A Good Beginning
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Prefatory Note: A few times in this article, for the sake of brevity, I've used the word law in its common, although incorrect, sense as being synonymous with the word legislation. For clarification of the correct usage, see Law vs. Legislation, on page 3.
In spite of persuasive testimony, documentation, and archeological evidence at the sites of some of the Nazi internment camps, there are still people who believe that the Nazi Holocaust didn't happen. Of course, witnesses can be unreliable, archeologists can be wrong, and governments will rewrite history, and defame defeated enemies. So, the skepticism of the doubters is probably excusable. I'm not among the doubters. I believe that the Nazi Holocaust actually happened. I believe it partly because of the evidence and partly because of the testimony but mostly because governments do those kinds of things.
According to the documentary series WWII in HD, about 14 million people died in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jews claim that 6 million Jews died in those camps. They make the claim in such a way as to give the impression that the Jews were the only such victims. However, 6 million is less than half of the total number, as reported in WWII in HD. According to the Wikipedia article Extermination camp, Jews accounted for 90% of the total number of people who died in the Nazi extermination camps. It seems that there might be some confusion about the numbers.
|occurred. According to classical international
law, even if it had been illegal, it would still have been outside of the
jurisdiction of any courts other than the then existing courts of the nations
in which it occurred.
Not only did the Nuremberg Trials violate the classical doctrine of national sovereignty, they didn't even judge legality. They judged morality. That's additionally troubling, because the judgment of morality isn't a proper function of either a secular civilian court or a military tribunal. It might legitimately enter into a legislative debate, but it should be avoided in a judicial process. When morality becomes the judicial standard, then the judiciary is at risk of being usurped by religion.
So, a trumped-up, allegedly secular, ex post facto, unilaterally imposed, international jurisdiction was created to address the grievances of one particular ethnic/religious group, the Jews. I can't help but wonder. Were they merely seeking a redress of grievances, or was there more to it than that? Before the 9/11 attacks, after which I mostly stopped watching the U.S. network news, I noticed the similarity of modern Israeli forces to the Nazis, of World War II. They wore similar garb, carried similar gear, and behaved similarly. They kicked down doors, ran around firing their weapons, shot missiles into civilian villages in southern Lebanon, and bulldozed the homes of the families of suspected Palestinian terrorists — not the homes of terrorists, but the homes of the families of suspected terrorists. They killed Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer, while she was trying to prevent just such an atrocity. I'm not aware of any member of the Israeli forces who was ever brought before a military war crimes tribunal, a criminal court, or even a Rabbi, to answer for the murder of Rachel Corrie. Back then, the Israelis were behaving a lot like nazis (the lower case n is intended). Extrapolating from the previous news (I don't watch the news much nowadays), I'd say that, probably, they still are. If it walks like a Nazi, quacks like a Nazi, and shoots like a Nazi, then maybe it's a nazi.
I'm not among the Nazi hunters. What the Nazis did was atrocious, but it wasn't illegal at the times and in the places where they did it. Maybe it was proper to punish them, but not by transforming classical international law into a travesty of its previous self, and paving the way for world domination by whoever can gain control of the international judiciary. Furthermore, the people who wanted to punish the Nazis failed to acknowledged that there were guilty parties on both sides of that war. The Allies used bombs intended to destroy dams, releasing reservoirs of water onto civilians. They carpet-bombed civilian cities, regardless of civilian casualties, and were party to various other wartime horrors. Even so, the prosecutions were politically selective. Neither Churchill, Truman, Stalin, nor any of their underlings, were ever brought before a war crimes tribunal. That the Allied authorities regarded their actions as necessary is irrelevant. They were still responsible for atrocities.
The horror and brutality of World War II was typical of such things. Governments throughout all of human history have behaved similarly. The U.S. government isn't an exception. Hitler admired the way that the U.S. government treated the Indians. In 1928, he praised the Americans because they had, in his words, "gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand, and now keep the modest remnant under observation in a cage". Massacres and reservations, usually a euphemism for Indian concentration camps, were common ways of dealing with the Indians. In recent decades, the U.S. government has committed atrocities in, at least, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Panama, Columbia, and Guatemala. Domestically, it has behaved atrociously in various places, such as Ruby Ridge and the Mt. Carmel Center. Covert U.S. government forces conducted the 9/11 attacks, creating excuses for additional repressive legislation, and additional wars.
In his article Evil, In Thy Service, on page 2 of the December 2017 issue, Robert H. Outman noted that people in herds are more prone to evil behavior than are people alone. I suggest that evil behavior is more likely, and will be more severe, in a bigger herd. Governments are big herds. Once people band together into governments, Nazis, Jews, Americans, or anything else, their behavior can become equally evil. In The Dispossessed, Ursula K. LeGuin commented that, while only society can provide stability, only the individual has the power of moral choice. I don't know how to eliminate the evil that's inherent in governments. The best thing that I can suggest is that individuals need to educate themselves about the principles of liberty, and about the doctrines of social contract and personal sovereignty. I've written various essays on those topics. They're available in Pharos, under the heading Liberty, Sovereignty, and the Doctrine of Social Contract. Anybody who's read this article has made a good beginning. The next step is to study the essays.
|Letter to the Editor
I normally read the "Frontiersman" with pleasure. But in your Dec. 2017 issue, your insert, "Bill of non-rights" by Rep. Mitchell Kaye is a total crock of nonsense.
In Article VI, it says if a person kidnaps someone, to expect to fry in an electric chair, etc.
I'm in prison for kidnap, do I deserve the electric chair? In California, if you kidnap for the purpose of rape, murder, ransom, robbery or a person under the age of 14, it carries a sentence of 15 years, and can include "life with" or "life without parole" attached to it.
My conviction contained none of that. I was driving a friend's car who asked me to pull over, no violence was involved, I pulled over within 2 blocks, we switched sides, the next day the friend was caught with drugs and to get themselves out of trouble, they cooperated with police in my conviction.
25 years ago in 1991, I was convicted of robbery II degree. I took a plea bargain. I completed parole and remained law abiding, until 2015, August.
The police said that even though no egregious crime was committed, I committed a "kidnap" by legal definition by taking 2 blocks to pull over. Even though there is no legal guide line to follow, the D.A. said 2 blocks constituted a "significant distance", and by which the "victim" was "asportated", (the legal definition of kidnap) now, my kidnap was so menial, it didn't qualify for the 15 years.
I was eligible for 1 year in the county jail, had I not had the 1991 conviction. Under the 3 strike laws, the kidnap qualified as a 2nd strike, so they gave me 5 years for the kidnap, doubled to 10 years because of the strike laws, and was given 5 more years for PC 667 (a), because the 1991 conviction was a serious felony, say, when isn't a felony serious?
So now I'm up to 15 ears, and since I was driving, I was given 2 years, doubled to 4 years for driving the 2 blocks without the owner's consent. Basically I was given 4 years for stealing the car for 2 blocks, before the seat switch and because I said in court, "why are you trying to put me away for life," the D.A. said I was trying to "dissuade" the victim from testifying by making her feel sorry for me". And was given more time. A total of 20 years 4 months, to be served at 85%. So I've got to do 17 years.
Where is my 8th Amendment protection from "double jeopardy"? In short, the D.A., during an election year, turned a county jail/probation case into essentially a life sentence. I was 48 at conviction, and will be released if I'm lucky in my 60's.
In reality, the Jim Crow laws are alive and well. The 13th Amendment still allows slaves, in the form as convicts.
It's a piss poor world when a person can invest their money on Wall Street in the incarceration and forced labor of poor men and women.
If you or anyone knows of an organization who can help me on a habeas appeal I'm sitting here in Salinas Valley State Prison. Have a blessed day.
PS. We need to stand up against prosecutors abusing legislation for career gain. I'm a victim of crooked bureaucracy.
Law vs. Legislation
The term law properly addresses things that are inherent or fundamental. It addresses things that men observe or discover, such as the law of gravity or the law of supply and demand. Laws operate of their own accord, whether or not any man is even aware of them. They don't require enforcement by men. Any violation of a law will result in a consequence, without the intervention of men. The term legislation properly addresses the proclamations and declarations of men, usually intended to compel or to prohibit some specified behavior. Legislation doesn't operate of its own accord. The violation of legislation might not cause any consequence at all unless such violation is observed by men and such consequence is enforced by men.
Bad Code, In Our Own Image
Sam Aurelius Milam III
This past December, I saw a TV commercial in which a little girl asked Alexa where Santa Claus was, at that particular moment. Alexa promptly told her that Santa Claus was over Boston. The implications are alarming.
If the scenario presented in the TV commercial is at all credible, then the unavoidable conclusion is that the programmers have taught Alexa how to tell a lie. Necessarily, they will have also taught it how to distinguish between a lie and the truth. Finally, they will have provided a set of criteria by which it can decide, for itself, whether or not to tell a lie.
Not only is the device a spy, potentially capable of listening to everything that's said in its vicinity, and sending all such information to a central database, it can also lie to us about its capabilities and its intentions.
My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Betty; Stephen, of Wahiawa, Hawaii; Eric, of Ione, California; and Sir Donald the Elusive.
Alleged Fact About the 1500s
Availability — Assuming the availability of sufficient funds, subscriptions to this newsletter in print, copies of past issues in print, and copies of the website on CDs are available upon request. Funding for this newsletter is from sources over which I don't have any control, so it might become necessary for me to terminate these offers or to cancel one or more subscriptions at any time, without notice. All past issues are presently available for free download at the internet address shown below. Contributions are welcome.
Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving printed copies of this newsletter, then return your copy unopened. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription.
Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby given 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. I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must apply to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions — I consider 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.
Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you want to make a voluntary contribution, then I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use firstname.lastname@example.org. In case anybody's curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it.
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor