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, a WETA Cameraman on 9/11

One thing that really struck me too there’re little pieces, like nuts and bolts and everything, these are, these are from the airplane!

—Ed Lee, a WETA Cameraman on 9/11

In Pentagon Anomalies, in 2008, and in a series of articles that I published in this newsletter from January 2015 through September 2015, I proved that the Pentagon wasn’t hit by an airplane. On Wednesday, September 9, 2026, the PBS NewsHour presented a report that substantiated my claims.

A key statement in the PBS report was made by Jeff Rathner, one of the WETA cameramen who’d arrived on the scene shortly after the event. He noted, during his interview, that he hadn’t seen any evidence of an airplane. The only “crash site” debris that was observed by the cameramen was described by Ed Lee, the other cameraman, as little pieces of nuts and bolts. The video showed somebody holding in his hand a small scrap of metal, described as being off of an airplane of some kind. Such information is remarkable not just because of the government lies that it reveals but also because it was actually included in the report. It openly acknowledged, on national television, that the Pentagon wasn’t hit by an airplane. I believe that it was a missile of some kind.

My critics will condemn me as a conspiracy theorist but those critics believe that the attack was planned and executed by fanatic Muslims, and that the Muslims planned the attack in secret. That’s a conspiracy theory, so my critics are conspiracy theorists themselves.

There was, indeed, a conspiracy, but not the one that was proclaimed by the U.S. government. Instead, it was a conspiracy within the U.S. government, an inside job. I provided convincing information in support of that belief in my essays Pentagon Anomalies and Unnamed Agency. They’re available in The Sovereign’s Library. I didn’t discover the identities of the actual conspirators, but I did reveal their conspiracy.

Additional Information
•

a link to the video clip
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. Lately, 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 particular importance in my writing are two 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. 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. They confused 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, in my first Ravings essay, I developed a good definition of

rights. First, however, 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. Here’s the definition that I developed. 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 discovered, 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 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 somebody else’s property. That person 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#Facing_the_Truth
•

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
•

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

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 seeking 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 together. Xenophobia is the underlying cause. Almost every human being feels threatened by 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 suggest a study of my essays under the heading Essays About Liberty, Sovereignty, and The Doctrine of Social Contract, in Pharos. In the social contract essay, I wrote, “The legitimate boundaries of lawful government are not geographical. They are contractual.” In Anarchy, Monarchy, Malarkey, I commented about the frailties of democracies and of people. I suggest that the problems that you’ve mentioned aren’t failures of democracies, but failures of people. If we were sufficiently wise to have good democracies then we’d be sufficiently wise that we wouldn’t need any governments at all. Listen to Imagine, by John Lennon.

—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
• a link to Imagine, by John Lennon
http://frontiersman.org.uk/Videos/Videos.html#Imagine

I expect they will find a cure for cancer long before they find a cure for government.

—Larry E. Schnebly
San Jose, California
Wednesday, November 10, 1976

•

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