Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 638, September 25, 2011

"Call it a game of chicken on a global scale."

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Frank Ney

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)

Letter from Dana Majewski

Another Letter from L. Neil Smith

An article in Freedom's Phoenix, from Ernest Hancock with a little help from L. Neil Smith (or maybe the other wat around).

L. Neil Smith

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Re: "Letter from Simon Jester" in the last issue

The second Amendment is very dear and near to me. The comment you are referring to is to draw attention to ATFE's egregious misuse of its unconstitutional power by emphasizing how it arms criminals while persecuting honest folk.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Re: "They Disrobe Judges, Don't They?" by L. Neil Smith in the last issue

Hey Neil, don't be TOO hard on Belvin Perry.

Given that neither Viagra or Cialis works on the alien construct that blighted soul inhabits, putting innocent people in prison is the only way he can achieve an erection.

Not saying it's right, just understandable.

And no, the coward had himself removed from the list of 9th Circuit judges on the web page. I looked.

Frank Ney

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

The R Word

If somebody were arming gangs of Black criminals to murder Black people they would be called racist. If somebody were arming gangs of Black criminals so they could murder and/or intimidate Black police officers to create a lawless environment they would be called racist. If somebody were arming Black criminals so they could shake down schools for protection money they would be called racist. If somebody were arming Black criminals so they could force Black owned business to shut down and force people to flee Black communities and destabilize the administrations of Black politicians they would be called racist. If somebody were to abuse government authority to require gun dealers to arm Black criminals doing all these things they would be called racist. If these people's boss supported or at least turned a blind eye to these acts that person would be called a racist.

The BATFE armed Mexican gangs in Mexico so they could murder, intimidate, extort, shut businesses down, and depopulate Mexican cities. They required American gun dealers to violate American laws to arm the Narcotraficantes and their siccarios. They did this at the orders of the Attorney General, or at least with Eric Holder turning a blind eye to their actions. Of course since Mr. Holder is Black White people would not call him or actions he countenanced racist. Well, in spite of having a light complexion, I'm technically not white in many people's eyes. I'm a mestizo. So I can come out and say it. Operation Fast and Furious was an act of Racism. The persons who ran it are racists. Eric Holder is a racist for letting it run as long as he did.

And if President Obama and the Congress do not bust these people for the evil they did and their racism then the President and Congress are racists or willing to countenance racism which they do not share, which by me is a (string of vulgarities of your choice) lot worse.

There, it's said. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't been said more often.

A.X. Perez

[ Al, telling the truth in public has long been out of fashion for some unknown but no doubt obscene reason—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Re: "The Paradox of Government" by DataPacRat
"Letter from MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway) with reply from DataPacRat" in the last issue

> That may be entirely true, but "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"? How
> is an average person to tell the difference between a group of
> criminals claiming to be using force in self-defense, a group of
> libertarians actually using force in self-defense, and a group that
> started out by only using force in self-defense but which has fallen
> from those ideals?

Why would you care and what difference would it make? Any group that initiated force would be wrong and evil. Those they attacked would be justified to use any force necessary to stop the attack. When someone attacks you, no analysis of their political status is necessary. You fight, and you fight to win.

If you think about it, most of the serious aggression in at least the last several centuries was either initiated by a "government" itself, or by people either sanctioned or protected by involuntary government. The people attacked were, usually, systematically disarmed and rendered helpless first. All wars are fought between various gangs of criminals. As long as the criminal gangs are able to fool those unarmed and helpless people into believing that they are somehow fighting "for" them, their "freedom," those wars will continue. If the people take back their authority over their own lives, those wars will cease.

How do we get there? How can people be convinced to throw out the criminals and take ownership of their lives and property again? I wish I knew the answer. Freedom is risky, hard work, and so often uncertain. Self ownership is a full time, life long job that never ends. Most people don't want to work that hard or take those risks.

If you think about it, nobody knows the "answer." Nobody knows the future and nobody can control or direct that future in reality. Nobody can actually control any life but their own in the long run.

> I also have to ask a fundamental question—both because I don't
> actually know the answer, and what the answer really is is important.
> /Is/ it possible for a voluntarily-funded, voluntary organization to
> fend off an attack by organized criminals? What evidence exists
> pointing to one answer or another? If 'yes', what are the necessary
> conditions? And, if the answer in at least one situation turns out to
> be 'no', what fallback plans should be considered?

There are no guarantees. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes it's a tossup. The American colonists repelled the invasion of the greatest criminal organization in the world at the time. They were all volunteers. They were also all human beings, so mistakes were made, bad people were involved, and bad things happened. There are no guarantees. There is no magic formula.

We have to play it by ear. We have to be responsible for ourselves and determine to act with integrity and honor, regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't do.

I think this is one of the biggest problems people have understanding the need—the absolute requirement for liberty and justice—for self ownership and personal responsibility. They want guarantees, a formula that can be applied with a known and assured outcome. They want someone else to be responsible, to take the risks, to make it simple and "safe" for them.

That has never been and never will be... for anyone but herd animals and slaves. I choose to be free... risks, uncertainty and peril regardless.


MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Is it time to add a new button to the web site with each article. Take a look at the redish button on the page linked.

Dana Majewski

[Yes... yeeeessssss, I think you are right. This button:

Report to AttackWatch


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Somebody wrote:

> People are becoming obsolete.

Nonsense. Despite the biases of Ludd and his minions, automation has always meant _more_ jobs, historically, not fewer. What's happened here is that a band of vampire-like parasites found a way to abscond with fourteen trillion dollars, leaving that much less for civilization to run on.

I'm beginning to believe this is what's been behind every depression this country has suffered—a bizarre kind of harvest.

The cure? Eliminate all taxation. Eliminate all regulation (except where established by tort—and institute severe tort reform). Forbid governments to isssue currency and allow only hard assets to be used as money. The result? Full recovery in no more than a couple of years.

Of course George Soros and the King of Belgium and the rest of their ilk will have to tighten their belts and wear patches on their underwear, but they have drained the economic jugular of this country enough. Let them starve and freeze in the dark.

L. Neil Smith

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Big Head Press