Frontiersman, October 2026

I was there, I got there like, I figured it out like nine minutes after the plane hit. There was no evidence of a plane, anywhere, I had figured it had gone into the inner courtyard, but, um, I didn’t have time really to think about that because I just started grabbin’ my gear and shooting....

—Jeff Rathner, NewsHour Cameraman at 9/11

In Pentagon Anomalies, in 2008, I proved that the Pentagon wasn’t hit by an airplane. I provided the same proof in this newsletter, in a series of articles that I published from January 2015 through September 2015. On Wednesday, September 9, 2026, the PBS NewsHour presented a report that absolutely substantiates the claims that I’ve made.

The PBS report provides video footage and interviews that are absolutely consistent with my own writing and conclusions. A key statement in the PBS report, quoted here, was made by Jeff Rathner, a NewsHour cameraman who arrived on the scene shortly after the event. The statement is remarkable not just because of the information that it provides but, even more so, because, somehow, against all of the odds, it was actually included in the report. It openly acknowledges, on PBS, on national television, that there wasn’t an airplane at the pentagon crash site. My opinion is that the Pentagon was hit by some kind of a high-penetration “bunker buster” bomb or rocket, equipped with an incendiary explosive device. I believe that it was an inside job.

My critics will condemn me as a conspiracy theorist. However, those same critics believe that the attack was planned and executed by fanatic Muslims. They also believe that the Muslims planned the attack in secret. That’s a conspiracy theory. So, my critics are conspiracy theorists themselves and, therefore, are hypocrites because of their accusations against me. They’re also nitwits for believing the patently ridiculous story that the U.S. government has presented. I don’t know for sure but I expect that, in order for their schemes to work, conspirators must, at least to some extent, rely on the mindless gullibility of such nitwits.

Additional Information
•

Video Clip, in The Frontiersman Website
http://frontiersman.org.uk/Videos/Videos.html#Pentagon
•

Pentagon Anomalies, in The Sovereign’s Library
http://sovereign-library.org.uk/Writing_by_Sam/Consider_the_Events/Consider_the_Events.html#PA
•

Unnamed Agency, in The Sovereign’s Library
http://sovereign-library.org.uk/Writing_by_Sam/Consider_the_Events/Consider_the_Events.html#UA

In Facing the Truth, in the October 2007 issue, I commented on the importance of my work up until that time. Now, I believe that my work includes the most important writing that has ever been done, anywhere on this planet. If that seems pretentious, then so be it. I already have a sufficiently large number of faults without counting false modesty among them. Of special importance in that writing are two particular statements. One of them is a much needed definition of rights, a political concept that is otherwise undefined. The other statement defines the legitimate boundaries of lawful government.

Rights — Ask somebody for a definition of rights and he’ll give you a list of things that he believes that he ought to be able to do, or to have and, therefore, he claims them as rights. His answer isn’t a definition. It’s a list. Everybody that you ask will have a different list. The definitions that I found in dictionaries were useless, confusing rights with privileges, rendering both words undefined and both concepts meaningless. It isn’t surprising that nobody has anything useful to say about rights, or any understanding of them. See Rights Galore, in the May 2010 issue. So, I decided to develop a valid definition of rights but, first, I specified the necessary characteristics of a good definition. That is, for a definition to be a good definition, it must be general, concise, and unambiguous. So, in my first Ravings essay, I developed the definition of rights. Here’s the definition. A right is something that’s within

your ability, for which you don’t need permission, and that will be generally or customarily approved or at least tolerated. So far, I’ve never encountered a better definition of rights, or even any other definition at all, only rubbish, as previously noted.

Boundaries — As for the statement about boundaries, I developed the defining principle in my social contract essay. The principle is expressed by this statement. The legitimate boundaries of lawful government are not geographical. They are contractual. That’s the most important political principle that has ever been enunciated, and the most important political statement that has ever been made. It completely invalidates every government in existence today.

My work is important. For several years, I’ve been trying to think of some way to preserve it, after my death. I can’t start a presidential library because I’m not a president. Also, I lack the funds for any other such grandiose venture. My entire body of work, the essays, the newsletter, the correspondence, the computers and the digital files, the dictionaries and other sources and references, all presently reside on property that’s owned by somebody else. The owner of that property might not have much of an incentive to use the space that my stuff presently occupies as some sort of a library, or some other such repository of information. So, when I die, it’s possible that all of my work will go, variously, to the dump, to a thrift store, or to a rummage sale, where it will be sold by people who regard it all as useless. Various family members come to mind. Even an indefinite exile to a storage facility would be preferable. At least then, some day, somebody might discover the work and resurrect it. Meanwhile, I don’t have any ideas about how to preserve it. If any of you have anything useful to suggest, then I’m open to suggestions.

By the way, did I mention that, as of this past September, I’m now 80 years old? Time continues apace, dust accumulates, and I’m not going to live forever.

Additional Information
•

Facing the Truth, in the October 2007 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/2007/2007-10/2007-10.html#My_Claim
•

Rights Galore, in the May 2010 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/2010/2010-05/2010-05.html#Rights_Galore
•

The Ravings of a Mad Man, in Pharos
http://pharos.org.uk/Ravings_Essays/Ravings/Ravings.html#Rights
•

The Long and Winding Doctrine: Social Contract, in Pharos
http://pharos.org.uk/Social_Contract/Long_and_Winding_Doctrine/Doctrine.html#Statement

Population Studies
http://frontiersman.org.uk/Population/Curve.html

Letter to the Editor

Your July 2026 issue was good as always. The first article ‘Pestilence, War, Famine, Death and Stupidity’, was about an argument I hear a lot of people make. That supposedly the world is dying off, because birth rates are plunging. I point out the fallacy behind that argument with the rising population we are experiencing every year.

The bullshit is perpetrated by corporations who want MORE population simply because they want more buyers in the world. That doesn’t mean the birth rates are faltering. That just means that greed abounds. Yes, we have disease, epidemics, famine, refugees on the move, global warming, pollution, etc. But none of this, even all combined, is causing a dip in the numbers when it comes to how many people are being born into the world, and how many are dying. As a matter of fact, a small handful of people are hoarding the majority of the wealth the world has, while the majority of people are getting poorer and poorer. And, what’s the one thing poor people can do that costs nothing? Sex, sex and more sex. Which does what, causes the population to rise.

Another article that caught my eye was ‘DNA in the Bell Curve’. I agree with your numbers and your hypothesis. 50% of women complaining of sexual abuse seems like a fair number, and that 50% of men engage in such behavior seems to me to be a fair hypothesis as well. No, there aren’t a small handful of men roaming the planet sexually abusing 50% of the women out there. I would also agree that it could be considered normally accepted behavior because of the social mores that society passes on to the youth. Men AND women. When it happens at a young age, most isn’t reported for a variety of reasons. And I should think that if it does happen to a woman, then she should be expected to report it as it occurs. You can’t wait until you’re seventy, unattractive, and nobody wants you anymore, and THEN you decide to farm for sympathy. In the end, young women are attracted by aggressive, confident men who see what they want and go get it. So your hypothesis of “are they actually seek-

ing abusive men?” probably isn’t too far from the truth. I know that’s a controversial view.but probably true.

Have a good day,

—S. H., of Bakersfield, California

If women keep intentionally placing themselves in harm’s way, over and over again, and keep getting the same kinds of treatment from men, every time, then maybe they’re too stupid to learn from experience. OR, maybe they’re doing it on purpose. I provided some thoughts about that in my articles Dark Reflections, Human Behavior, and DNA in the Bell Curve.

Whatever the case, the feminazis will mindlessly condemn as a misogynist any man who doesn’t sympathize with the weeping victims.

—editor

Dear Sam:

Once upon a time, many, many people believed in a fairy tale called “The Divine Right of Kings”. The essence of this tale was that God (or the Gods) arranged circumstances in such a way that some person would be installed as the ruler of a society, and that person would be guided by God to rule that society in the best possible way. Naturally, everyone in that society was obligated on pain of sin to obey the ruler and his or her representatives.

As time went by, people gradually stopped believing in the Device Right of Kings. It became impossible to continue believing that the often cruel and clumsy edicts of human rulers reflected the perfect wisdom and love of the almighty God.

Another fairy tale became popular. This one was called “Democracy”. This one was based on the idea that people could rule themselves by means of elected representatives who would direct the police and military forces to control the populace in ways that reflected the will of the majority. At its best, democracy was rule by a minority with the consent of the majority, for the benefit of the majority. Eventually, it became clear that democracy did not always work as advertised. Wealthy people supported candidates who would work to promote the welfare of the wealthy. This meant that the wealthy gradually became more powerful than the less wealthy classes.. This caused resentment, and the erosion of civil liberties, because members of the upper classes were afraid that they would be stripped of their wealth and power by the aroused rabble. They directed the police and military to suppress the lower classes.

Around the world today, democracy is in decline because the realities of democratic imperfection are overwhelming the fairy tale ideal of “Democracy”.

What fairy tale is likely to take the place of “Democracy”? Sadly it seems that various types of racism or tribalism are surging in popularity. “Birds of a feather” are flocking to-gether. Xenophobia is the underlying cause. Almost every human being feels threatenedby human beings who look, speak, or act differently from the way they do.

The only solution that I can see is to increase the well-being and power of every individual. A great reduction in population would be the first step in achieving this. But beyond that, I don’t know.

— The Elusive One

I believe that the information that will encourage an understanding of government is provided in my essays under the heading Essays About Liberty, Sovereignty, and The Doctrine of Social Contract. In the social contract essay, under that heading, I made the most important political statement that has ever been made. This is the statement. “The legitimate boundaries of lawful government are not geographical. They are contractual.” An understanding of that statement changes every other idea about government. In my essay Anarchy, Monarchy, Malarkey, I made some additional useful comments about the futility of democracy.
Reducing the size of the human population would probably make almost everything better. Sadly, I don’t know of any honorable or humane way to do that. Actually, I don’t know any way to do it at all. Maybe I’m wrong. We can hope.

—editor

Additional Information

•

Dark Reflections, in the March 1996 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/1996/1996-03/1996-03.html#Dark_Reflections
•

Human Behavior, in the November 2019 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/2019/2019-11/2019-11.html#Human_Behavior
•

DNA in the Bell Curve, in the July 2026 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/2026/2026-07/2026-07.html#DNA
•

Essays About Liberty, Sovereignty, and the Doctrine of Social Contract, in Pharos
http://pharos.org.uk/Social_Contract/Social_Contract.html

Seek humility, not power; tranquility, not commotion; simplicity, not extravagance; and avoid evangelism, for wisdom and virtue cannot be taught, but only learned.

—from Milam’s Notes

•

If you’re not busy, say that’s because you did it right the first time.

Availability — Funding for this newsletter is from sources over which I don’t have any control. Therefore, it might become necessary for me to terminate 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