|
|
|
|
Reformer, Heal Thyself Sam Aurelius Milam III
Some time ago, I watched Mr. Monk and the Marathon Man, Season 1, Episode 9 of Monk. For the benefit of people who aren't familiar with him, Mr. Monk is obsessive-compulsive. One of his difficulties is a reluctance to touch another person. He compulsively cleans his hand if he has to shake hands with somebody. In the referenced episode, Mr. Monk had to shake hands with the members of the staff of a small office. By coincidence, the last person with whom he shook hands was a black man. When Mr. Monk cleaned his hand with a wet wipe, everybody on the staff, and especially the black man, bristled with resentment. They all believed that Mr. Monk had cleaned his hand because of touching a black man. Those people were intolerant of Mr. Monk's attitude, as they perceived it, to the point of hostility. The black man actually declared that he had to leave immediately, before he did something that he'd regret. It was a thinly veiled threat of violence, and it had the enthusiastic approval of the other members of the staff. They remained openly hostile to Mr. Monk, throughout the ensuing discussion. Fiction sometimes reveals truth. That episode of Monk was a good example. Those people pretended to a high degree of tolerance. In fact, they were just as intolerant of Mr. Monk as they thought he was of black people, and they were more prone to violence than he was. That made them just as much bigots as they presumed him to be. People like that should take a look at themselves. If they want to reduce racial intolerance, then they need to learn that the problem isn't race. The problem is intolerance. Failing to tolerate someone who is intolerant is, itself, an instance of intolerance. Indeed, it's the worst kind of intolerance because it creates in the reformers a holier-than-thou attitude, encouraging them to self-righteousness. It's important to note that such enforcers of racial tolerance are lying to themselves. To clarify that, not once in my entire life have I ever tolerated a pecan pie. That's because I like pecan pie. When somebody is required, against his will, to tolerate somebody that he doesn't like, that's an unspoken acknowledgment that he doesn't like the person. If he liked the person, then tolerating him wouldn't be necessary. To pretend that enforced tolerance is the same thing as approval, or that it somehow creates approval, is delusional, the irrational self-deception of a fool. Actually, it's even worse than that. When the reformers enforce tolerance while implicitly requiring approval, they end up punishing people not for their behavior, but for their beliefs. Tolerance becomes tantamount to mind control, a euphemism for the reformer's particular brand of Orwellian thought control. Such attempts to control people's attitudes are unacceptable. If a man doesn't like somebody due to religion, race, gender, ethnicity, creed, occupation, sexual preferences, hair style, eye color, poor table manners, odor, or anything else, however trivial or irrational the idiotic reasons might be, then that's his business, and nobody else's. Courtesy might be expected of him, but not approval. A bigot has just as much right to his attitudes, right or wrong, as the reformers have to theirs. The only alternative is that nobody has any right at all to his own attitude but, instead, must have whatever attitudes are approved by the thought police. If we are to have freedom of thought, then we must tolerate freedom of thought. The reformers who have taken it upon themselves to be the enforcers of political correctness have stepped way over the line of what's acceptable. They've tried to make themselves into the arbiters of everybody else's attitudes. That makes them more dangerous than the bigots that they claim to oppose, because they hide their own bigotry behind a facade of phony virtue. At least an honest bigot calls a spade a spade. The reformers impose their evangelism onto us and hide their hypocrisy from us, making them unworthy of their cause. Learning to tolerate intolerant people is the only service that they might belatedly make to that cause. Minding their own business, and mending their own behavior, would be a good way to start.
|
Letters to the Editor
Greetings Sam; I hope this finds you well. Thanks for the Frontiersman. I've been getting them regularly. I thank everyone and nice to see a letter of mine in there again [December 2017, Letter to the Editor, page 3]. Thanks.... ... I'm so glad you're still alive! (Referring to the post office notice shown in the recent Frontiersman! Shock!).... —a prisoner
Dear Sam.... ... I really liked the advice you gave "Jim" to "not support the gov't" any way one can [November 2017. Letter to the Editor, page 1]. I am very near the end of my "fight" and can then remove myself from their grid.... —a prisoner
Greetings Sam; I hope this finds you well & am wishing you a very healthy & free 2018 w/blessing upon blessing for you.... About 5 or 6 or 7 (or so) issues of Frontiersman ago you had an insert page that contained the greatest short quote ever about hypocrisy — how it was arguably worse than evil in general.... —a prisoner
The insert was in the August 2017 issue. —editor
Dear Sam, In your Jan. 2018 [A Good Beginning, pages 1-2], you say, after the 9/11 attacks you mostly stopped watching the U.S. network news. May I ask why and where do you get your source of news now? I also watch non-U.S. sources of news, such as the B.B.C., what are your views of them? And you also say in the newsletter [same article], "covert U.S. government forces conducted the 9/11 attacks...." Can you give me your reasoning for coming to that conclusion. As for me, I'm a Christian, but one whose thought process is very clinical and based on provable science. Just a few of the reasons I know the twin towers were not brought down by a plane are this. 1> take a scale photo of the jet and overlay it on the hole in the Pentagon. The jet engines lay right over unbroken windows on the Pentagon, and the tail is higher than the undamaged roof. And supposedly the fire consumed the airplane in its entirety. Impossible. The engines made by Rolls Royce are made of titanium and can't be melted by the temperature of burning aviation fuel. Did you know a skyscraper in California was hit by a 707 jet back in the 1970s, and despite the fact it burned for 3 days, only the top 3 floors collapsed. As a matter of fact, only 3 buildings hit by a plane in all of history fell down completely. They happen to be building 1, 2, and 7 of the World Trade Center. Buildings 1 & 2, hit directly by planes, came down in less than an hour. I'll leave that one alone but why did building 7 collapse? It didn't. Secret Service on a news report that day said, "We were worried about building 7's integrity so we brought it down..." (I'm remembering here, so it may not be exact, but I'm close) What does, "We brought it down" mean? Are they saying "controlled demolition?" If so, I worked a demolition job where we brought down a 5 story steel foundry machine and it took weeks and weeks of preparation. It would be 100% impossible for any crew to prepare and bring down a building on the same day. So, what was in building 7 is what we should really be asking. And do some research on the names of the people who died. True, most of the victims were 1st responders. But of the thousands of names listed as deceased, I did searches and over half of the hijackers I found alive and well in other countries. And hundreds of the victims I couldn't find any actual obituaries. So I quit searching because so many names appeared to be fake entries to beef up the "news". And the plane brought down by the passengers and the Pentagon, where is the debris, not even a piece of metal you can positively identify to a plane. Where is the D.N.A. from the victims? I could literally go on and on. I'm curious as to your opinion Sam. And I won't even comment on Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel, and the long list of wrongs our government has perpetrated or I would have to write a book. Very truly yours, —a prisoner
The news agencies reported the government's lies about 9/11 without shame or apology. Joseph Goebbels himself couldn't have done it better. It was intolerable and unforgivable. I occasionally run across a bit of some news program, while I'm changing channels, but I usually change the channel again pretty quickly. I've occasionally watched short pieces of non-U.S. news programs. They all seem to be government propaganda machines. I believe that there's more useful information about the condition and direction of American society in TV dramas, TV commercials, documentaries, reality shows, and situation comedies than there is in the news programs. Regarding my opinions about the 9/11 attacks, see my essays Pentagon Anomalies and Unnamed Agency. They're available in The Sovereign's Library. —editor
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: SantaClara Bob; Betty; and Eric, of Ione, California. — editor
Websites http://frontiersman.org.uk/ http://moonlight-flea-market.com/ http://pharos.org.uk/ http://sam-aurelius-milam-iii.org.uk/ http://sovereign-library.org.uk/ Blonde Joke
Questions
Funny Stories
Frontiersman
— Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
|
|
|