A Fictional Speculation
Sam Aurelius Milam III
In various places around the country, protestors objected to black people being killed by the police. Since their objections were specifically to the deaths of black people, and not to the deaths of white people, they were seen by some white people as biased, maybe even racist, and possibly as surreptitious supporters of an anti-white agenda. Some of the protestors demanded punishment of police who killed black people, or defunding of the police forces generally. Such demands caused resentment among the police. Supporters of the police responded by using alarmist propaganda in advertisements, frightening people with grim scenarios of the brutality that would result from defunding of the police. Abusive interventions by frustrated police converted some peaceful protests into riots, adding to the controversy. It all tended to have a destabilizing influence.
Meanwhile, the number of people who were dying from the virus continued to grow. Many political events and social activities were cancelled or disrupted. Businesses, churches, and schools closed, or became more difficult to use. Increasing numbers of people lost jobs, homes, and insurance.
At the appointed time, elections were held, but there were difficulties. Fear of the virus, and the associated precautions, sometimes caused staffing problems. Some polling places were closed. Polling places that were open were sometimes understaffed, or were staffed with inexperienced people. At other polling places, social distancing requirements limited the number of people who could be inside. Even where larger, alternate facilities ware used, lines were long. At some polling places, people were simply turned away. Electronic alternatives to voting in person were sometimes unreliable. Many absentee and mail-in ballots were lost in the mail. Some were found later, too late to be counted. One Post Office employee was caught destroying ballots that were in favor of candidates that he disliked.
Some protestors anticipated that news coverage of the voting problems would be an opportunity for publicity and scheduled protests in the vicinities of polling places. That complicated the voting situation. Police tried to clear the protestors away but, often, the protestors arranged themselves in lines, pretending to be voters. The police couldn't always tell the difference. A lot of confusion resulted. Many voters were caught in the roundups, and weren't released until after the elections were over. Everybody who'd been confined, protestors and voters alike, all had to be retested for the virus, because of the crowded conditions under which they were detained, the lack of masks during periods of detention, or the paucity of sanitary facilities.
Because of the large number of election irregularities, it was widely suggested that the elections were invalid. In response, the president issued an executive order proclaiming that he would remain in office until new elections could be organized. Many people condemned that as a violation of the U.S. constitution. The situation was so complicated, and the problems were so widespread, that nobody could decide which court, if any, had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was unavailable because five of its justices were down with the virus.
The epidemic continued to grow, accelerated even more than would have otherwise been the case by undisciplined behavior during protests and riots, and by poor conditions under which detainees were kept. Businesses continued to fail. Riots, homelessness, hunger, and shortages of medical facilities continued to spread. The worst hit regions were declared to be disaster areas. In many such locations, federal troops were sent in to quell the violence. State and local authorities objected to the presence of federal troops and, in some cases, openly opposed them.
Because of the increasing levels of confusion and disorder, and the resistance to federal troops, the president declared the entire nation to be under a state of martial law. That was widely condemned as a coup d'état. Critics claimed that the president had orchestrated the whole thing, had used the epidemic as a political tool, and was conducting a military takeover to perpetuate his hold on the presidency. Such critics were derided by the authorities as conspiracy theorists. Many were arrested, and were never seen again. Tensions increased.
|Threats were made. The declaration of martial
law caused some states to form mutual alliances, to deal with the emergency
themselves. Some of the alliances began to behave, in some ways,
like independent nations. The legislature of one unaligned state,
in a fit of frustration and bravado, passed an ordinance of secession.
Another state legislature followed suit. After that, several of the
alliances declared independence.
Governments around the world feared an international domino effect. In an effort to guarantee stability, and at the urging of a majority of its member nations, the UN Security Council authorized a peacekeeping force of United Nations Special Service Units, manned mostly by Russian troops. It then issued a binding resolution that gave the peacekeeping force complete administrative authority in the United States. In an emergency special session, the UN General Assembly backed the move. Under the authority of the binding resolution, the Russian administrative authorities, supported by UNSSU troops, divided the United States into several administrative regions and then began a years-long campaign of attempted pacification.
If the conclusion of my fictional speculation seems familiar, that's because it's intended as a prequel that blends seamlessly into the miniseries Amerika. This is all fiction but sometimes fiction can be very informative. Anybody who's curious can get a copy of the miniseries, watch it, and see how the story ends.
Selections from the Miniseries Amerika
•Your young people [are] attacking the symbols of power they can see.... They resist in ways that make them feel good, not those that actually accomplish anything. Actually, it's a controlled provocation. Our agents stir them up so that we can let them release their frustrations. At the same time, we keep track of them, give them a scare, arrest some.
•Totalitarianism doesn't need armies. It only needs to control a couple of things. The media, and the ability to dispense privilege to some and to withhold it from others. But of course, a weak and divided people helps.
Letters to the Editor
I loved your latest Frontiersman [August issue], especially the blond jokes. By the way, I understand the mask requirement is to protect others, not yourself. Thanks for a great newsletter!
—Tom, from Redwood City
If you're correct that forcing me against my will to wear a mask is to protect other people, then the reasoning is flawed. That is, if the other person is already wearing a mask, then he's already protecting himself, and I don't need to protect him. If he isn't wearing a mask, then maybe he's made a decision to forgo protection. In general, you wear safety equipment to protect yourself, not to protect other people. A surgeon wears a mask during surgery, but he has an obligation to protect a patient who can't protect himself. It isn't legitimate to impose on me a requirement to protect other people who can so easily protect themselves. If the other person doesn't protect himself, then that's his problem. The reasoning that you propose burdens me with an obligation, without my consent.
I believe that the "protecting other people" notion is a ploy to trick us into accepting additional control of our behavior. Recall my observation that there are only three categories of behavior in the USA: mandatory, prohibited, and regulated. Wearing a mask will be brought under government control not to protect other people, but because freedom of choice is intolerable in a police state.
What up man, I hope you're doing well.
In your Frontiersman, July 2020, the article "Probably So, Probably Not" [page 2] is an issue you and I have spoken about before.
You're right when you say you've never seen a "White Lives Matter" sign. Shit, let a white person holding an "All Lives Matter" be seen and they're attacked and called racist.
And honestly, by approaching the problem of "police brutality" from the black perspective only, you're minimizing the problem immensely. I get it. 395 black people were killed by police last year in 2019 and blacks represent 13% of the population so they're 2 time likely to be shot. etc.
But here's something people aren't told. 923 white people were killed by police last year.
Now keep in mind, these are only unarmed people shot by police. There are more deaths, being choked, etc. that aren't in these stats.
But I do agree with you Sam, special interest groups rail and cry out their own cause. They only want "change" for themselves. It reminds me of the "pigs" in Orwell's "Animal Farm."
A good example of how groups only want for themselves is women's basketball, W.N.B.A. They're always whining how they don't get equal pay. But have you ever seen one of their games? Slow paced. Empty arena. No excitement. They whine about equal this and that, but they're playing on a smaller court, play
|with a smaller ball, and do nothing but stand
around. But back to "Black Lives Matter". If everyone would
join forces and point out over 1,500 unarmed people were shot and killed
by cops last year, maybe something could be changed.
Also, on your "Stray Thoughts" [page 3] about how hate crimes legislation punishes a man not for what he does, but for what he believes, the real question? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "hate crime"? Generally, the "majority" can decide anything they want. What if the gay, Jew, liberals decide that a child must suck a dick and eat a pussy before the age of 18, if they don't they're branded "gay basher" and charged with a "hate crime"? I know that sounds extreme but in reality, we aren't far away from that sort of extreme thinking. More and more it's becoming criminal to be a poor, white male.
Well brother, I shall close for now. Peace and be well.
—S. H., a prisoner
You've raised an important point about the numbers and proportions of the deaths. According to your numbers, last year the cops killed more than twice as many white people as black people. Maybe the protestors can't count. Of course, they like to base their complaints on the proportion of black people killed, as compared to the size of the black population. It has to make you wonder. Is it okay for the cops to kill white people, just so long as the proportion of white people killed is less than the proportion of black people killed, as compared to the respective populations? I don't know, but that seems to be what they're suggesting. If so, then it seems kind of crass to me, maybe even racist. If they're not suggesting that, then why do they keep bringing up the proportions? The cops killed twice as many white people as black people. If black lives matter, then why don't white lives matter?
You're also right about the women. They've used their tired old "equal pay for equal work" story to divert attention away from "unequal pay for unequal trouble". Workplaces are more complicated and expensive to operate when women are working in them.
A Quick, Impromptu Survey
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I recently did a quick, impromptu survey. Notice, I didn't say that it was a scientific survey. It was a quick, impromptu survey. I just wanted to check a thought that came to mind.
I receive my television signals through an antenna. So, the number of channels that is available to me at any given moment can vary from one moment to the next. During the time of my quick, impromptu survey I had, variously, from about 15 channels to about 19 channels available. So, I'll say that the number of channels that I surveyed was about 17, close enough for a quick, impromptu survey. I conducted my survey at what amounted to a randomly selected time. It was shortly before 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, on the ninth of August. The idea popped into my head about then and I just turned around and did the survey.
What I did was to click around all of the channels. I watched each channel for just long enough to see who was on the screen. That was usually only a second or two. In a few instances, I had to wait longer, if they were showing scenery, for example. Other than that, my survey included whatever programming happened to be on at the moment when I clicked to the channel. That included all kinds of programming, news, comedies, commercials, everything. As soon as I saw who was on the screen, I clicked to the next channel. I did it four times.
What I discovered was that eight times, then six times, then six times, then six times again, the very first thing that was on the screen was at least one black person, and sometimes more than one black person. Even the kid's cartoon channel had a cartoon with black kids in it. For what it's worth, probably nothing, I didn't see any black people at all on the Christian channel or on either of the two Spanish language channels. But, on the American commercial channels and on all four PBS channels, it was black people first, almost half of the time, 6 to 8 out of about 17.
My survey doesn't prove anything but it does make me wonder. Black people are a minority of the population. Is it really possible that they're using almost half of the screen time on American commercial and public television? I don't know. Maybe it's just a false impression, but it does seem to me that most of the time when I look at the screen, there's a black person on it. If that's actually true, then does it even matter? I don't know. If it matters, then is it a good thing? Again, I don't know, but if black people have really been that successful at getting themselves on television, then maybe their problems aren't really so much worse than the problems that other people have. Maybe the problems that black people have just get more exposure and publicity.
My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; Betty; and Tom, of Redwood City.
It's Hot and Dry in Georgia
The Airplane Law
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