|
|
|
Dawn of Darkness
Sam Aurelius Milam III In January of 2009, I watched an old documentary called The Hunt for Adolf Eichmann. It brought to mind again, as so many things do, the danger that lurks within the righteous rage of evangelistic reformers when they're in the hot pursuit of a worthy cause. Few people will mourn the fate of Adolf Eichmann but, sadly, fewer still will comprehend its implications and consequences. However heinous the behavior of the Nazis might have been, it wasn't illegal at the time and in the place of its occurrence. Even if it had been illegal, the only legislation under which that would have been the case would have been German legislation. Even if the Nazis had violated such legislation, which they didn't do, the only courts with jurisdiction over them would have been German courts. Israel didn't even exist at the time that Adolf Eichmann was engaged in the extermination of the Jews. After the war, a group of Jewish vigilantes calling themselves the Avengers began to hunt for Adolf Eichmann. Later, after the creation of Israel, they went to work for the Mossad. Eventually, they located their target in Argentina. Using forged documents and false identities, and without the knowledge of the Argentinean authorities, they made their plans and kidnapped Adolf Eichmann. After that, they secretly held him in a sealed and soundproofed room, blindfolded, shackled to a bed, and constantly under guard. After three days of interrogation, he "voluntarily" agreed to go to Israel for trial. In violation of both Israeli law and international law, there wasn't even the pretense of an extradition process. They simply smuggled him out of the country, drugged and under a false identity, ten days after the kidnapping. He was tried under the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-1950. It was blatantly ex post facto legislation. The activities for which he was tried occurred between 1938 and 1945, before either Israel or the legislation existed. It wasn't even German legislation. It was Israeli legislation. Adolf Eichmann was sentenced to death, in spite of Israel's lack of a death penalty, by an Israeli court that lacked any legitimate jurisdiction over him. Nothing in the entire series of events complied with the principles of legitimate international diplomacy or judicial due process. Instead, it was a vendetta conducted by Avengers-turned-Mossad, judicial imperialism disguised as due process, and vengeance disguised as justice. Why are the events important after all of this time? They're important because, having been done in a way that remotely suggested legitimacy, they unleashed upon the world a doctrine of retribution, by institutions that lack jurisdiction, against people who are punished for some unpopular behavior that wasn't illegal when and where it occurred. The only cause of action against such people is that some other group of people has a grudge against them. The only authority for such action is force. Such proceedings don't have anything to do with justice, due process, or legitimate jurisdiction.1 Such judicial imperialism is excused by ideas like genocide,2 crimes against humanity, war crimes, or any other emotive notion that can be used to stampede people into accepting yet another source of illegitimate authority. The resulting chaos of judicial doublethink has corrupted the understanding of legitimate judicial jurisdiction and made a mockery of international law.3 The judicial imperialism of such courts and tribunals will be used to impose the ideology of whichever politically correct faction happens to gain control. The result is likely to be a world-wide reign of inflexible repression, brutally and ruthlessly enforced, more widespread and more enduring than anything that the Nazis ever accomplished or, even in their wildest dreams, ever imagined.
Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
|
Pay per View
Sam Aurelius Milam III In August and September of 2008, I did some research for a new index on The Frontiersman Website. The index was to be a list of all of the articles and other things (Buck Hunter, A White Man's Notes, and so forth), that I've printed in the Frontiersman, about women and feminism. There turned out to be a lot more material than I'd expected. However, that's beside the point. You can find the index on The Frontiersman Website. While I was working on the index, I came across my old article The War on Muffshots, in the December 1999 issue. In that article, I criticized some women who were complaining about men finding covert ways to sneak a peek up a woman's dress or down a woman's blouse. Such behavior among men dates from the mists of antiquity and, short of genetic engineering in the hands of the feminists, it isn't going to change. If women don't want men to peek, then they'll have to button their top buttons and wear longer dresses. Failing that, they should move into Convents. In either case, they should stop whining. Anyway, it's a good article. I suggest that you find your December 1999 issue and read it again. Here's the thing. Many women will eagerly flaunt their sexuality at every possible opportunity. They'll do it at the beach, in front of complete strangers, in outfits that end a scant half inch from Home Base. They'll do it at a gym, in front of people that they see once a week, in outfits that fit like coats of paint. They'll do it in a swimming pool, at the mall, at work, or anyplace else where they can find the least excuse to wear something that demands men's attention. Then, they'll whine if a man sneaks a peek at what they've been flaunting, even though he'll see much less than they eagerly show on their own, at the least excuse. So, why are they complaining? While I was doing the research for the new index, I also came across a more recent article, From the Nesting Urge to the Wander Lust, in the July 2007 issue. Again, I suggest that you find your copy of that issue and read the article. It provides the answer to the question that I asked in the previous paragraph. That is, why would women flaunt their sexuality in the most obvious and provocative possible ways and then whine if a man sneaks a peek at a much less alluring view, on his own? The answer is simple. The women want to be in control of the show. From time immemorial, women have used their sexuality as a primary means to control men. Flaunting it enables them to capture men's attention and to manipulate men's behavior.1 However, if a man manages to sneak a look, even an inferior look, on his own, then he failed to pay the entrance fee. He saw the show for free. He didn't have to do the woman any favors in order to get a look at her assets (nice pun). That's the entire deal. If a woman can use her sexuality as a technique to demand men's attention and to manipulate their behavior, then she's happy to unbutton those top buttons and have men ogle at her, so long as they pretend not to and otherwise behave according to her wishes. If a man sneaks a peek on his own, at exactly the same thing that she's willing to flaunt, then she's a victim. Dracula
Stray Thoughts
Please use the enclosed envelope to send a contribution. I prefer cash. For checks or money orders, please inquire.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; my mother; Dewey and Betty; Jim, of South Bend, Indiana; and Gary, of Candler, Georgia. — editor
Court Quotes From Humor in the Court and More Humor in the Court, by Mary Louise Gilman, editor of the National Shorthand Reporter. Forwarded by Don G.
Definitions Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
Frontiersman Subscriptions and Back Issues — Printed copies of this newsletter, either subscriptions or back issues, are available by application only. Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, then print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You can also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. 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, then I prefer cash, prepaid telephone cards, or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders please inquire. For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
For PayPal payments, use editor@frontiersman.my3website.net.
|
|
|