A Truth to Face
Sam Aurelius Milam III
On the sixth of January of this year, I watched the live coverage of the situation at the Capitol Building. I watched it all afternoon and part of the evening. I saw a lot of people standing around, waving flags and signs, and making noise. They were described, during the live coverage, as demonstrators and protestors. I saw a small number of those people break into the building. Live coverage inside of the building showed them strolling across the rotunda, between the ropes, and taking pictures. There was one scene of a man lounging at a desk. There were some scenes of paper strewn on a floor and boxes scattered in a hallway. Maybe the intruders did those things. Maybe not. I don't know. Live coverage didn't show any serious damage or violence, only a forced entry and some alleged, minor mischief.
If the truth of such an event is ever available at all, then it's available only during live coverage. After the government and its news agencies edit the record, the truth will have been distorted or eliminated. Anybody who remembers things differently will be discredited as a conspiracy theorist. This particular event is a good example. For one thing, the terminology has been changed. The people who were involved are no longer described as protestors or demonstrators. They're now being described as rioters and insurrectionists. A small number of video clips, showing some minor scuffling, have been shown repeatedly. I didn't see any of those video clips during the live coverage. Maybe they're fabricated video clips. I don't know, but the view in them is usually from behind, making the participants anonymous, and up close, so that the scuffling fills the screen, giving the impression of widespread violence. Such edited reporting has presented a far more extreme version of the event than did the live coverage, and a far more damning condemnation of the participants. In fact, the event was neither a riot nor an insurrection, but people still believe the edited version of the story.
Before the dust had even settled, some of the congressmen were boasting that they'd continued to do their sacred duty, in spite of the interruption. There isn't anything sacred about what those scoundrels do. Any such claim of sacred duty is an ominous warning that they might harbor some notion of a divine mandate in their work, and that they might actually expect the people to believe it. A doctrine of the divine right of congressmen is just as oppressive and as onerous as was the doctrine of the divine right of kings. People who accept the one are just as dim-witted as were the people who accepted the other, and just as guilty of complicity in the ugly results.
The event at the Capitol Building caused the people far less harm than is routinely done by the congressmen in their daily maintenance of the police state. The only real and lasting harm that it caused was to give those congressmen another excuse to increase the police state's powers, such as increasing routine surveillance and the control of information. The government already controls the print and broadcast media. Now, it's using the event at the Capitol Building as an excuse to increase its control and censorship of the internet. The people mindlessly accept it.
People believe whatever the government tells them. It happened after the events at Ruby Ridge, the Mt. Carmel Center, the Murrah Federal Building, the 911 attacks, and elsewhere. It's happening now, after the event at the Capitol Building. My father told me that people are too stupid for it to even be worth bothering with them. I always believed that people are smart enough to run their own lives. Lately, I'm no longer as skeptical of my father's opinion, or as sure of my own, as I once was.
|Letters to the Editor
Greetings. I wanted to think about something and check it out before responding to another thing in your Jan 21 Frontiersman.
In your letters to the editor, Tom suggests that since you're past retirement age, you apply for and get retroactive payments for Social Security.
For starters, any payments you missed in the past cannot be collected. How the "retroactive" thing works is, example, let's say you apply for Social Security, today. Let's say it took 3 years until they finally approved it. Once you get approved, they will go back, retroactive to the day you "applied", and you will receive all payments missed "after" you applied.
And I've given careful thought to your situation. For starters, you never asked for citizenship. That was a contract forced upon you by Big Brother. But, until you gave them your Social Security # back since you never agreed to a contract, doesn't that mean all taxes and F.I.C.A. taxes they took from you, out of your paycheck, what you paid when you filed your taxes, etc., doesn't that mean they taxed you illegally?
And most importantly, if you filed for Social Security now, aren't you by right just taking back what was taken from you illegally?
Tell me what you think.
As usual, your Mar '21 Frontiersman was enlightening. Something happened here I wanted to share and correct an error. A skin head (white supremacist) read what I wrote in your "letters to the editor" and said "Hey, I didn't know you had it in you, right on man!"
I re-read what I wrote and realized how it came across. I never meant it to become a rally cry at the next KKK ho-down. I'm not a racist. Instead, for black and brown people, I meant it to be understood that whites are getting the short end of the stick, too. I never meant it to be taken that blacks and brown people are getting great treatment, because they aren't. I meant to portray that we're all getting fucked here.
This reminds me of something that happened one time when I visited the zoo. I was carrying various fruits and vegetables to feed the animals. While in the monkey enclosures, I encountered two monkeys in two different enclosures. One I fed a grape, the other I fed some cucumber. Well monkeys for sure communicate, because the monkey who got the grape was loving life, while the monkey who got the cucumber was angry and screaming and slapping the glass violently. It made me think, these monkeys are so busy begging for my "crumbs", both have forgotten they're enslaved in cages.
So, whites, blacks, browns! We all need to quit squabbling amongst each other and quit being caged monkeys for the rich and oppressive governments.
As always, you're in my prayers, Sam.
—S. H., a prisoner
As with Tom's question in the January issue, I can't give you a short and simple answer. I can only suggest that you study my essays that are available in Pharos, under the headings Liberty, Sovereignty, and the Doctrine of Social Contract and The Supreme Flaw of the Land Essays.
I didn't notice anything in your message, in the March issue, that seemed to be particularly racist. Regarding the white supremacist that you mentioned, we don't have to agree with him, but we should accept that he has as much right to his attitude as we have to ours. If he initiates force, violence, or fraud, then it might be appropriate to punish him, always keeping in mind the principles of liberty, but it's never appropriate to punish someone merely for having a bad attitude. The recent folderol involving Harry and Meghan presents a typical example. A furor arose because somebody in the British royal family reportedly made a racist comment. So what? That person has as much right to his attitude as Harry and Meghan do to theirs, and as much right to express it. The morality enforcers ought to mind their own business. They're just as intolerant as the racists, maybe more so, and just as dangerous, probably more so. If we condemn people merely for having bad attitudes, or for expressing them, then we're well on our way to Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, and the executions of heretics.
Hi Sam - Hope this financial contribution helps. I know it's not much. I really enjoyed your motorcycle story in the latest Frontiersman [Soul Survivor, March, pages 1 - 2]. I used to ride a motorcycle, and the story brought back memories. Boy! You sure were lucky to survive that occurrence without a scratch! Thanks for sharing, and please keep up the good work!
—Tom from Redwood City
Thanks for keeping Frontiersman going all these decades (!).
—J. M., of Northridge, California
As of this issue, I've completed 27 years and four months of continuous publication. All issues are presently available as free downloads from the website.
Greetings to you from Arkansas! Here is a piece of info that I think that you and your readers will find very interesting.
Charles Manson's followers, known as "The Family", believed that he was the second coming of Christ.
In fact, his own last name says that Manson is Manson. But after 9 1/2 months of one of the longest trials in U.S. history, on February 8th, 1971, the jury found him guilty of committing 9 really horrible bloody murders. Then that very next morning, at 6:01 AM on February 9th, 1971, a monster earthquake shook most of southern California, measuring a 6.5 on the Richter scale. The earthquake claimed 65 lives, and it caused millions of dollars worth of damage.
But if history repeats itself, the Bible says that whenever they crucified Jesus on the cross, that the whole Earth shook and trembled, destroying all the nearby temples.
So, was it possible that Charles Manson was really the 2nd coming of Christ, and we were unable to forgive him for his sins? Manson said after the verdict, "My eyes are like cameras, my mind is tuned to more channels than exist in your world, and it suffers no censorship, and through it, I have a world and universe of my own, so know that only my body is in this prison. At my will, I still walk the streets, and I am right out there among you, following you with my eyes."
—Howie in the Max
Imagine the claims and speculations if his name had been Charles Godson.
Sam Aurelius Milam III
The notion of equality has gotten way out of hand. I suppose that, for us, the confusion began with that stupid statement in the Declaration of Independence, but muddled thinking on the subject has been around for much longer than that. Aristotle noticed it, long ago, and wrote about it. Even before that, Mug and Ug probably grunted about it at the entrance to their cave. Yug most likely grunted that she, too, should have the right to join the hunt.
It should be obvious to anybody who can think at all that men are not all created equal. Neither are women. As for the Declaration of Independence, the statement should have been that government must treat all men equally, not that all men are created equal. That's only one of the many blunders that the so-called Founding Fathers made. Their blunders give me serious doubts about them, and about their work. See my essays under the heading The Supreme Flaw of the Land Essays, in Pharos.
The stupid idea of unconditional and universal equality has become like a disease, infecting everybody. I saw an advertisement for Southern New Hampshire University in which the claim was made that "The world in which we live equally distributes talent." Do they really believe that I have the same talent as Sarah Chang, Larry Niven, Ken Burns, or Michael Wood? It's a stupid idea. The worst thing about it is that the advertisement was made on behalf of a university, where you'd hope that the level of intelligence would be higher than that of Mug, Ug, and Yug.
Equality isn't a law of nature. It isn't even natural. In fact, it's unnatural. Diversity, differences, and variations are natural. Trying to require people to be equal is like trying to require thatand the natural logarithm are equal. Requiring that men and women can have the same jobs doesn't make men and women equal. Requiring that blacks and whites can eat in the same restaurants doesn't make blacks and whites equal. Requiring that homosexuals can get married doesn't make homosexuals and heterosexuals equal. People who are equal in one respect are not necessarily equal in other respects. Aristotle knew that. We should know it. No matter what the reformers demand and no matter what any government declares, the value of the natural logarithm will still be about 2.718, the valuewill still be close to 3.1416, and people will still be unequal.
Most of our problems of abusive or unfair behavior aren't caused by inequality, but by our attitudes. Inequality is a consequence, not a cause. Whether or not those attitudes should be changed is a matter of opinion. There are people that we don't like and people who don't like us, and maybe that's as it should be. I don't know, but it certainly hasn't changed throughout the known history of human societies. But, if our goal is to change those attitudes, then we shouldn't rely on the forced imposition of an oppressive and false equality. Maybe we can't change the attitudes at all but, if we can, then it seems to me that it has to be done by a pursuit of courtesy, toleration, and maybe even a little humility. We're never going to all be the same but maybe we could achieve a peaceful coexistence and still get along with one another, in spite of our differences, if we were equally civilized.
My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; Betty; Joseph, of Northridge, California; and Tom, of Redwood City, California.
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 email@example.com 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