There was a whole store full of these people. They had him surrounded. There should be lots of hard blunt objects in a department store. What ever became of the time tested practice of a big gang of enraged townspeople stoning a helpless misfit to death? I'd like to think that people can defend themselves when attacked and that it isn't human nature to just lay there and be kicked until Marshall Dillon comes to the rescue. Incidents like the one at Rackham's don't bode well for our side. However, there are also incidents like the one at the State University at Albany, New York. On December 14, 1994, five of the hostages being held in a classroom by a man armed with a rifle rushed him, disarmed him, and turned him over the police, who had been waiting helplessly outside. Maybe there's hope. Gestapo Attack by Sam Aurelius Milam III On December 20, 1994, a group of U.S. Gestapo officers surrounded a homeless man, Marcellino Corniel, on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. The man was in possession of a knife. A Gestapo officer shot him. Two days later, Mr. Corniel died of his wounds. The cops had Mr. Corniel outnumbered and surrounded. All he had was a knife. They didn't need to shoot him. They could have subdued him. Even if a cop was wounded, so what? All police should be absolutely prohibited from ever carrying weapons. The cop who shot Mr. Corniel should have his trigger finger amputated. It's time to stop the cops. Mercymongers by Sam Aurelius Milam III Sometimes the problem with mercy is to distinguish it from cruelty. Babies are a good example. When a baby is born with a fatal genetic defect, no price is too high to save the baby. However, money isn't necessarily the only cost. The defective baby who doesn't die will live to reproduce. Will there be, for every such baby saved today, another similarly defective baby in the next generation? Will the defect occur several times in the generation after that? How merciful is it to pass on to our children the genetic defects that are being preserved in these genetically defective babies? The mercymongers are developing fertility techniques that allow infertile women to have kids anyway, thereby passing on to future generations the inability to reproduce. Maybe the effect is a small one among the greater number of healthy women, but the effect is there. What level of such accumulating defects can the human race tolerate and still survive? For decades now, doctors have been unwittingly breeding bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Can even a healthy immune system cope with the new varieties of old diseases? We're healthy today because people in the past didn't pass defects on to us because they died. Yet the mercymongers of today are leaving our descendants a grim legacy. It's understandable to avoid grief, but to do so by passing that grief on to our descendants isn't merciful but selfish. In addition to leaving the people of the future a polluted planet with depleted resources, the "generosity" of today's mercymongers will tend to make those future people weak, infertile, and probably even more helpless than people already are today. The current objectives of medical technology should be reconsidered in terms of the likely effect on the genetic future of our children. The assumption that people ought to be preserved from a death that would otherwise naturally occur should be carefully examined. Considering that overpopulation is the greatest single problem in the world today, the mania for the preservation of life at any cost seems unwise. Perhaps a more legitimate use of medical technology would be to discover ways to ease the pain, suffering, and fear of a process that is, after all, as natural and inevitable as anything that humans can ever do. Grief and death cannot be avoided. The attempt will only insure that our children pay the price for our weakness. Eaters of the Dead
|
Snake Bust!
Freeze!!!
by Sam Aurelius Milam III Lest there be any doubt, let me assure you that the Humane Society of Santa Clara County does far more than protect helpless little kittens from nasty old ladies. It also purveys government propaganda and enforces authoritarian policy. On December 16, 1994, a Humane Society spy purchased a snake that had been advertised for sale in a local paper. The Humane Society Gestapo then arrested the man who had placed the ad. His alleged offense was owning an Egyptian Cobra, a mamba, and a rattlesnake. The KTVU news team interviewed two of the man's neighbors, who'd had no prior complaint against him but were aghast at the idea of poisonous snakes in their neighborhood. Maybe they were too stupid, or too brainwashed, to figure out that having cops in the neighborhood is far more dangerous than having snakes in the neighborhood. After all, many more people have been killed by cops than by snakes. I suppose the Founding Fathers never dreamed that their creation could get so repressive that the Bill of Rights would need a clause protecting the right to keep and bear snakes. I'd much rather have the Humane Society in the cages and the snakes loose in the neighborhood. My admiration goes out to the courageous people of Chechnya, and to the Russian soldiers who refused to attack them. Blind Progress by Sam Aurelius Milam III For almost 20 years now, I've been using contact lenses. About 6 years ago, I switched over to soft lenses. At the same time, since I had recently lost access to certain "benefits" attendant to being employed, I also switched to a different optometrist. The new optometrist, of course, started out from scratch with a whole new examination. He announced that my right eye was no problem, but my left eye had astigmatism which would require a special lens. It turned out to be very special. He called it a toric lense and it cost about 5 time as much as the right one. I eventually discovered that high initial cost wasn't the only problem with the toric lens. Since toric lenses are thinner at one portion of their circumference than they are 180° around (so they always float right side up) they're sort of fragile. I began to notice that every 6 to 12 months, the toric lens would tear in two. So, while my $25 spherical lenses lasted for years, the $125 toric lenses didn't last very long. Recently, my cash flow hasn't been flowing very well. In April of 1994, my last toric lens tore, and I decided to try an extra right lens in my left eye. The right lenses are cheap and I had several extras. Imagine my surprise when it worked. Not only did it work, I can't tell any difference at all. Even when I close my eyes alternately, I can see exactly as well with the left eye as with the right one. My conclusion? The optometrist is using equipment that is so precise that he's measuring visual differences that are completely invisible to his customer. If I can't see the difference then there's no difference, by definition. This is another example of why medical treatment is too expensive: High Tech Overkill. Technology has gone way too far in a certain direction. My optometrist's examination machines don't need to be any more precise than the human eye. Thirty years ago, the National Wildlife Federation said, in another context, "Not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress". Don't get me wrong. I'm not hankerin' fer tha good ol' days. Dental work without Novocain will cure most folks of that notion. However, it's way past time for the high tech freaks to learn when enough is enough. The ability to do something doesn't, by itself, prove that the thing ought to be done.
Frankly My Dear .... by Sam Aurelius Milam III The astonishing hypocrisy of the feminist movement is nowhere better illustrated than in the fracas at Texas Women's University (TWU), in Denton, Texas. After decades of strident females forcing their way into every conceivable male institution, we now have these bitches at TWU lamenting because men have been admitted into their female undergraduate programs. Here are some of their excuses, as reported, for their current bout of moaning and sniveling:
Feminists have never given a tinker's damn if an all male school provides a nurturing environment for men. Now they demand a nurturing environment for women in an all female school. Feminists have never had any sympathy whatsoever for men who didn't want to compete with coeds, or to be distracted by their disruptive presence. Now they don't want to compete with men or study in the presence of men. It was feminists who demanded that the sexes are equal. It's a stupid idea, but I don't recall that they have ever cared what men thought about it. Such inconsistent demands are the hallmark of the feminists. They never stop nagging 'til they coerce their way into a man's institution. Then they drive everybody crazy complaining about the way the men behave. What did they expect in a male institution? Female behavior? Then when a man succeeds in getting into a woman's institution, they lack even the modicum of decency to recognize that they're the ones who insisted on equality and that equality cuts both ways. If they don't like being equal then they should stop demanding it. After all, it was their stupid idea. In fact, feminists have never sought equality. They seek to control men. With equality as a cover, the movement promotes control. The program so far has been arrogant and coercive, and has resulted largely in repressed hostility toward women and hidden resentment of their unwelcome trespass into the male arena. Such warped equality as the feminists have achieved hasn't solved women's problems, but has only transformed them. It has also transformed the women, to the tragic detriment of us all. Women should probably go back to making babies and raising families. That is, after all, their traditional role in nearly every culture on Earth. As for the feminists, they'll get no help that I can deny them. If I never have to work around another arrogant feminazi or go to school with another strutting coed, that'll still be way too soon for me. |
If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirity. Permission is also granted to reproduce material from this newsletter, except for material that has been reprinted from other publications, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and postage stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives, or anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
Money (the series): Federal Reserve Notes by Sam Aurelius Milam III And now, here's the part you've all been waiting for. What about real money? I mean the stuff we all spend every day. You know, Abraham, Martin, and John, or whoever those pictures are. Well, it turns out that Federal Reserve Notes are made from a thing that's more durable than ice but less durable than a log, and which can be cheaply manufactured faster than pecans. It's intrinsic value is difficult to determine. I suppose it could be used for paper planes or to write messages, but these uses threaten its durability. It could certainly warm a house, if you had enough of it, but then it would have no durability at all. If you use it for Kleenex, then folks will probably not want to accept it as money. There is also some question as to exactly what a Federal Reserve Note really is. It is, after all, a note . From whom? To whom? Saying what? So is it money, or not? Is this what makes the world go 'round? No wonder it won't buy friends. I'm amazed that it will even rent companions. And worse yet, most of the time, we don't even use Federal Reserve Notes. How are you paid for your labor? With a check. Is it money? No. It isn't even a Federal Reserve Note. When you take it to the bank, do you get money for it? Probably not. You probably put it in the bank, and then pay your debts with other checks. Are they money? No. Do the people you give them to ever get money for them? No. They deposit them. So where's the money? A check is a promise to make payment of something, but the only things that change as a result of checks are numbers in a computer. Now here we go. Watch this. A check represents numbers in a computer. They can be erased in a microsecond, so they're a lot less durable than ice. They can be duplicated an unlimited number of times, so the supply of them is unlimited. If numbers are money, then making a backup copy of the data should, in theory, result in 100% inflation. What an awesome thought! And do you think numbers, used as money, have intrinsic value? Well, here are some numbers. $500,000. They came right out of my computer. Go buy yourself a house. Next Month: The Thrilling Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Instructions
for using this Receipt and Agreement:
, 435 South White Road, San Jose, California 95127 and may be reproduced freely. Wednesday, November 9, 1994 |
Receipt
and Agreement
, 435 South White Road, San Jose, California 95127 and may be reproduced freely. Wednesday, November 9, 1994 |
|
|