 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 403, January 28, 2007 "Americans do not have a government suited to a free people."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Letter from "Murphy" with Two Replies from Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. Dear L. Neil Smith I've been a reader of your books for years, especially The Probability Broach. Having just started to reread my newest copy—the only book "borrowed" permanently more often is the Illuminatus! trilogy in my experience—I became curious and searched the internet looking for any new volumes I hadn't read. Needless to say I discovered your site. Reading your disappointment with the Republican party put me in mind of something my dad told when I was getting nearly old enough to vote. I asked what party I should register with and he remarked, "register with party you think is most dangerous to your liberty. That way you can atleast vote against them twice." He never did say what party he was in, but I know that it changed occasionally. Asked about something like how he voted, he would always remark that there was a reason the ballot was secret. Anyway, thanks for The Probability Broach. J.W. Dougherty
[Editor's note:
Andrew, Re: "Racism and Entitlement", by Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. I take great heart in the knowledge that if you have any children and/or grandchildren, they and their offspring will be sucking and fucking black, brown, yellow people for generations to come in revulsion to your racist rants. I'm certina that this will extend to your gay offspring and they will be taking big black cocks in their mouth and their asses. Job well don! Have a nice day. Murphy
To which Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. Replied: Murphy, Thanks! My first piece of hate mail, and from a racist intolerant librarian? If, one of my children is Gay, I'll embrace them as my child, not my gay child—the point of the article. I only wish my sister-in-law could see this letter, she'd likely send everyone from the pink-triangles your e-mail so they could share their thoughts with you as well. Finally, if you had read the article, you might understand that I want people to be treated equal—not as a skin-color or sexual orientation or children of the opressed, etc. entitled to some kind of special treatment because of their normal differences. Thank you for your time and consideration in these matters, I'm sorry I didn't have time to correct the spelling, grammar, and punctuation in your letter, perhaps your mommy could help you review? Andrew G. Eggleston Sr.
And then Mr. Eggleston Replied to a Reply: Dear Editor, "Hate" to do this. . . but I must respond to ignorance in the only way I know how, with education: Murphy wrote: You are most welcome. I see that you love to assume, by referring to me as a librarian. I'm sure it's a long term habit. I'm sorry for the typos, but I'm glad that you got the idea. I had white teachers. My question referred to your e-mail address, I wanted to know if you were a librarian. Make no asssumptions, you know nothing about me, had you actually READ the article surrounding the non-racist opinion e-mail questioning the entitlement of non-whites to consider whites racist in every phrase they utter, you might know something about me. What is your point regarding white teachers? As for my mother, she passed away 20 years ago this week. Thanks for the reminder. You're welcome. The quoted email is racist. That is how I found your page. I was finding pages that addressed that email. I'm not sure if you are in an urban or rural area, but I would bank on the latter. Prejudice festers where people do not need to associate with other races and cultures. If you attend church, it's likely with "your kind" and if a pastor from another race or gay was called by your church, you would either try to sabotage them, or leave your church. As stated previously the quoted e-mail is not racist but a clarion-call to people of all races to re-examine their view of what is "politically correct". It is a plea for people to stop dividing people by color and start seeing them as people, just people. Where I live is unimportant, but I wish to refute your statement regarding prejudice. Prejudice festers in the hearts of people of low self-worth and low self-esteem, regardless of their geographical location. I do not attend church, however, I pointed out in our last exchange, people are not race or sexual-orientation to me, they are people. The worst people I have known are the ones who want something for nothing, though they can do for themselves, or those who have initiated force against me. The words used in the email are words of hatred. Just as "Hadji" has become popular in Iraq by our militairy. It's a word that is used to de-humanize people. It's easier to kill when you don't see a people as people. it's easier to descrimanate when you think of someone as a "chink" or nigger" or any of the other hate words. Yes, thank you, this was the point of my column, I apologize if I didn't make myself clear within my rhetoric. My guess is that the number of times that the author of the email was referred to by the names: cracker, whitie, caveman. . . . My guess is never to their face. The same for you. Setting up a straw man is the only alternative when you don't have evidence. Again, you are doing to me what you have asked me not to do to you, you are assuming things regarding my life, do you fear the honest answers to questions you may pose regarding what has happened to me? You, as a "White Sage" I'm sure do not think of yourself at all superior to other races. If you happened to be black, you would be in the exact same position in life, calling yourself "Black Sage" and feel totally equal. I explain the following for my readers. The handle White Sage is an inside joke from long ago, between myself and an old and dear blood-brother Steve Subotta (Native). I am white though my native brothers have said that my heart is red; White. White Sage is a plant used by natives to cleanse the way and purify the area, one I have used many times in ritual, sweat, and so on. Finally, Sage referrs to my name, Andrew G. Eggleston Sr.; in ancient times the ritual form of referral for may name would have been "Senior Andrew G. Eggleston" to differentiate me from my son of the same name. So in a moment of brilliant levity Steve and I felt that the handle White Sage fit me perfect. If I were Black I'm sure Steve and I would have been just as amused to call me Black Sage. You are a model citizen, listening to Rush, watching Fox "News" and feel warm and fuzzy in your self honesty. How does a person like yourself justify making assumptions about others when you ask that it not be done to you? it's projected that around 2050 will be the year that whites will be less than %50 of the US population. it will be a different country, as it is now different than when my ansestors came here from Norway and ireland. Where did you get your numbers? Yes America is a great melting-pot of cultures, all coming to live under one banner, struggling to find freedom, that's what we at The Libertarian Enterprise are all about. My ancestors are Welsh and Irish, tit for tat, look up the name Eggleston it's Seventeeth century Welsh, I only make these statements for those not involved in this "debate" to understand the principals. I'm sure that you are also a historian, and know how easy it was for everyone to accept the Irish into society. My father remembered a train of KKK members who came to his hometown in North Dakota to rally. Was it to stir up hatred for the blacks of North Dakota? Oh, Yeah, it was Catholics that were going to ruin North Dakota. I know much about Irish history, including the burning of Catholic Monastaries, Convents, and Orphanages by people of different faiths. I know much more of Irish history, but it is not the subject here. Hate is easy. Putting people in groups is easy too. Finding justification to hold yourself up as the "sage" is almost saintly? As I have explained "White Sage" is a nom de gurre, stamped upon me by my red brother, it has nothing to do with "saintliness" and hence needs no justification. Your initial letter was crude and off-putting as well as elementary in its insinuation and insults, because of the wording we had a few discussions around the campfire regarding its actual meaning, we were confused by your poor verbiage and confrontational attitude. I take heart in the response that I just read, that though you are not entirely understanding or without prejudice you are progressing, thank you and good luck with your future growth. As for myself I will continue to share my table and home with all people who do not wish me ill or try to initiate force against me. LIberty for all, Andrew G. Eggleston Sr. "White Sage"
RE: "Rabbit People Among Us", by L. Neil Smith In addition to N's response to the "bunny people," they should know that restraining orders do very little good. Most exes that are going to gun down their wives already have guns to begin with. It's true that some states will demand that a gun owner with a restraining order against him be deprived of his guns (and potentially against HER by her ex, thus disarming her, too), but there are all kinds of ways around this. Typically, such a gun owner is given a couple of days to get rid of guns with the appropiate receipts and other proofs that this has been done (and I'd think this, along with other aspects of restraining orders and VAWA—Violence Agaiinst Women Act—would push some of these men into homicidal behavior when they otherwise wouldn't feel so backed in a corner). This is time enough to do a murder. There are also ways around this so that the guns remain accessible to the gun owner. And even if the guy isn't too bright, if he's a gun owner, he probably knows other gun owners, and I expect someone desperate to kill his ex isn't going to feel much compulsion against stealing a gun from someone he knows. And even if an incident is so unusual that none of these apply and THEN he can't buy a gun because of a restraining order. . . then there are other nasty tricks, including sabotage, ramming with a vehicle, sitting on top of her and stabbing her 20 times, strangling her, etc. It's not like he's trying to amass a body count afterall, he just wants to kill his ex, and maybe the children. And while fathers (and the occassional mother) have murdered their children with a gun, enough others have killed them in other ways, too. I recall reading recently about one who threw all his children off a high balcony before killing himself. There's the infamous case of the mom who drowned her children one by one in her bathtub. That is, even if Mr. Rabbit had his way and such gun sales were banned to those with restraining orders against them, I personally wouldn't feel the slightest more secure for it. It's something that a crafty ex could potentially use to prevent his target from being armed against him, too. My mom had a restraining order against Dad and he broke in to our home and was violent more than once. He knows how to work on cars and worked on the car that Mom kept during the divorce. I was in the car when the brakes failed on a major highway and we nearly wrecked into a gas station, and it's my understanding that there was obvious vandalism done to the car that drained the brake fluid. The cops struck me as completely uninterested and blase in all of this. The memory of how bored they seemed when taking a report (in contrast to my mom in hysterics), as well as when Dad actually broke the front room window and crawled in yelling and slinging Mom around (I hid, so I don't know the details), is just one reason while I'll never depend on a cop or a restraining order to protect me. And it's not so surprising, given like the case of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales That's a quick summary, but the details is that the order commanded that cops intervene ASAP in the event it was violated, but the cops just shrugged their shoulders at it. The restraining order was gotten after the ex had tried hanging himself in front of his children while visiting with them. After that stunt, if I'd been the mother, then I wouldn't have depended on a restraining order, even if I got one simply to hedge my bet in court in case I shot him later. But I can imagine how she'd have suffered had she shot her husband when he showed up (even though the restraining order forbid it) before he could abduct and murder the children, but at least her children would still be alive. I don't know the specifics of the exact case Mr. Rabbit refers to, but I think in many cases a restraining order isn't going to make a difference. The laws affecting gun owners is more likely to work against a woman in hiding than to protect her. Besides that she can get hit (and disarmed in some states) with a restraining order herself, her name and address can be published in the papers if she buys a gun or gains a CCW permit. Women who were hiding from a violent ex were found after their names and addresses were printed after she got a gun to defend herself and her children. Other mothers and children were murdered while waiting for the time and background check to come through. So it seems to me that these "safeguards" do more harm than good (though if we lived in the North American Confederacy, I expect it would be a rare person—and I mean rare as compared to the rare in our world—who'd dare to go on a rampage like that). And then there's the mindset of those who want to put up these safeguards. One example was Sen. Codey of NJ, and you can read his views (and some excellent responses) here: http://www.2asisters.org/letterweek/index.html Since the World According to Dick (a really good commentary, IMO) doesn't work on that site, here's a new link to that: http://www.gunowners.org/wv41.htm This is the attitude of those who put in these safeguards: that in the words of a major senator, attempts at rape and murder are mere "disputes" in which guns don't belong. There's no way I trust them to protect me. Shortly after Codey issued the public statement, a teen in that same state called 911 because her dad was stabbing her mom to death. I agree with the politician (mayor, council member, I forget) that police response time, about 5 minutes, was impressive, but I do NOT agree that it was satisfactory. Apparently, being behind his security and gated community provided by the tax payers, he thinks its satisfactory even though both mother and daughter were stabbed to death in the time it took the cops to show up. I'd personally have found it more satisfactory if the daughter had picked up a gun first and a phone after she stopped him. That is, I think attempts at murder is a dispute in which guns DO belong. A gun would've worked where 911, and a restraining order, failed. Even if the gun failed, too, it couldn't have been worse than what happened while being "protected" from dangerous guns. Here are some other points that I think are relevent: http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm Jane Cochran
PS: What's worth a pound of restraining orders? Dear Editor, Thanks for the excellent essay by Neil Smith, "Rabbit People Among Us". He's again exactly correct. It is wonderful to see how he applies a principle and follows it to its natural and logical consequences. Of course, anyone could do so, but few choose to do it. The anecdote machine will always have examples of someone with a violent criminal record getting a gun and killing someone else. The Rabbit's anecdote made me wonder about the victim's workplace and her choice of weapons. Was her job site unwilling to allow her to exercise her right to weapons for self defense? Then shame on her employer. What the anecdote machine doesn't generally talk about is the victims of government prosecution. In 1991, I was arrested on false and malicious charges of felony gambling promotion of a lottery. I was never convicted, but evidently "arrests" are good enough for Rabbit. I've also never committed a violent crime—most people have not. Fewer than 2% of the population have ever committed a violent crime (murder, assault, rape, robbery of a person, etc.). Yet something like 10% of the population has been arrested for a felony crime. Something like 5% of the population has been convicted of a felony, though some have had their records expunged. The idiocy of the war on some drugs and the other aspects of the war on freedom has made it possible to be convicted of a felony for crimes that were once misdemeanors or even glorified traffic violations. Recently, in Kansas, I faced a charge of "felon in possession of firearms" although, to my knowledge, I have never been convicted of a felony. That charge has been dropped, twice, by a prosecutor clearly unable to make her case. Most recently, the deputy sheriff who arrested me contacted the court where I was allegedly convicted of a felony to learn that there was no such conviction, and could not have been, since I was never sentenced to state jail. (A whole new class of felonies, not first or second or capital in degree, but "state jail felonies" has been created of late to further incarcerate Americans.) The system is broken, my friends. The system of government under which we live is designed by tyrants, managed by incompetents, and implemented by sometimes well-meaning but often terribly ignorant locals who are as much victims of the public school system as they are victimizers of the general public. Americans do not have a government suited to a free people. But, for hundreds of years, Americans have been told to seek liberty, to love it, and to guard it. As a result of this dichotomy between the liberty Americans crave and the government which seeks to number, tag, and incarcerate them, there is going to be violence. There are going to be violent acts of rebellion in the next few years, following what I am anticipating as a monumental currency crisis later this year. Blood is going to flow in the streets of American cities and towns. Americans, fed up with being bullied, are going to rebel, and bleed, and kill, and die. They've done it before (1775, 1812, 1861, and in isolated incidents like Athens, TN; Mt. Carmel, TX) and they'll do it again. The prosperity of America has been created by the individual initiative of tens of millions of free thinking, hard working men and women. It has been created because those people individually felt free to keep a part of all they earned. We live in the most prosperous country in the world, in spite of all the government does to regulate, tax, and prohibit. Thanks again, Ken and Neil, for all you do to keep the flame of freedom alive. Regards, Jim Davidson
Stand-up comedian and libertarian presidential candidate Doug Stanhope was at the Guild Cinema last night on 21 January 2007 at 8:00 PM. The Guild is located at 3405 Central Ave NE in Albuquerque, New Mexico [MapQuest link] I met with Doug tonight after his show in town—he definitely was worth the 18 bucks at the door. (Shame he didn't have any merch on hand!) After the show, we went for a couple of beers at the nearby Kelly's Brewpub. Right now, he's in the exploratory-committee phase, and working on refining his message so it will be relevant to the campaign, but won't burn out his comedy audience with old material. As a candidate, I think he'll do fine—take a look at his online interview with Hammer of Truth—HoT is STILL down at this point (WTF, Van Dyke?), but not a problem, Doug has republished that interview on his sites— http://www.stanhope2008.com/
I've set up a Yahoo group for the Stanhope campaign, but have yet to see any activity on it—the link is below with the others. The Stanhope 2008 Campaign site The Stanhope 2008 Campaign Myspace page Mike Blessing
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
