Unbending Some Twigs
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I recently came into possession of a box of used video and audio recordings. I've been sorting through them, deciding what to keep and what to discard. One particular recording demanded special attention.
I don't know who made the recording. The videocassette wasn't labeled. It shows a children's program, in a large room that's decorated with pictures of American historical figures, and with bunting, stripes, and balloons, all in red, white, and blue. It shows the children solemnly approaching a stage, in single file, with their hands clasped behind their backs, while the Star-Spangled Banner is being played on a piano. Pews were available for seating, so the large room was probably a church. If that's the case, then the abundance of nationalistic symbolism suggests a cavalier disregard for the doctrine of the separation of church and state.
I'm not good at estimating ages, but the children seemed to me to be about five or six years old. At the beginning of the program, they recited three formal oaths of allegiance. Their recitation was difficult to understand but, to the best of my ability to understand it, the oaths were to the U.S. flag, to a Christian flag, and to the Bible. The children weren't old enough to understand the oaths, or to be legally bound by them, but the real harm in subjecting children to such behavior is that it tends to condition them to mindlessly submit to other oaths, later in life, when they're old enough for it to matter. The oaths were also a further suggestion of the tacit approval of a unified institution, consisting of both church and state.
The children sang or recited various pieces. The words were difficult for me to understand but, of those that I did understand, some could be construed as nationalistic propaganda. That might not matter with adults but these were impressionable children under the influence of a strongly religious and political setting.
The video showed that the children were being supervised entirely by women. By my count, there were five black women and one Asian woman. Only the pianist was white. That might have been just happenstance. The children performed their songs and oaths as members of a choir. With only one exception, they didn't get to perform as individuals. In fact, there were three microphones, not one. The children recited political slogans at the microphones, but only in unison, and only in mixed-gender or mixed-race groups of two or three children each. That wasn't just happenstance. To me, it seemed more like dogmatically enforced political correctness. I'm wary of that sort of thing. Even political correctness can become a religion, especially in a church, and religions are notorious for punishing people who violate their dogma.
The children are shown to be immersed in a powerfully patriotic and devoutly religious setting. I expect that the slogans, oaths, propagandistic lyrics, and politically correct staff and training are likely to condition their minds with reflexes that could take the place of thinking for years into their futures, maybe for their entire lives. I recall, from more than 60 years ago, being in a similar environment myself, except, of course, for the political correctness and the feminism. The nationalism was about the same. That suggests to me why the government can so easily deceive us and manipulate us, today. See Hindsight, Blindsight, in the July 2011 issue. As children, we were conditioned to mindless obedience and jingoistic nationalism. We were conditioned to uncritically accept false assumptions and misinformation. It seems to me that the same kind of thing is still happening to the children, today.
I noted in Enemies of Liberty, in the April 2011 issue, that when free public education becomes mandatory public education, then education becomes brainwashing. If the indoctrination of the children is actually as thorough as it appears to be in the video, then I suggest that the time is long past when we should just start keeping the children at home.
The video is available in The Sovereign's Library. Go to sovereign-library.org.uk, click on Main Directory, click on Videos, and scroll down to Indoctrinating the Children. Watch the video and make your own decision.
So, Probably Not|
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I don't spend a lot of time watching the news, so I don't claim to have an exhaustive knowledge of the recent protests. This is the way that they seem to me, based on the short segments of recent news reports that I've seen, and on my much longer experience of watching such things in general.
I haven't noticed any of the current protesters objecting when the cops kill a white man, only when the cops kill a black man. I've seen them carrying signs that say black lives matter, but I haven't noticed any signs that say white lives matter, or even that human lives matter. If the present protesters are as legitimate as they claim to be, then they'll object when the cops kill anybody, not just when the cops kill a black man. They'll carry signs saying that human lives matter, not just that black lives matter.
Self-serving behavior is common among people with good publicity and an agenda. See Redefinition in High Definition, in the January 2016 issue. The behavior of these particular protesters suggests that they might be tacitly intent upon establishing a regime of special privileges and considerations for black people only. If that seems cynical, then consider that the women did exactly the same thing with the Violence Against Women Act. So, should we expect some special legislation, maybe something akin to VAWA, creating another category of special crimes against another group of specially privileged people? Probably so.
I'm not aware of any special interest group whose members ever actually wanted equal treatment. So far as I'm aware, all that any of them ever wanted was to raise themselves above all others in rank and privilege. This present bunch doesn't seem to be any different from those others in that respect. They've correctly seen that there's a problem, but they seem to be using it for their own agenda. Who knows? Maybe the protests are even being stirred up by agents provocateur. I don't know. Whatever the case, so long as the protesters frame the situation as a race problem, they'll emphasize and perpetuate racial dissension. If they'd frame it as a police problem, then both races would be in the same camp, allies, maybe even friends, opposing the real culprits, which are the cops. Are these protesters going to do it that way? Probably not.
Letters to the Editor
I got screwed by the CA parole people & am now living in a run down dump with 5 other guys sharing a room with 2 others and sharing one toilet, BUT there's hope that I'll be off parole in 5 months. I'm now 84 and looking to live 5 to 10 more years. My 2 roommates are mentally unbalanced so there's not a dull moment. Enclosed are some sayings that I cherish & hope you may be able to fit into future pubs of yours. I'm still using the address on the envelope till I can do better. Thank you so much for all your best wishes and encouragement!
—J. M., Victorville, California
Hi Sam, I hope you are well. I try every few days to complete letters to you. I've begun over 100 times, for sure, but like 100's of others, they get buried again under 1000's of documents in my cell.... And thanks for continuing to send me Frontiersman — I do get them all.
—F. L., a prisoner
Keep up the good work!
—Don C., Santa Clara, California
Do you think it's possible that NASA could fly the space station and land it on the Moon, and we could use it as our new moon base?
I recently read a good book you must check out, "The Devil's Teeth: A True Story of Obsession and Survival Among America's Great White Sharks", by Susan Casey. I promise ya won't be disappointed!
—Howie in the Max
I suspect that the space station is too fragile to land on the Moon. Some people believe that there are already facilities on the Moon and on Mars. Other people believe that the whole space program has been faked.
Hello. All is well for you I pray, all is fine here....
The June '20 Frontiersman was exceptional, for starters, in regards to your "Unapologetic", women in the workplace are like women at home. They want men to "change, change, change" but in a marriage, when a man changes to all of his wife's whims, the wife goes out and cheats. It's not rocket science. After the wife has turned her hubby into a walking tampon, girl friend, he no longer turns her on. Just like women in the workplace. Remember, the difference between sexual harassment and flirting is whether she thinks you're cute. Man, there's so much to respond to in your June issue. Let me pick the main issue I want to respond to.
In your "Case Closed", I'm pretty familiar with the D. B. Cooper case. Let me lay out what I know to be true, and give you my opinion, and await your response.
starters, a lot of people don't know this, but D. B. Cooper struck not
once, but twice. Both times were identical, except the 2nd
time he asked for more money. Both times he got away.
The 1st time, when he boarded the plane, no one remembers his actual appearance, they only remember him going to the bathroom, and coming out in what was an obvious disguise. A dark wig, dark bushy mustache and dark, Blues Brother sunglasses. He was wearing a cheap, dark blue, Sears style 3 piece suit and carrying a brief case. He sits down, calls a stewardess, opens his brief case, shows her a grenade, hands her a letter and instructs her to give the pilot a letter. Because of his calm demeanor, I don't believe the passengers knew the plane was being hijacked. The letter to the pilot said to contact authorities, to tell them to put $200,000 in cash, small bills, non-sequential, unmarked in a duffle bag, and five parachutes, to be delivered to the plane upon landing. In return, he would release all passengers, and he and the flight crew would take off again. The F.B.I. responded as he requested. The money and parachutes were traded for 1st class and coach passengers.
After the plane took off again a "tail" plane followed the airliner from behind. Once in the air and away from the urban area, D. B. sent another letter with the stewardess to the pilot, giving him exact flight instructions on how to fly the plane, such as to put "flaps down", and to reduce speed to 180 to 200 mph, the minimum speed to maintain soft flight. He then told all the flight crew, stewardesses included, to go to the cockpit with the pilot, lock the door, and to not come out until notified.
Now, the F.B.I. did outfit the parachutes with "trackers". Then, D. B. Cooper opened the door and threw out all 5 parachutes out the door. The tail plane reported that the chutes were on the move. So the tail plane called the pilot. The stewardess checked the plane and reported D. B. Cooper was gone.
So the tail plane landed and with state police, searched the forest, and located all 5 parachutes, unopened, and D. B. Cooper wasn't found on the ground or on the plane.
Now some years later, he struck again, exact same everything, same airport, same airline, same flight area over Washington & Oregon, except he asked for $500,000 this time.
This time though, after the 5 parachutes were kicked out, troopers and FBI were ready on the ground, and the tail plane stayed with the hijacked airliner.
Now the parachutes were kicked out at night, so the tail plane could only release the info that the parachutes were on the move.
Once again no one ever found any trace of Cooper on the ground or on the plane.
This time though, they did find a couple thousand dollars of the ransom money strewed along the flight path. That's the facts of the two hijack ransoms. I learned all of this from a bar in Washington state named "D. B.'s" if I remember right. The owner has an infatuation with the case.
Now, not too long back, a man in Utah was arrested and convicted and sent to prison. I can't remember what for, but when police searched his attic they found the disguise and some of the money from the second hijacking.
He never admitted guilt, and while in prison, he attempted to escape, using a prison trash truck to ram the wall, he was shot and killed by guard towers. He never said how he came to be in possession of the D. B. Cooper money and evidence.
How did he do it? Twice! Shit man I don't know! Oh, by the way, the guy in Utah was an ex navy pilot and an experienced parachutist. What if Cooper had his own parachute in his luggage? Could he access his luggage from the top-side? Probably so. So, after kicking out the 5 "government" chutes, he could have jumped out with his own. What if he had prepared a hidden underground bunker to hide in after he landed in the forest.
Or, is it possible he hid in a large trunk in a piece of luggage, and an accomplice collected their baggage after the FBI questioned them? I don't know, but I don't think the FBI was complicit or in cahoots nor the flight crew....
—Sincerely, S. H., a prisoner
Most of the behavior of women follows from a genetic mandate to control men but, as Laura Doyle noted, the only thing worse than a man that you can't control is a man that you can control. See Human Behavior, in the November 2019 issue and A Man's Perspective on the Surrendered Wife, in the January 2005 issue.
I didn't know that D. B. Cooper did two hijackings. Regarding his mysterious disappearance, I don't know the answer.
Sam Aurelius Milam III
•Hate crime legislation punishes a man not for what he does, but for what he believes. It's attempted mind control, defining thought crimes and establishing the thought police.
•One indication that you're living in a police state is when an accusation, by itself, is taken as proof of guilt.
My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; Betty; Robert O, of Stockton, California; and Sir Donald the Elusive.
Signs of Getting Older
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. You can use firstname.lastname@example.org for PayPal payments. 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