Frontiersman, April 2001

Notice:
This issue of the Frontiersman contains contact information that is out-of-date. For current contact information, click here.

Frontiersman, April 2001

Egyptology: Might Not Be Suitable for All Family Members
Sam Aurelius Milam III
During the February 27 presentation of Secrets of the Pharaohs: Mummy, the researchers were, among other things, pondering the use and significance to the ancient Egyptians of the Blue Lotus. That's a pretty flower, representations of which appear in many Egyptian wall paintings and the remains of which are found with many of Egyptian mummies.
The researchers on this documentary suggested that, among other things, the Blue Lotus might have served a purpose similar to that of Viagra, in our own culture. Several wall paintings were presented in support of the suggestion. One in particular was presented and described by a female researcher who, during her presentation, achieved a commendable air of professionally amused embarrassment. This researcher claimed that the Egyptian lady shown in the painting seemed to be doing quite well on her own, that is, "without the help of a man". The picture in question depicted a lady atop a large cone-shaped device which was, presumably, serving some — uh — (ahem) sexual purpose. It was a mystery to me, of course.
Allow me to digress, while I regain my sense of professionally amused embarrassment.
While I was working for GE, I made the acquaintance of an exchange trainee from Italy, named Paolo. While in this country, Paolo was making a careful study of American culture and language. One of the things that he used to do was to bring me his copy of Playboy Magazine, and ask me to explain a cartoon. "I can read the words and see the picture," he would say, "but I don't see why it's funny."
Paolo's difficulty suggests that humor doesn't always translate accurately from one culture to another. It might be that the further apart the cultures are in time or place, the more difficult the translation might be. The difference between our point of view and that of the ancient Egyptians is much greater than the difference between Paolo's culture and mine.
Now, back to the ancient Egyptians. The female Egyptologist didn't show the view of that painting for very long, but I think I got a fairly good look at the cone-shaped gizmo (I scarcely glanced at the lady). It didn't seem to have any footrests or hand holds. It was 4 or 5 feet tall, and it seemed to have smooth sides. I'm concerned. Once the lady was atop the gadget, I don't see how she could have controlled, er, managed, ah, well, its (ahem) penetration. (I'm trying here to achieve an Egyptologist-like air of professionally amused embarrassment. The female Egyptologist did a lot better. I'll bet this difficulty never even occurred to her. I guess it's just my crass male outlook on things.)
Now please understand that I'd never print anything of a questionable nature in such a dignified publication as the Frontiersman were it not absolutely essential to the understanding of the point that I'm trying to make. That said, did you hear about the old prostitute who committed suicide by jumping out of a third-story window? Well, I'm sure that everybody's heard that one and knows why the undertaker had such trouble getting the smile off of her face. I don't need to elaborate.
I'm not an expert on Egyptologists, but so far as I've noticed, they haven't suggested that the ancient Egyptians might have had a sense of humor. However, the Egyptians must have laughed at sex as much as we do. Maybe their humor just isn't obvious to us. Maybe the researchers are taking those wall paintings too seriously. The similarity between my old joke and the Egyptian wall painting is obvious. Maybe the female Egyptologist was inadvertently looking at an ancient Egyptian equivalent of Playboy Magazine. Maybe in the Egyptian version of the joke, the old prostitute landed on a pyramid, instead of on a fire hydrant.

frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

April 2001

Page 1

Reprints from K-House eNews:
Wastes Used To Generate Electricity
http://www.khouse.org/enews/2001-02-27.html

The Riverside County, California, waste treatment plant has solved its own energy crisis. It has installed new electric generators at the plant that run on the methane gas from the sewage being treated. They are also located near a vacated landfill, where buried garbage is also generating methane gas, and helps to supply fuel for the generators.

The facility is not only saving about $500,000 a year in electrical bills, but the sewage treatment plant now has a reliable source of electricity immune to blackouts. Riverside County is also selling any excess power they generate to Houston-based Enron Energy Services, earning about $850 a day.

Related Links:
Landfill Trash Generates Electricity - Inland Empire Online
<http://www.inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/022601/plant26.shtml>

EU Moves to Stifle Political Criticism
http://www.khouse.org/enews/2001-03-13.html
The European Court of Justice ruled this week that the EU Commission could restrict criticism that damaged "the institution's image and reputation." According to an article by Evans Ambrose-Pritchard of the Electronic Telegraph, the court reverted to a legal device used by fascist governments to suppress dissent in the 1920s and 1930s: "the protection of the rights of others."
The ruling came in connection with a former employee of the EU, Bernard Connolly, author of The Rotten Heart of Europe, who allegedly was guilty of breaking his contract with the European Commission.
This ECJ ruling flies in the face of more than 50 years of precedents prohibiting various European governments from censoring public criticism and should be regarded as a serious restriction on free speech.

Related Links:
Eurofile: EU Suppression Of Criticism Smacks Of Fascism — Electronic Telegraph
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000157380504876&rtmo=3SSmwxBM&atmo=rrrrrrrq&pg=/et/01/3/10/wfile10.html>

NAAWP
Sam Aurelius Milam III
What do you suppose would happen if I tried to organize a National Association for the Advancement of White People? Do you suppose the leadership of the NAACP would shriek in horror and accuse be of being racist? Do you suppose they'd try to sue me as a "hate group", and have the court confiscate whatever I owned so it could be converted it to a "non-racist" use? Do you suppose that Jesse Jackson would lead protest marches through the streets of Firth? Do you think the NAACP types might be just a little bit hypocritical?

Letter to the Editor
Sam,

This message is occasioned by my receipt of the latest Frontiersman [March 2001].

My purpose here is not to pick a fight, but to make sure I understand what I think I understand.

You don't like a rule of law and it should go without saying you would not agree to a rule of men so I gather you want no rule at all.

The way that I would deal with enforcing laws with which I disagree is by characterizing my behavior as fidelity to the process rather than fidelity to the substantive outcome. This is because I disagree with many laws, many the ones you disagree with; others not.

If I understand you correctly, you not only have no fidelity to this process, but no fidelity to any process. That is, you insist upon (1) your personal assent to the application of every single law that purports to apply to you and (2) your lack of any duty to explain to others why you refuse your assent.

Buying into that leaves the essential fact that you not only answer to no law but you make it futile to attempt to persuade you otherwise, because you recognize your right not to give your assent as an absolute — that is, not existing in reference to any greater principle. You might base your opinion on Aristotle or what you did or didn't have for breakfast, it is still your opinion, and it controls over the attempted application of any law that falls on the wrong side of it.

That's not quite textbook anarchism (I don't think Kropotkin would go that far) but sort of a pre-adolescent understanding of anarchism. A literal one, you might say.

April 2001
Page 2

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

frontiersman@ida.net

Have I got it wrong? Or is there some process you WOULD assent to that could make laws for you that you would feel bound to obey whether you liked them or not?

— Steve; San Antonio, Texas

Neither conclusion regarding my attitude toward the rule of law necessarily follows from the premise. In fact, even the stated premise isn't necessarily true. That is, I don't necessarily object to a rule of law, in and of itself. It depends on the situation. I do object to a rule of law when it becomes an instrument of repression, as it has in the USA today. I object to a rule of law when it is used as an excuse to compel people, against their will, into a jurisdiction to which they object. I object to a rule of law when it is used to impose belief systems on those who do not share them.

Neither do I necessarily object to a rule of men. That also depends upon the situation, and upon the men. I have long wondered if a monarchy might be a better form of government than a democracy. In that regard, you might like to read my essay, Anarchy, Monarchy, Malarkey.

Nothing that I've written suggests that I don't want any rule at all. Someone might conclude that by failing to account for what I regard as the difference between anarchy and chaos. The corrupted definition of anarchy, widely preached by proponents of the rule of law, claims that anarchy is the same thing as chaos. However, anarchy and chaos are not the same thing at all. Anarchy, ideally speaking, is cooperation achieved without arbitrary coercion. It is inherently dependent upon behavior in the mutual self-interest of the associated parties, and upon their honesty. The classical definition is "no government", nothing more. Chaos is lack of order — random violence, confusion, unpredictable behavior, and so forth. Given those definitions, I do not advocate chaos. I do advocate anarchy. Government, contradistinguished from anarchy, is cooperation achieved by the use of arbitrary coercion, by the use of force, or by the threat of force. Government is advertised as addressing the self-interest of the associated parties, but in actual practice the results are usually the opposite. I oppose government because it is inherently repressive.

If the virtue of legislation cannot be discovered in the substantive outcome, then I believe that the virtue of the enforcement process must be questioned. To approve the process without accounting for the outcome is, in my opinion, a mistake. If a seemingly harmless process is contributing to an evil outcome, then something is wrong, somewhere. The outcome should not be ignored merely for the sake of the process. The reason for the evil outcome should be sought. In the meantime, it might be advisable to suspend the process, pending discovery of the source of evil. I lack fidelity to the present process because of the outcome. That doesn't imply anything at all, one way or the other, regarding my fidelity to some other hypothetical process, with some other outcome.

I'm not demanding a right to assent, or not to assent, to individual pieces of legislation. Rather, I'm claiming a right to assent, or not to assent, to citizenship. Although I certainly do not have a duty to do so, I have explained many times why legislation lacks legitimate authority over me. I don't intend to voluntarily submit to any legislation unless I am voluntarily a citizen of the government that enacted the legislation. In answer to your question, yes, it is entirely possible that I could be persuaded to become such a citizen, depending upon the terms and conditions of such citizenship. However, I claim a right to refuse citizenship, and I claim that the right is, indeed, absolute. Whether or not I can enforce the right remains to be determined.

The greater principle upon which my claim rests has been variously stated. It is the sovereignty of the individual. It is the idea that such a sovereign individual should be able to pursue his own life, liberty, and happiness, free from arbitrary coercion. It is the belief that "... whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it ...". Finally, it is the conviction that all political authority derives from the consent of sovereign individuals and that, lacking the ability to alter or to abolish a criminal government, a citizen can legitimately withdraw his support, terminate his citizenship, retrieve his sovereignty, and refuse to participate further. That is what I have done.

I am now free, with others of similar opinion, to "... institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Or, I may remain a sovereign individual, without any political affiliation at all. Either option is legitimate under the social contract theory, as I understand it.

— editor

To those who are making contributions, thank you. It's more convenient if you can send cash. If you want to send a check, please contact me first, to arrange for cashing it.

— editor

frontiersman@ida.net

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

April 2001

Page 3

Frontiersman
479 E. 700 N.
Firth, Idaho 83236

A threat should not be a
crime. It might be a
cause for precautions,
but it's definitely NOT a
cause for prosecution.
Neither is a conspiracy.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck

I need to lose as many pounds as possible. What's your advice?

— Overweight

Dear Overweight

Invest in the British stock market.

Acknowledgments
• My thanks to The Affiliate, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario, http://www.the-grand-barn.com/, and The Thought, of Glendale, Arizona, http://home.att.net/~guildmaster/wsb for printing reviews of the Frontiersman.
• My thanks to Sir John the Generous http://www.jwebster.com/, Sir Donald the Elusive, Ted, of San Jose, California, and Robert, of Mariposa, California for their contributions.

— editor

Does Anybody Know?
Source Unknown — forwarded by Sir Donald the Elusive
•     Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write letters to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps, so that the mail men could look for them while they delivered the mail?
•     If it's true that we're here to help others, then why are the others here?
•     You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
•     No one ever says "it's only a game" when his team is winning.
•     What would the speed of lightning be, if it didn't zigzag.
•     If olive oil comes from olives, then where does baby oil come from?

Frontiersman

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 sources. 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

April 2001
Page 4

Frontiersman, 479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see Pharos at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/

frontiersman@ida.net

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue