Defining the Citizen Slave
Sam Aurelius Milam III
It's true that employees are slaves. However, it's even worse than that. Even a U.S. citizen is a slave. Consider the definitions.
A citizen is, by definition, under the authority and control of the United States. Obedience is mandatory. Disobedience is punished. That seems like a pretty good definition of slavery.
Cultivating the Grapevine
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I suspect that there are a lot more killings by cops than there are by students. I suspect that the national "news" media meticulously reports the killings by students and largely ignores the killings by cops. Generally, I hear about killings by cops only in the local news or via the grapevine. One result of such selective reporting is the knee-jerk clamor for "school safety", which fuels the anti-gun agenda while concern with disarming the cops is nearly non-existent. If you hear of a murder committed by the cops, please forward the report to me. It might be useful to print such reports in this newsletter. If I get enough such reports, I'll start a page for them on my website.
This debate seems like one of those times when both sides are right and both are wrong.
The Pro-Choicer is right about the woman's right to control her own body. She is wrong if she thinks that she has the right to kill a fetus/baby just because it's inside her.
The Pro-Lifer is correct about the fact that society has the right to decide at what age it will protect the right to life of the fetus/human. They are wrong when they think they have the right to force their values on a woman by forcing her to supply the needed life-support to a fetus/baby (that she may consider to be a parasite, capable of ruining her life) through term and the following 18 years. Remember, while we (and the fetus) may have a "Right to life" we do not have the right to force others to support that life.
An important point here, is that there is a well defined line (which lately has been ignored more and more) that logically divides what morals/values a moral society can establish with coercion (ie. jail, fines, execution), and those that it has to establish through social pressure (ie. discrimination, ostracizing, removal of citizenship). The former can only be used against the violent, the thief, and the killer. The latter is the only recourse that a moral society has to use against those whose only crime is having poor values (not caring enough to give of ourselves to help others in need).
While abortion is normally considered a fuzzy moral issue (is the fetus a thinking being? etc.) there is a restriction that if placed upon the way that an abortion is done, would have the desired effect of changing abortion from the killing of the fetus (murder?), to the refusing to provide support to the fetus (ie. poor values). That restriction is that all abortions after the age that society deems the fetus to be worthy of the right to life, be done as a surgical act of separation rather then as a killing.
After an abortion/separation, any Right-to-Life group willing to put its money and technology where its mouth is should have the right at its own expense to try to save the fetus by supplying artificial life support or by transplanting the fetus into another woman. If nobody comes forth with the money and technology to save the fetus then yes, the fetus will die a natural death. It will have died because nobody in society (not just the woman) cared enough to save it.
The fact that the woman could have saved the fetus easier only means that the Right-to-Life group should consider a monetary incentive to convince the mother to take the pregnancy to term and then to adopt (that might be the cheapest way to save it).
Incidentally, the "morning after" and "abortion" pills fall within this separation criteria, either by preventing the zygote from ever attaching itself to the woman's womb, or by causing it to be rejected shortly afterwards.
A practical point at which society might deem that a fetus has a right to life is at that point at which current technology has a reasonable chance of rescuing the fetus. That way the woman would not have to go through an abortion/separation that is more expensive and riskier to her than a regular abortion, when the fetus has little chance of surviving a rescue attempt anyway.
Note: an act of surgical separation near full term simply becomes a premature C section, followed by putting the baby up for adoption.
The final question is whether or not we as a society should ostracize the woman who gets an abortion, or the doctor that performs it. The answer is that the various social groups, churches, and the extended family must all decide this for themselves. Government, however, should not get involved either by removing the doctor's license or his citizenship, particularly when abortions are done early in the pregnancy, since this controversy has many reasonable caring people on both sides of the issue.
Mindset — Ruthless Evangelism
|What's In A Name?
Sam Aurelius Milam III
A long time ago, while I was involved with the Constitutional Patriot movement, we all understood that a man could use any name he wanted, just so long as he satisfied the obligations that he incurred under the name. He didn't do anything wrong by using an assumed name. For years, I used assumed names for such things as the power bill and the phone bill. I couldn't see any reason why those people needed a name anyway. The service was to the address. Whoever lived there could pay for it.
Things have changed. Some time ago, I received from US West, our local phone company, a flier that assures me that my service can be disconnected if I use an assumed name. What possible difference can it make if I use an assumed name? So long as I make a cash deposit and pay the bill, the name is irrelevant.
In the November 1998 issue of this newsletter (Privacy Act, page 2), I suggested that the post office is trying to help the government keep track of people by asking for names of people who live at each address. Now we can speculate that the phone company is also involved. It isn't sufficient that somebody lives here, uses the telephone, and pays the bill. The "authorities" want an identity.
Letters to the Editor
Dear Sam -
You say I don't know much about the art of song writing. Let me not argue the point further. Part of the art of propaganda is to say the same thing over & over again without being boring. The current system is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt. People must be reminded of what is in front of their noses because they are that brainwashed. A closed, decadent, stupid class rules, & they choose our "educators"
A successful revolution requires the will, or at least passive acceptance, of the majority. The kind of change I advocate requires the "education of the masses." That's why I do propaganda via any outlet I can. I explain my overall philosophy — making references to its relation to the history of political philosophy — when I get the space. I also argue issue by issue all the time.
In the case of Milosevic: We are at a stage where world opinion is now used not just within individual nations, but on the planetary level. This makes sense, since the human species is a more natural category than any nation. Modern democracy, according to the Declaration, is based upon the deist concept of "natural law," which applies to all men. You are defending Milosevic via the legalism of the Pharisees. My propaganda is neither vague nor impractical. As for sex addiction, Face the Nation is again saying that Clinton is an insane sex addict because he commits adultery like every other red blooded American. This is a media example of the truly insane ruling class I am opposing as seriously & practically as I can.
We know that the Labor party is being tied down by the CIA. But why can't the Reform Party come up with a single credible libertarian-leaning candidate?
— Elliot; N. Merrick, New York
A successful revolution of the type you advocate (guns, war whoops, and propaganda) doesn't require a majority, only a big enough minority to destabilize the majority. Strangely enough, the kind that I advocate (learn to think for yourself) doesn't require a majority, either. And STILL, you haven't made a specific suggestion about how to get competent teachers, just more vague stuff about the "education of the masses". I'm not convinced that the teachers are incompetent, but since you believe it and can't think of a specific suggestion I'll help you get started. Here's a specific suggestion. Repeal the legislative requirements of mandatory school attendance. When parents can control their children's education, then there'll be an incentive for teachers to be competent. Better yet, there'll be an incentive for schools to teach what parents want their children to learn instead of what the government wants the children to learn.
The claim that Democracy is based on Natural Law is absurd. Anarchy comes closer to that than Democracy does.
Regarding NATO, I don't support nations and alliances as they're presently constituted. See my essay, The Long and Winding Doctrine: Social Contract. However, once such an institution IS constituted, it ought to obey its defining documents (treaty, constitution, etc.). NATO failed to do so and should be punished. NATO is presently embarked upon a course tending in the direction of world domination. If that happens, then the dream of one world humanity will be overwhelmed by the nightmare of one world government.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Do you think they'll really go to war over Kashmir?
Why would they bother, when it's just as easy to make sweaters out of acrylic?
Source Unknown — forwarded by Sir John the Generous
I was busy writing some computer program for one of my classes and my roommate asked me if he could use my coffee maker. I said, "Sure". The next thing I heard was, "Hey, where do you put the coffee?" I turned to see that he had filled the filter basket with water and was unsuccessfully trying to keep the water in the basket by plugging the hole at the bottom with his finger. He and the floor were both covered with water.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, 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. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other publications. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — 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.
Payment — 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 U.S. postage stamps. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept 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 is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor