The
methods of acquiring privileges are fundamentally different from the methods
of acquiring rights, as are the consequences. People who ask the
government for rights don't get rights. They get privileges, and
they voluntarily submit to the jurisdictions of whatever agencies administer
those privileges.
The
ability of people to understand such things has been disabled by propaganda,
false assumptions, and misinformation. I've written a lot about that.
See my Ravings
Essays. They're available in Pharos. I also commented on
it in my introduction to Milam's
Dictionary of Distinctions, Differences, and Other Odds and Ends.
That's available in The Sovereign's Library.
As
for your question about why men seem to have so little interest in opposing
the feminists, here's a theory. Consider some group that a man might
not like. If he doesn't like the group, then he probably also doesn't
like the members of the group. With the feminists, I speculate that
there's a difference. Even if a man doesn't like the feminists, the
group, he probably still likes women, the members of the group. That
might inhibit men from opposing the group.
Here's
another theory. Maybe we've all learned that it's easier to just
put up with the women than it is to try to reason with them which, of course,
is futile anyway. Women generally get what they want by manipulation,
not by logic. If a woman is wheedling, nagging, crying, or throwing
a hissy fit, then you just have shrug your shoulders and give up.
editor
Stray Thoughts
Sam Aurelius Milam III
Gun
control doesn't prevent crimes. It increases the number of victims.
Good
communication isn't necessarily the key to a good marriage. Sometimes,
silence is the key to a good marriage.
Making
things illegal creates criminals.
Any
belief system, no matter how loving and benevolent it might be, is evil
if it's imposed by force or coercion.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Memory and Respect
Sam Aurelius Milam III
It
seems to me that the present-day inheritors of the teachings of Martin
Luther King Jr. have misconstrued his message or, more likely, forgotten
it entirely.
I
believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would never have approved of signs
proclaiming that "black lives matter", any more than he approved of signs
proclaiming "whites only". By his own words, he declared that all
lives matter, black and white, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.
One sign is just as racist as is the other. The signs should say
"all lives matter", not "black lives matter".
I
believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would never have approved of outrage
from the black communities being reserved for only black men killed by
the cops. I believe that he would have been angered by the death
of any man who was killed by the cops. As I understand his teachings,
there should be objections when the cops kill anybody, black or white,
Jew or Gentile, Protestant or Catholic.
When
the present-day protestors object to the deaths of only blacks and are
indifferent to the similar deaths of whites, they're displaying an unworthy
hypocrisy. They condemn racist attitudes in others that are no more
racist than their own, as demonstrated by their own racially selective
objections to the behavior of the cops, based entirely on the races of
the victims. It seems to me to be an insult to the teachings of Martin
Luther King Jr., a man whose memory they claim to respect.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
Amiss
Sam Aurelius Milam III
The
verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial was of interest to me because of my
long-term objections to such gestapo thugs. See Gestapo
Force, November 1994, Gestapo
Attack, January 1995, More
Thugs, June 1995, and other such articles that I've written over
the years.
Because
of the routine and heinous immunity of such thugs, I watched the news on
April 20 to see what would happen this time. I watched the DW News,
from Germany, at 5:00 PM and BBC World News America, at 5:30 PM.
The DW news is explicitly
billed as live and the BBC news is presumably live. When the
DW news began, the news anchor stated that the verdict would be reported
as soon as it was available. By 5:30, it hadn't yet been reported.
On the BBC news, at 5:30, the news anchor made the same promise.
A few minutes later, she interrupted the man who was talking about the
trial and switched to live coverage, directly from the courtroom.
That was at 5:35 PM.
As
the members of the jury walked into the courtroom, I saw that the clock
on the wall behind them showed the time to be 4:10 PM. That's 5:10
PM my time, 25 minutes prior to the time of the so-called live coverage.
If it was a time zone thing, then the difference would have been one hour,
not 1 hour and 25 minutes.
So,
is the claim of live news coverage another lie told by the regulated news
agencies? Do the courtroom authorities tamper with the clocks?
I don't know what the problem is, but something is amiss.![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
May 2021 |
Frontiersman,0c/o
4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/ |
Page
3 |
|