|A Worse Bigotry
Sam Aurelius Milam III
The opposition to discrimination that began with what were probably good intentions has become a monster. The original intention, as I understand it, was to secure equal treatment before the law for everyone, regardless of race, religion, etc. While a government, as governments are presently understood,1 should treat everyone equally, there isn't any reason at all to expect that a person should do so. Indeed, there's every reason to expect otherwise. Everyone has different attitudes and opinions. Everyone should be entitled to have and to express those attitudes and opinions, whether or not they're agreeable to everyone else. If some of those attitudes and opinions happen to be racist, sexist, or any other "ist", then so be it. Any attempt to coercively prohibit such thinking, however despicable that thinking may appear to be, is in fact nothing more than another form of bigotry, directed not at a specific group, but at anyone who's opinion differs from the mandated standard.
So, if someone doesn't like negroes, homosexuals, Jews, or whatever, then c'est la vie. Those attitudes already create sufficient conflict, without the intrusive evangelism of insensitive reformers who demand sensitivity in everyone but themselves. If the hateful ideas that drive the atrocities in the world cannot be eradicated by persuasion and education, then they simply will not be eradicated at all. Experience has shown, and continues to show, that attempts to coercively prohibit prejudice will fail. In their failure, such attempts result in resentment and hostility. They reinforce prejudice, bigotry, and atrocities rather than reducing them. The hope of achieving courtesy and respect in the world may indeed live within many of us, but it dies an ugly death as regulation or legislation.
Sam Aurelius Milam III
John Webster expects to go on trial in the near future. You can review his situation at http://www.jwebster.com/ and contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or 408 972-2963.
Mr. Webster needs $25,000 "up front" for his lawyer. Contributions or loans would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Webster has promised that, in the event that he receives over half a million dollars in compensation for the violation of his rights, money loaned to his legal fund at this time will be paid back at twice the amount and money donated will be paid back at three times the amount. If he doesn't receive compensation he will still make every attempt to pay back loans at face value.
Watching Big Brother Watch You
to the Editor
.... In regard to the privacy issue [The War on Muffshots, December 1999, and subsequent letters], I think there is a grey area involved ... situations where something might technically be public, or in public view, but where the privacy invader might almost have to be aggressive to "get the goods" as it were. Still, I think it's funny how we all get stuck on debating these unusual, borderline cases. I mean, how many men are going around with low angle cameras anyway?
In regard to the former Yugoslavia: If blame is being allocated for the mess, then, beyond the various ethnic politicians, blame must be placed on the German government. At the very beginning of the crisis, the US basically decided to follow German ideas on what to do, on the theory that this was more a German problem than an American problem. It was Germany that rushed to recognize break-away Croatia, without even consulting the US, (or against US advice, I'm not sure which). In retrospect, the western powers were just too eager to fish in troubled waters.
— Donald; Santa Clara, California
There are two issues here — peeking up women's skirts and protectionist legislation. From the letters that I'm receiving, it seems that I haven't clearly distinguished between the two issues. I'll try harder to make the distinction.
The peeking issue results from normal male sexual response to the presence of women. I believe that the time is long past for women to recognize the existence of such normal male behavior. Granted, women don't presently have a clue but, as the courts like to say, "ignorance is no excuse". Women are going to be the targets of sexual attention by men, including peeking, whether they intend to attract such attention or not. If they can't deal with it, then they should avoid the presence of men instead of trying so hard to force themselves into our workplaces, clubs, military institutions, and so forth.
Whether or not you believe that men ought to be peeking up women's skirts, the protectionist legislation issue is a separate issue. Anti-peeking legislation is merely the latest example. For decades, feminist activists of every stripe have been promoting legislation intended to secure special privileges and protection for women by regulating the behavior of men, all under the phony banner of alleged equality.3 As usual, this particular round of protectionist legislation will be more harmful to both men and women than the peeking would have been. Men have always peeked and always will. Protectionist legislation prohibiting such peeking won't change male behavior. It will merely punish men for that behavior, fueling hostility and resentment. Also, as I've said repeatedly, women don't need protectionist legislation to protect themselves from this kind of covert videotaping. Each woman can decide for herself which part of her body should be private and achieve that privacy by the way she dresses. However, and exactly as I would expect, feminists are refusing to act like adults. They could encourage women to protect themselves. Instead, they're whining to their male-surrogate authority figure — government — for protection. As for how many men are taking such covert videos, the feminists don't really care. They'll happily use the behavior of a very few men as an excuse to impose protectionist legislation on all of us.
While I'm on the issue of sexual privacy, I can't help mentioning the airport surveillance gestapo and their BodySearch intrusion technology, noted earlier in this issue. If the feminist activists really cared about the privacy of female sexual parts, you'd think they'd be complaining about that issue — a case where women really can't protect themselves. I haven't seen any indication of concern. Maybe they don't care about peeking by agents of the male-surrogate authority figure. It's only us ordinary guys who aren't permitted to do it. I speculate that we're witnessing the conversion of yet another natural human activity — voyeurism — into yet another special privilege that is reserved exclusively for government agents but denied for the rest of us.
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
How do you think Trump would work out in the Presidency?
— Interested Voter
Dear Interested Voter
I'm not familiar with the game you mentioned, but I know a Trump works OK in Bridge.
Does Anybody Know?
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
received the following letter to the editor and didn't have enough space
in the March Frontiersman to print it.