Frontiersman, November 2026

In my article As I Look Around, in the November 2025 issue, I presented a list of 16 black organizations that had come to my attention during the course of my work. I also presented a list of corresponding white organizations that, as far as I’m aware, don’t exist. If we tried to start any of those white organizations, then the streets would be filled with mobs of black people, yelling, waving signs, and blocking traffic.

Recently, I noticed on PBS, the casual mention of two more such black organizations, The National Black Farmer’s Association and The San Diego Black Chamber of Commerce. I’m confident that if I tried to start any such white organization, then the aforementioned mobs of black people would spring into action.

The long and growing list of such black organizations, and the tacit prohibition of any corresponding white organizations, is proof enough that black people in the so-called equal rights movement aren’t seeking racial equality. It seems to me that they’re seeking black supremacy.

The gods were. Maybe they always had been but they didn’t have any such memory. They just were. They existed in a place where nothing changed or moved. Maybe it wasn’t a place at all. There wasn’t any way to know.

It isn’t possible to measure change in a place where nothing changes. Maybe things don’t exist in such a place. Then, one of the gods moved away from its accustomed location, just a little. Because of that move, the place had fundamentally changed. The one god had created the first attribute, distance. Then, the one god moved back to it’s accustomed location. The first move and the second move had not been simultaneous. That initiated the second attribute, duration.

The one god saw that the place had changed. The other god also noticed the change. The place was the same as before, but different. The one god moved closer to the other god, slowly, softly, until it touched the other god. Something happened. They exchanged information. The two gods were the same, but different. The one god had moved, and had a memory of it. The other god had not moved, but knew of the event. The difference in their individual experiences initiated the third attribute, identity.

The gods pondered their observations. Between them there was distance. It wasn’t constant. It could be changed. They wondered if there could be distance beyond them. They wondered, if so, then how far did it go? Could the place be infinite? As the one god moved back and forth, communicating with the other god, they pondered the duration between the moves. They wondered if duration might go both before them and after them. Could the place be eternal?

Then, the one god touched the other god, but less cautiously and, inadvertently, they interpenetrated, just a little. It was a change from communication. It was a strange, new sensation. They separated. The one god moved back to its accustomed location. A strange thing happened. A portion of the other god separated and moved a short distance away. The other god stayed in its accustomed location, from which it had never moved. The one god moved to contact the new thing and learned that it was a new god. Thus was initiated the fourth attribute, increase. The one god communicated to the third god all known information, and then communicated the new develop-

ment to the other god.

The gods multiplied. The community of the gods expanded. If the place was infinite and eternal, then the community of the gods could expand endlessly and forever. The gods ventured out into the place. Billions upon billions of gods, in all directions. Then, a god moving into the void encountered a god coming out of the void, a thing that had never before even occurred to any of the gods. If it had ever occurred to them, even as a speculation, then it would have been assumed to be impossible. The traveling gods who had encountered one another communicated and learned that they were of the same community. Thus the fifth attribute came into existence, limitation.

The attribute of limitation revealed that the place was boundless, but not infinite. Like the simplest analogy, a circle, it could be traveled forever, without end. But it was finite. A circle, though boundless, has a finite length. Word of the new attribute spread but the community of the gods continued to grow. The behaviors of endless time don’t change easily and, anyway, there didn’t seem to be any urgency in the situation. The unoccupied expanse of the place was vast.

Eventually, the leading edge of the community of the gods approached what might be viewed by analogy as the antipodes of the point of origin. The point of origin had been and, incidentally, still was, occupied by the one god and the other god. The one god had never moved far from its accustomed location and the other god had never moved at all

As the leading edge of the explosively expanding community of the gods approached the antipodes, it imploded into the remaining unoccupied part of the place. Then, the leading edge no longer existed. It had disappeared when there was no longer any unoccupied part of the place. The community of the gods no longer had a boundary. It began to be compressed. The gods were forced not only together, but into one another. That, of course, caused unintended reproduction, an unanticipated consequence. The compression continued. At the instant when identity itself, the third attribute, was on the point of being extinguished, when the billions upon billions of gods were about to be squeezed into a single entity, the place was rent asunder. A sixth attribute came into existence, physics. At the point of origin, opposite the antipodes, all forces and vectors cancelled. At that location, survival was possible. The one god and the other god, in their accustomed locations, survived.

The one god and the other god observed a different place than the previous place. No explanation for it was ever discovered, but it seemed to have been, in some subtle way, beyond the original place. The lifeless fragments of the billions upon billions of gods, shattered by the event, moved away into the new place. The one god and the other god recognized their ignorance. Did the new place have the same attributes as the previous place? They would need to be cautious. The new place was like the previous place, but different. It contained the shattered remains of billions upon billions of gods. The nature of those remains, or the results of their presence, were unknown. The gods knew that they would need new tools and new methods. They communicated. They considered.

The gods devised a plan. The one god touched the other god, once, gently, and then moved back to it’s accustomed location, where he waited. The other god spoke. She said, “Let there be light” and light became the seventh attribute.

At the opposite end of the place, at the antipodes, as at the point of origin, all forces and vectors had cancelled. At the antipodes, as the place had been rent asunder, survival had been possible, and one other god had survived. Later, that god gazed with fell ambition upon the new and glowing place.

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

Letters to the Editor
Dear Sam

For about five years I have been attending a mostly libertarian discussion group. The purpose of the group is to recruit and educate libertarians. The membership of the group has fluctuated, but there are rarely more than four people who attend. People will show up for a meeting or two, and then attend erratically, or quit. The meetings have a sort of open discussion format. This means that our discussions have rarely been deeply educational. Most of the time, there is superficial chit chat about current events, and general griping about the government.

Two weeks ago, the moderator of the group and a group member got into a harsh, noisy argument about U.S. policy in the middle east. A week later, the moderator called the member and informed him that he was no longer welcome at our discussions.

This incident showed me that our group has failed to reach its goal in two important ways. First, it failed to teach that tolerance is an

essential part of the libertarian project. This does not mean that all opinions must be accepted or respected. It means that all people have the right to hold and promote “bad” opinions, without fear of being punished for doing so. Otherwise, freedom of speech does not exist.

Secondly, the group failed to learn that no wars or military interventions are justified, unless they are undertaken as a protective response to an immediate, unambiguous threat. U.S. military forces are stretched very thin, precisely because they’re being used to protect against hypothetical, speculative threats. Therefore, to argue about which side in the Ukraine war or the Gaza war is “just”, is a waste of time, because neither of the conflicts present an immediate threat. Our government should not be involved in any such conflicts, period! If the “present danger” principle were consistently followed, the likelihood of quagmire wars would be reduced to almost zero. (Of course, if the idea of taxation were rejected as illegitimate, many societal problems would vanish.)

Anyway, I have concluded that the discussion group, as it currently operates, is a sad waste of time.

—The Elusive One

During the 1970s and the early 1980s, I attended such discussion groups. I eventually decided that both the groups and the Libertarian Party are wastes of time. See LibertaRepubliCrats, in the August 2024 issue. People are just as foolish now as they were then. The current debate about vaccines is a good example. People waste their time debating the efficacy of the vaccines while remaining ignorant of the actual issue. That issue is that a government should NEVER have the power to either prohibit or require medical treatment.

Here’s a suggestion. The next time that you attend one of those meetings, distribute copies of one of my newsletters.

It’s unwise to ignore even a hypothetical threat. Leonardo da Vinci was right. It’s easier to resist at the beginning than at the end. Either way, and as I’ve noted elsewhere in my writing, nobody wins a war. I’ve also noted elsewhere that, if the people of the Earth had used constructively the resources that they’ve thus far squandered on death and destruction then, by now, all human society would be a paradise. Gwynne Dyer, in his 1983 miniseries War, said, “Peace is an ideal we have deduced from the fact that there have been intervals between wars.” In the 1960s, anti-war protesters asked, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” I suppose that we’ll never know.

—editor

Last night I finished the October Frontiersman. As to your definition of rights, maybe I’m misremembering but I thought there was something different years ago. I do have questions about your current definition. You said a right is something that will be generally or customarily be approved or at least tolerated. Approved by whom? Everybody in the world? And more importantly, There may be a lot of people who won’t tolerate a genuine right of somebody else’s. The world is full of people who don’t tolerate many actions, beliefs, practices, etc. of others, including the exercise of their rights according to everything else in your definition. So I don’t see how that would accurately fit the definition of a right. I know you have a genius mind in many areas including these kind of things. Like defining things that apparently others have not properly done. Accordingly, this is not an adverse response, but rather, I am just hoping that you might respond with clarifying an answer to these issues that popped up for me when I read your definition.

—F. L., of Castro Valley, California

I haven’t changed my definition since I first presented it in the late 1980s.

A word is usually defined by the use of other words. The words in my definition are sufficient for the intended purpose. “Generally” and “customarily” denote an established consensus. Rights are exercised by individuals but they exist only within societies. No matter what you specify, if it isn’t generally or customarily approved or at least tolerated, then it isn’t a right. I suggest that you study my ravings essays and Rights Galore, in the May 2010 issue.

—editor

Additional Information
•

LibertaRepubliCrats, in the August 2024 issue
http://frontiersman.org.uk/2024/2024-08/2024-08.html#LibertaRepubliCrats
•

a link to a video clip from The Ideal of Peace, by Gwynne Dyer
http://frontiersman.org.uk/Videos/Videos.html#The_Ideal_of_Peace
•

The Ravings Essays, in Pharos
http://pharos.org.uk/Ravings_Essays/Ravings_Essays.html
•

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

The chief cause of problems is solutions.

—Eric Sevareid

My thanks to the following: El Dorado Bob; Betty; Eric, of Stockton, California; and The Elusive One.

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