Frontiersman, October 2021

Reforming the Reformers
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Traditionally, one of the basic tenets of international law has been the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. I don't approve of the existing system of geographically configured nations, or of the notion of national sovereignty. See my essays on personal sovereignty and social contract government, in Pharos. Nevertheless, as long as the present system of such governments exists, national sovereignty remains an issue.

In recent decades, a kind of evangelism, using such concerns as ethnic cleansing, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, has increasingly influenced the relationships between nations. Such concerns as those are legitimate in the hands of people but traditional international law applies to governments, not to people. In the hands of governments, such concerns provide excuses for unwelcome interventions in the internal affairs of other nations. Accordingly, we've been conditioned to the notion that national sovereignty must be subordinated to the resolution of such concerns by a one-world morality police, the so-called international community. Such concerns and ideas are being used by reformers to justify interventions by powerful nations, and by powerful groups of nations, into the internal affairs of weaker nations. There are now tribunals, agencies, and courts that claim jurisdictions over certain kinds of internal behaviors of other nations. Those jurisdictions can be imposed by force, coercion, or manipulation, whether or not the nations subjected to them have actually consented to them. It seems to me like the recipe for a one-world, one-ideology sovereign national police state.

The situation suggests an ignorance of traditional international law or maybe a complete disregard for it. Consider that in the 1889 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary, the description of international law was 3028 words long, and included 15 references to other sources in history or literature. Ninety years later, the description of international law in the 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary was 30 words long, and didn't include any references at all. It isn't surprising if legal scholars are ignorant of traditional international law, or if reformers are getting away with a disregard for it.

Afghanistan is currently a popular target for such reformers but, under traditional international law, it's a sovereign nation. Whether or not its government is inclusive, whether or not women can work there, whether or not girls can go to school there, and whether or not anybody has any rights there, isn't anybody's business but the Afghans. A desire to make such things better, or to prevent atrocities, is understandable but an unwelcome intervention is a bad idea. Besides being a violation of traditional international law, such unwelcome interventions usually make things worse, not better. Are the people there any better off now than they were before the various interventions? As Heinlein reminded us in Glory Road, good intentions are the cause of more folly than all other causes put together.

I suggest that evangelism, arrogance, and hypocrisy are also causes of folly, and that they're usually abundant in the kinds of people who want to fix everybody else's problems. We, in the USA, have shown that we can't even solve our own problems, in our own country. It's presumptuous of us to think that we can solve other people's problems, in other countries. I suggest that we should stay at home for a while longer, and learn to solve our own problems, first, before we try to teach other people how to solve theirs. We should develop some courtesy, humility, integrity, and toleration, before we presume to stampede out into the world, and start teaching other people how to live their lives. We don't even know how to live our own lives. We're not yet ready to reform the world.

October 2021

Frontiersman,0^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/

Page 1

Dumbledore's Observation
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Imagine a juggler on stage in front of an audience, juggling eggs. Off-stage, out of sight of the audience, there's a man with a basket of eggs. Every so often, the man off-stage throws an egg at the juggler. When that happens, the juggler has to catch the additional egg and add it to the ones that he's already juggling. Every time that he adds an egg to his act, he has to throw the eggs harder and higher, to keep them going. Every time that he has to catch an additional egg, his act gets more difficult.

To the audience, the increment of difficulty with each additional egg might not be obvious. The juggler just keeps smiling, but the man off-stage keeps throwing eggs at him. The juggler keeps throwing the eggs higher and higher. Even if he misses an egg occasionally, he can still keep juggling. However, every time he misses an egg, there's another slick place on the floor. When his assistant tries to clean the floor, she gets in his way. Every time an egg hits the juggler in the face, his vision might become a little more blurred. Every time an egg breaks in his hand, his grip will become a little more slippery. Meanwhile, the assistant, trying to help, keeps getting in the way. While the audience is enjoying the act, the situation is becoming more difficult. It can't go on forever. The unending growth is unsustainable. No matter how good the juggler is, eventually he's going to drop the eggs.

I originally wrote the story about the juggler as an illustration of the impossibility of unending economic growth. I recently realized that it also suggests the impossibility of unending population growth. We have a growing number of problems, atmospheric CO₂, plastic accumulation, deforestation, and so forth. All over the world, people are trying to solve such problems. Their efforts always involve changing something so as to make it possible for the population to keep growing, but the problems that people are trying to solve are merely consequences. They wouldn't be of much importance if there weren't so many of us causing them. It's the magnitude of our activities, not the activities themselves, that causes them to be such serious problems.

I've watched a lot of news reports and a lot of documentaries about people trying to find ways to grow more food, to secure more water, to construct more shelter, and to otherwise provide for the growing population. None of those people are willing to acknowledge that the real problem is overpopulation. They're not willing to admit that we need to reduce the size of the human population. I'm willing to admit it but I don't know of any humane and honorable way to do it. Anything that comes to mind is unacceptable for one reason or another. The least inhumane solution seems to be to just stop trying to solve the problems, to let the situations deteriorate to their inevitable conclusions, and to let the people die. That isn't a good solution, but it might be the least bad of the bad solutions. It seems likely to me that the people are going to die anyway, no matter what we do.

Fiction speaks to us, even in the real world. Real problems, such as overpopulation, have often been addressed in fiction, and otherwise ignored. I believe that Dumbledore's observation in the Harry Potter movie is relevant to us, even though it addressed a different problem than ours. It might be too late for us to do what's right but, whatever we do, it isn't going to be easy. Even so, we can still try. If somebody can figure out a humane and honorable way to reduce the population of the world to a fraction of its present size, and very soon, then maybe we can make the dark and difficult times that surely lie ahead a little less dark, a little less difficult, and a little more right.

Page 2

Frontiersman,0^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/

October 2021

Letter to the Editor
Dear Sam,

Hello, I pray my letter finds you healthy.

Your story "Baiting Bears...." in the Sept. 2021 Frontiersman fits perfectly in today's times.... Stories by women, not all, but a lot, are the same as your story. A long past story where they never said no, or displayed any displeasure in any way, all of a sudden, now it's rape, huh? If a guy fucks an unconscious woman or if she's saying "no I don't want to" and sex is forced on her, then it's rape. No other rules should apply.

The rules have changed though. A woman doesn't have to say "no" anymore. And she doesn't need to show any discomfort or resistance. All that matters is she says it's "date rape" or whatever. It's bullshit. We don't need it redefined by the feminist's agenda....

—S. H., a prisoner

In about 1966 or 1967, one of the students in my dorm at Texas A&M University came back from a date, laughing about the female student who'd been with him in the back seat of his car. He told us that, even while she was saying "No, no, no," she lifted herself up from the seat, so that he could more easily slide her panties off of her. So, even if the woman says "no", it still might not be rape. Even the women sometimes don't know for sure.

—editor

Insanity
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

—Albert Einstein

Over and over again, for many decades now, women have forced their way into close proximity with men, whether or not the men consented to it. Over and over again, the women have made themselves as provocative and as manipulative as possible. Over and over again, the men have responded predictably. Over and over again, the women have complained about being harassed, abused, or molested by the men. After all of these decades, the same things still keep happening, over and over again. Women still keep ending up weeping in front of the cameras, or the judges, or both, about having been mistreated by men.

Why do the women always act like they didn't expect it? More to the point, why didn't they expect it? We're men. We think like men. We behave like men. It's in our DNA. It isn't going to change. How many more decades is it going to take before the women figure out that being in close proximity with us will always give the same results, every time? If women can't or won't get used to that, which seems to be the case, then they should establish women only workplaces, schools, gyms, or whatever tickles their fancy. Then, they can have their women only places and we can have our men only places. It's a win-win. No more women nagging the men and no more men harassing the women. We'd all be a lot happier.

If feminists were half as smart as they claim to be then, by now, they'd have already figured this out, all by themselves. The fact that they haven't done so suggests that feminism means doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, every time, just like insanity.

Four Paws Faux Pas
Sam Aurelius Milam III

Back during the 1970s, my first wife invited a couple of her friends over for dinner. Much to my annoyance, they brought their dog with them and turned it loose in our house. Later, they invited us over to their house for dinner. When we were ready to drive over to their house, and my wife was waiting for me in the car, I came walking around the corner of our house with one of my geese under my arm. She asked me what I was going to do with the goose. I told her that I was going to take it with us and turn it loose in their house. She wouldn't let me do it.

For decades, I've been annoyed by people who take their dogs with them when they go visiting, and turn them loose in other people's houses. My impression is that it's done mostly, although not entirely, by overweight women. Whatever the weight or gender, I consider such people to be discourteous. They could at least ask first but, instead, we're all expected to be happy to have somebody else's dog underfoot, yapping and getting on the furniture. I'm tired of being expected to love dogs. I don't have any obligation to do so and there isn't anything wrong with me if I don't.

Dogs are obnoxious. It's annoying when a dog stands up on me with its front feet but it's entirely disgusting if it licks my face. If I wanted a slimy face, then I'd own a pet snail. If I wanted to have an obnoxious pest in the house, then I'd have a dog of my own, or maybe an overweight wife. No, a dog would be better. All that I'd have to do for a dog would be to feed it, water it, and let it out of the house occasionally. A wife would be much more trouble than that. She might even want a dog. Worse yet, she might want a cat.

(Shudder!)

October 2021

Frontiersman,0^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/

Page 3

Frontiersman
^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive
Gainesville, Georgia 30507

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life....

—Henry David Thoreau

Acknowledgments

My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; and Betty.

— 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/

Grammar Advice
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
• Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
• Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
• As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

Signs That You're a Hillbilly
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Don G.
• The Home Shopping Channel operator recognizes your voice.
• Fewer than half of your cars run.
• There's leftover crime scene tape on your front door.
• At least one of your kids was conceived at the car wash.
• Your biggest custody fight was over a huntin' dog.
• You're an expert on worm beds.
• Your wife once had to make you move the transmission so she could take a bath.
• Your soap on a rope doubles as an air freshener.
• There's a gun rack on your fishin' boat.

Frontiersman

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 editor@frontiersman.org.uk 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

René Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender asked,
"Would you like a drink?" René said, "I think not,"
and disappeared.

Page 4

Frontiersman,0^c/o 4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/

October 2021

Back to the Frontiersman Directory

Back to the Beginning of This Issue