Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 714, March 31, 2013

After sinking billions of dollars into “law-enforcement”
over the decades, what finally brought the violent crime
rate down—in double digits—was private gun ownership.

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

What Didn't He Say?
by Michael Bradshaw
speaker at usrepeals [dot] org

Bookmark and Share

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

In his article "Musings on Freedom" in TLE #713, Neale Osborn has me thoroughly confused.

In his forth paragraph he said that he is a pacifist.
"I believe this with all my heart, soul, and intellect. I believe that we have lost our way, but the path is not that far away or too hard to reach. It will take some work. Some pain (not from violence, but rather from self-discipline causing us to deny ourselves some things until we can afford them without debt), Thus, I will never abandon this experiment. I will fight, with thought, word, and example, for the restoration of that dream of our forefathers."

Later he said that he is in favor of and defends (only with private thoughts which no one else can know, words and example) the right of all people (or perhaps the state, if that is what he means by "we") to obtain, own and carry weapons. Why is that important, unless he is using a double standard for himself and others? Is violence moral for others, even if it is immoral for him? If he is using a double standard, I can understand, as I do that myself with regard to activities that I do not choose to engage in, but advocate for the right of others to do. An example for me is the right to regularly use recreational drugs. I contend that everyone has the right to get high every day, while I spend about one dollar a month on beer.

He said that "we have lost our way, but the path is not that far away or too hard to reach." What is the "way" that "we" have lost; and what is this "path" that he wants "us" to reach? What is the "experiment" that he will never abandon? Who are his "we" and "us"? Does he refer to all of the commoners in Imperial Usa (formerly the United States of America), or the Ethnic Americans (the people of the enlightenment, as it has evolved), or the government of the Empire, or someone else? To which "dream" of which "forefathers" does he refer—the federalists, the anti-federalists, the epicureans, the royalists, or someone else?

I have heard many people who describe themselves as "Americans" refer to "us" as either the general population, or the state. Most do not specify which they are talking about. Neither does Mr. Osborn. One should, as the general population and the state are separate and distinct groups that have no overlap. To fail to make the distinction leaves the listener wondering whether the speaker is an individualist, a statist or something else.

Before jotting down some vague "musings" and sending them off to the editor, one should at least try to organize his thoughts and express them coherently. One should define his terms, at least by giving examples or a clear context. Communication requires both a speaker and a listener. It is the job of the speaker to present his thoughts in a clear and concise manner; and the job of the listener to hear and understand what the speaker has said. If the listener is like me, he cannot know what the speaker meant to say until he has said it. He cannot read the speaker's mind.

Please, authors, before you post, or submit an article or book to an editor, read your work as though you were a reader seeing it for the first time. Read as though you did not yet understand the ideas or issues that you present. Be sufficiently verbose to present your entire ideas, not just a small part taken from the middle; without introduction or conclusion. If that makes your article too long, perhaps you are trying to cover too much territory at once. Prune it down to just one or a few ideas or aspects of an idea. Present your other ideas in later articles.

Use your spelling and grammar checkers. Is embarrassing to leave out the word "it", or talk about teh subject of the sentence. Sounds like Russian syntax.

If you went to public school in North America, that "present the middle— without a beginning or conclusion" is the way that your "education" was presented to you; and the way that you were trained to express yourself, and the thoughts that you were permitted to think. That is the structure of Newspeak and government propaganda—as replacements for English and real education. It is not meant to convey ideas or understanding. It is meant to prevent understanding. It is meant to prevent real thought or communication. It is meant to confuse. It works very well, unless we consciously break away from it and learn to think and speak for ourselves.

I do not want to discourage anyone from writing for publication. We (the Ethnic Americans) need reasoned and clear discourse. When we talk about a subject that presents the listener with a problem to become aware of, and to seek a solution to (such as the war between the state and all other people), we need to present our thoughts clearly and concisely. We need to present our observations, judgments, positions and proposed solutions in a way that the listener can understand.

I recommend a short presentation of the idea, development of the idea, and a coherent conclusion that sums up the argument or paraphrases the idea one more time.

As David Cooper, the sales trainer said:

Tell them what you are going to tell them.
Tell it to them.
Then tell them what you told them.

People need clarity, completeness and repetition to understand new ideas.

I have another article on somewhat more advanced teaching methods titled "Teaching the ZAP to the 4-GW Crowd" if anyone is interested.

I hope that Mr. Osborn will forgive me for using his article as an example.

Michael Bradshaw is the Speaker (also the Lord-High Janitor) of the United States House of Repeals, Copyright © 2013, Michael T. Bradshaw

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


Big Head Press