Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 555, January 31, 2010

"The days of political correctness are numbered"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 Boyd W. Smith

Letters from A.X. Perez and Jim Davidson

Letter from Paul Bonneau

Letter from A Reader

Letter from Jim Davidson

Howard Zinn died on Wednesday Jan 27th, 2010. GOOD! Some may disagree with me, but there are certain people that the world would be better off without. Mr. Zinn was one of them. His People's History of the United States was total crap. I know, I read it. I even made notations in the margins when he wrote something especially idiotic.

I do/did not, mind you, advocate force against Mr. Zinn or his property. I do not know for a fact if he did or did not advocate or initiate force against anyone or there property. I do know that he advocated and inflicted idiocy and stupidity upon unsuspecting young minds as a professor of history. And that his stupid book was used by other morons to inflict damage upon many more unsuspecting young minds at high schools and colleges around the nation. It is that such filth can be taught in a compulsory setting that make one of the arguments against compulsory public schooling at the forced expense of people.

My judgment is that Zinn was a horrible, evil, stupid man. And, in my rational appraisal, the world is much better off without him in it.

Boyd W. Smith

first, A.X. Perez wrote:


Re: "War on Salt" and "Shame Them into Openness" by Jim Davidson

Tonkin Incident. I believe it was in the July and/or August 1981 issues of Soldier of Fortune Magazine in a review of a book on Special Observation Group activity in the war in Vietnam that the Mattox was acting in support of South Vietnamese equivalent of SEAL's carrying out an intel operation in North Vietnam when she was fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In other words in a magazine that consistently has been pro War in Vietnam it is admitted that if the Tonkin Incident really happened, the American ship involved was at the time engaged in an act of war against North Vietnam.

Somehow I doubt LBJ could have gotten his resolution to make undeclared war in Vietnam if this detail had been known at the time by most of Congress (or maybe the bastards did know and kept their mouths shut) or that the war would have enjoyed its 70% approval rating at the time we first went in.

To paraphrase scarface, America's tyrants lie. even when they tell the truth they lie.

A.X. Perez

To which Mr. Davidson replied:

Dear Al,

There was never a Gulf of Tonkin incident. The National Security Agency admitted this fact in 2005.

"[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night."

"Evidence was still being sought at 11:37 PM on August 4, as Johnson addressed the nation, as to whether any action had taken place earlier that day. Messages recorded that day indicate that neither President Johnson nor McNamara were certain of an attack."
—Wise, David. The Politics of Lying: government deception, secrecy, and power. New York: Vintage Books, 1973.

Time Magazine reported: "Through the darkness, from the West and south... intruders boldly sped... at least six of them... they opened fire on the destroyers with automatic weapons, this time from as close as 2,000 yards."
—"Action in Tonkin Gulf." Time Magazine 14 Aug. 1964. Time Magazine Online. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.

Time Magazine made a false report, possibly based on lies told to Time by the government of LBJ. The truth is LBJ wanted a broader war, wanted to increase spending on the military, wanted Bell Helicopter to have lots more chopper sales.

> carrying out an intel operation in North Vietnam when she was fired
> on by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.

I believe, Al, that there is evidence that the Maddox, on 2 August, fired first during that special operations group action.

"At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first."
— op. cit.

LBJ's declaration was about the alleged, and now proven to be entirely false, events of 4 August.

> the Tonkin Incident really happened, the American ship involved was
> at the time engaged in an act of war against North Vietnam.

Gosh. And in the time since the end of the war, has Vietnam attacked the USA even one time? They renamed Saigon "Ho Chi Minh City" and they fought off an invasion from China. Evidently, they don't harbor a grudge. Makes you wonder why the USA was ever at war in Vietnam, if it wasn't all about big death merchant defense contracts.

> first went in. To paraphrase scarface, America's tyrants lie. even
> when they tell the truth they lie.

In war, the very first casualty is truth.


Jim Davidson

To Which Mr. Perez replied:

In a recent exchange of comments (mostly supporting each other's point of view, I think) on his articles in the January 24 TLE Jim Davidson's last comment was "Truth is the first casualty of war." This comment triggered a brilliant insight into the obvious which I shall share with you on the grounds that it is so frigging obvious that we often overlook it.

You can tell a politician is lying because he's talking is the point of many an old joke. Essentially, tyrants are at war with their subjects. To the degree he is lying to us a politician is therefor a tyrant. A down and dirty measure of how tyrannical a politician is in a majoritarian society is how much he lies and how harmful those lies are.

Let us consider the gun control debate, repeating a point I've made earlier. The first gun control laws were only supposed to apply to slaves, indentured servants, Indians, and Black people in general. After the War of Yankee Aggression they were meant to keep Black people and immigrants, especially political radicals, in place. They weren't meant for honest White people and even for honest minority members who "kept in their place." Even the so called Green River laws (Essentially, check your guns at the city limits) were really aimed at cowboys who carried their hardware openly. It was taken for granted that townfolk carried concealed pieces. I've always understood that the Sullivan law wasn't meant to disarm gangsters, but to disarm immigrant shop keepers who were shooting protection racketeers who had friends in government.

The bottom line is that people were led to believe that these laws were for someone else, someone everyone agreed could not be trusted with weapons. Then people were deceived into believing it was up to an honest man to prove why he needed a gun. Finally some people were led to believe that you had to prove you needed a particular gun before you could buy it.

Everyone became the someone else. All because too many of us fell for the tyrants lies. So restrictive gun control laws were passed. So were we led to see each other as the someone else that had to be bound by more and stricter laws in other areas, tougher law enforcement was advocated, and a need to override the Constitution was accepted.

We went on to declare war on crime which authorized extraconstitutional means of law enforcement. War was declared on drugs, meaning drug users, meaning, given the percentage of Americans who've experimented with marijuana, on ourselves.

And now we have a war on terror that extended power to the government that can and has been abused to treat people who dissent to government abuse of power as potential enemies during wartime.

And all because we were conned into accepting two lies. The first was that there were people out there whose rights, starting with the right to own the tools to defend liberty, we didn't need to respect and defend. The second was that if we trashed someone else's right ours would still be safe, maybe safer. Because we forgot that by inclination too many politicians are tyrants, and their lies aren't cute little gaffes and amusing acts of petty (or even not so petty) larceny, but deliberate acts of war aimed at enslaving us.

A.X. Perez

Hello Ken, here's a letter:

RE: Secession and the Bankruptcy of Ideas

Russell Longcore unaccountably left out a significant number of secessionists when he described them:

They believe in:

Tightly defined government
Enforcement of restrictions on government

Being more inclusive, this should read:

They believe in:

Tightly defined government, or no government
Enforcement of restrictions on government, or no government left to restrict

There is indeed being a battle waged for minds. But I wonder, why start with major concessions already in place—with the camel's nose already in the tent? The best mindset is to assume no government at the start. Make the enemy actually prove it is needed in this area or that (and yes, even if the vaunted Constitution permits government in that area). Help observers in this battle question why we should have government for this or that.

Everything has to be questioned. Let's not fight this battle on the enemy's chosen ground.

At any rate, within the seceded states, there are bound to be anarchist communities established. The people there will be the ones most resistant to federal control. Why not enlist people with that mindset in the battle?

Paul Bonneau


Activists Missing After Declaring "War on Leather" at Motorcycle Rally

Posted on January 07, 2010

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews)—Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists going missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers "duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters," according to police officials.

"Something just went wrong," said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. "Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong."

The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, "growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats," decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event "in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats." "In fact," said the organizer, "motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it... ergo, they should stop."

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

"They peed on me!!!" charged one activist. "They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me 'La Trene', and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!"

"I... I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he... he didn't even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, 'You can't prove that.' Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman."

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers "farted on their heads."

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed "surprise" at the allegations.

"That's preposterous," said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. "We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome."

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and 'farting on their heads,' the organizer declined to comment in detail. "That's just our secret handshake," assured the organizer.

A. Reader

[Don't bother emailing that this is a hoax. It's funny even if it's not true. It's even funnier if it is true I guess—Editor]

Mansacks and Generale

[LINK to .pdf]

It appears from this document that little Timmy Geithner did not want you to see that the main beneficiaries of the AIG bailout were Gold Mansacks and the French company Societe Generale.

The document is marked "confidential" and Timmy criminal didn't want it released until 2018. That was the request of the feral reserveless bank of New Jack to the SEC. A congressional subpoena broke it loose.

Jim Davidson


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Big Head Press