Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 667, April 22, 2012

"Conservatives I understand. They're vampires,
of a sort, or at least Aztecs at heart."

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 A.X. Perez

Letter from B. Potratz

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Another Letter from from A.X. Perez

Yet Another Letter from A.X. Perez

This time she gets it

Check out [this link]

To Ms. Coulter's excellent summary of the points made in Jews for the Preservation of Firearm's Ownership ( video No guns for Negroes I must add the comment that The Post Civil War Ku Klux Klan bore the same relationship to the Post CW Southern Democratic Party that the Irish Republican Army bore (bears) to Sinn Fein.

I must add that Ms. Coulter's artiicle is about a book titled Negroes with Guns by Robert F. Williams. It is a meme that needs to be embedded in our culture, "gun control" is inherently racist, aimed at disarming the victis of racism, and a tool for empowering those who practice and/or gain power from racism.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Re: The Hunger Games, A Brief Review by David Walker

As loathe as I am to invade one Author's newsletter with discussions of another Author's work, the subject has been broached so I will put in my 2p.

Yes, I have read the book(s). No I have not watched the Movie, and probably won't until all 3 come out.

There is a reason for this.

In my opinion, the "Hunger Games" trilogy should not be read or viewed as stand-alone works. There are too many vital political subtexts that get lost in the "quick teen read" format delivered by the author.

However, when read in their totality a few things become blindingly apparent—apparent enough that they were noted by my tweener nephew and given to me as a reason to read a tweener series. His opinion was it was scarily like government is now.

My take is that it is scarily like what has been proposed.

The Hunger Games "universe" is the inevitable result at the attempt to implement Agenda 21.

  • Herding the population into tightly controlled resource production "districts".
    While there are no "arcologies/super cities" as forwarded by Agenda 21, I don't think such things could possibly be created by such a system anyway. The Agenda 21 structure is simply too anti-technological and too government heavy. The "Hunger Games" police state "Districts" is a much more believable result of enforced population reduction & control.

  • In the "country" of "Panem" no one is allowed out into "the wild". Agenda 21 demands "rewilding" of all space outside of habitation districts. In the Hunger Games, crossing the electrified fence can get you shot. Killing wild game (poaching the government's animals) will get you shot. Pristine Earth policed with heavy weapons. Sound familiar?

  • Travel is largely by High Speed Rail, and solely by High Speed Rail between Districts. Cars/trucks are only mentioned in the Capitol. The more poor the district, the more likely you are to be forced to walk everywhere. Only the Military has anything resembling air travel and even that is curtailed (one character dreams/reminisces about winged flight vs. hovercraft).

  • The utter disdain for Carbon Based Fuels.
    The Heroine from Hunger Games comes from the Coal Producing District (District 12). As described, there simply could not be enough coal produced by that district to have coal be a viable energy source, therefore the coal must be being used for other non-energy-related tasks. Likewise, "District 12" is the pariah of the Districts. Nobody loves Coal, and nobody loves the people who produce it. "Power" is produced by a nameless "District 5" by nameless means, though Nuclear is suggested on the website.

  • There is no Religion in the Hunger Games world.
    Agenda 21 specifically declares non-pantheistic/non-"natural" religions (particularly Judaism, Islam & Christianity) as something that must be eliminated. "Nature worship" is apparently OK.

  • The Government is Hollywood/Hollywood is Government.
    Hollyweirdoes love Agenda 21. The 3 books of the series are not kind to Hollywood and the kind of government the majority of those weirdoes would create. It presents "The Capitol" as a cross between San-Francisco Body Modification, Hollywood & Rome where nonproductive decadence, self importance, absurd vanity and utter banality are the rule. Any wonder the Movie(s) (will) suppress this aspect of the books?

Other Themes, late in the series: Revolutions aren't always led by noble causes.

The books present the Heroine as a reluctant Revolutionary Icon. Sort of a female Che Guevera without the Politics. However, you find that Politics is certainly involved and that the Heroine is being manipulated from both sides—in this case an Ascetic regime that is the Cultural opposite of the Decadent Regime of the "Capitol"... but just as Authoritarian/evil. I.E. Nobile Revolutions tend to get co-opted by Tyrants. History Repeating. Hollywood will love this angle since they can play up the evil ascetics as the antithesis of their decadence.

There are more, some blatant, some subtle, but all in all there's more than meets the eye and certainly more than the media's "you will read into it your own political prejudices" meme.

B. Potratz

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

I keep reading comments to the effect that the Second Amendment does not grant a right to self defense. Of course it doesn't. First off, none of the First Ten Amendments give any rights, they simply promise the Federal Government will not violate rights you were born with. Secondly, the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to use them for any particular purpose other than a recognition that these are necessary tools for the security of a free state.

Insofar as the Bill of Rights in any way addresses the right to self defense it is protected by the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). This leaves us the 64 (Groucho Marx and H, Beam Piper reference), why wasn't such a fundamental right enumerated?

Perhaps the answer is that it is such a fundamental right, so integral to the definition of what it is to be a member of society, that it is unimaginable by sane human beings that it could ever be questioned. I don't know about you, but I retain an absolute right to self defense, over and above any obligation to anyone. My willingness to use force to protect others or to give up my life to the same end are simply extensions of this right. I join society to obtain aid in exercising this right, any claim the government has on my fealty is based on government assisting me in the right of self defense.When any government seeks to deny me this right I have no obligation to obey That government, Indeed, I have a moral right and duty to violate such laws and destroy such a government, either by use of a democratic political process or by force if need be.

This right can be expressed in many ways. It can be by a teenager beating the crap out of an older person following him in a car and harassing him, it can be an older person shooting a kid who jumped him and is beating older person to death. Or it can be a rock singer raising votes against an incumbent before the incumbent causes the rock star's death or imprisonment.

And of course, I'm sure you correctly feel that you have the same right.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

On Saturday 21 April 2012 the El Paso Times published an editorial cartoon by Mike Thompson of the Detroit Free Press showing a mother and a stereotypical gun nut expressing the fear that the death of Trayvon Martin incident engenders in them. The Mother fears for the well being of her kids, the gun nut fears losing his guns. It obviously is intended to show the moral superiority of the mother's point of view and to imply that wanting to protect gun rights in the face of the concerns of all mothers is improper, indecent, and wrong.

Of course it disregards the fact that many of us consider our gun(s) necessary tools for protecting our children, spouses, selves, and others dependent on us.

I "get" the liberals' point of view. And part of what I get is that they do not get the conservative or libertarian points of view. Indeed they frequently refuse to admit that conservatives and libertarians even have the right to have a point of view.

This is not conducive to open and honest debate.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

Big Head Press