Down With Power Audiobook!

L. Neil Smith's
Number 806, January 25, 2015

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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!]

Re: "The Pope is a Dope" by L. Neil Smith

I am a Catholic. And to be blunt I find most papal pronouncements on matters of science and politics to be naïve, to be charitable.

That said, a number of political and financial leaders have never been ones to let a little thing like proper regard for the rights of others get in the way of making a buck, pound, or piaster.

Of course, I would feel a lot more comfortable if Their Holinesses (Francis isn't the only one) to first admit that capitalism, free speech, etc. are good things and within God's plan then tear into people for violating the ZAP and the law of charity when they exercise such.

I'm still embarrassed that the Pope back then supported the CSA in the Civil War as he saw the break up of the US as a good thing and a step towards ending that sinful idea democracy.

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: "The Pope is a Dope" by L. Neil Smith

Dear Nils,

Your observations and questions are so good I'm going to share them; I hope that's okay.

The liquid is piss. The boot is any boot. It's an old western expression. Sometimes I forget who my audience is.

Phrenology has nothing to do with anything we now know about the human brain. It's been discredited since surgical brain-mapping began, during World War II, I think.

Terraforming the Arctic (and especially the Antarctic) is a swell idea. I meant to mention it in The Probability Broach. That's what what Lucy and Pete were up to. Environmentalists would commit seppuku by the thousands. In a short story that serves as an epilogue to Ceres, Llyra marries a Newfoundlander who grew up in a domed colony in extreme northern Newfoundland. I grew up near St. John's. We'll see a lot more of her and her family in Rosalie's World

What you have to say about the climate conferences is absolutely true. I've been to scientific conferences and they're big parties. Peter Deusberg said the same was true of AIDS conferences. That's one reason they tried to destroy him.

Before 1750, 20 percent of the English population owned 80 percent of the wealth.After 1750 and the Industrial Revolution, that was reversed. (I'm channeling Robert LeFevre, here.) Now, with the suppression of real capitalism, we're getting back to pre-industrial distributions of wealth.This is not progress.

That phenomenon is worth a book in itself.

Be well,

L. Neil Smith

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: "We'll Always Have Paris" by L. Neil Smith

For many years my outspoken position on middle east policy is to carpet bomb the area. Not with explosives but with modern versions of the classic Liberator. I fondly envision clouds of little parachutes each bearing a box wit .45 cal pistol and a couple hundred rounds. Top it off with an admonishment to deal with their own problems and walk away. The only interest americans in general have in the area is oil and we don't need to meddle in local politics to get that. Government protected big corporations cutting sweetheart deals with corrupt governments is a prescription for disaster. If religion wasn't the excuse power and control junkies would find another lever to manipulate the poor shmoes who just want to live. Disarmed people, a patronage based culture, Vast wealth inequality with no chance to prosper but by brutality, nebulous and murky property rights, is it any wonder that there is rage?

I say and continue to advocate sell them all the guns they want. Give them free guns if you want. Don't claim to be my agent. Power games and the manipulation of populations is the vilest of human activites.

Mark Leigh

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: "The Testament of James by Vin Suprynowicz" Reviewed by Ken Holder

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the excellent review of Vin Suprynowicz's latest. I see another member of the freedom community has done the cover art.

As one result of your review, I have added the book to my wish list.


Tyrone Johnson

[ I thank you, and I'm sure Vin & Cat thank you too—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

FW: Islam, A German View

Our esteemed editor rightly opposes tarring all Muslims with the same brush. But this short e-mail shows us why his view, while accurate, may well be immaterial.


A German's View on Islam - worth reading. This is one of the best explanations of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.'

'My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

'We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.'

'The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.'

'The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.'

'The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

'History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.'

'Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.'

'Now Islamic prayers have been introduced in Toronto and other public schools in Ontario , and, yes, in Ottawa, too, while the Lord's Prayer was removed (due to being so offensive?). The Islamic way may be peaceful for the time being in our country until the fanatics move in.'

'In Australia , and indeed in many countries around the world, many of the most commonly consumed food items have the halal emblem on them. Just look at the back of some of the most popular chocolate bars, and at other food items in your local supermarket. Food on aircraft have the halal emblem just to appease the privileged minority who are now rapidly expanding within the nation's shores.'

'In the U.K, the Muslim communities refuse to integrate and there are now dozens of "no-go" zones within major cities across the country that the police force dare not intrude upon. Sharia law prevails there, because the Muslim community in those areas refuse to acknowledge British law.'

'As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.'

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

Extend yourself a bit and send this on. Let us hope that thousands world-wide read this, think about it, and send it on before it's too late, and we are silenced because we were silent!

Neale Osborne

[ The only people who can fix the "radical shit-head" Muslims are the people in the Muslim community. They generally know who the trouble-makers are, and it is up to them to put a stop to it.—Editor ]

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type


- - - - - - - Begin forwarded message - - - - - - -

You've heard it before...

The little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"NOT I", said the Cow.
"NOT I", said the Duck.
"NOT I", said the Pig.
"NOT I", said the Goose.

"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did.

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little Red Hen.

"NOT I", said the Duck.
"I'D LOSE MY SENIORITY", said the Cow.

"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.

"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little Red Hen.


"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.

But the little Red Hen said, "No I shall eat all five loaves!"

"EXCESS PROFITS!", cried the Cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
"CAPITALIST LEECH!", screamed the Duck. (Barbara Boxer)
"I DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS!", yelled the Goose. (Jesse Jackson)
THE PIG JUST "GRUNTED" IN DISDAIN. (Ted Kennedy from the Grave)

And the all painted 'UNFAIR' picket signs and marched around the little Red Hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little Red Hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread", said the little Red Hen.

"Exactly", said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after including the little Red Hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'Party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one long as there was free bread that the 'Rich' were paying for.


Bill Clinton got $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.


- - - - - - - End forwarded message - - - - - - -

Jim Woosley

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

Re: "Necessary Redundancy" by A.X. Perez

"Yet in spite of the above described redundancy the Founding Fathers decided it was necessary to spell out the right of the people to arm themselves. Perhaps this right is important indeed, so important that the Author (s) of the Amendment, the Congress that passed it, and the state legislators who ratified did not want to risk any misunderstanding. They chose to specifically guarantee the right of people to arm themselves in defense of their lives, liberty and property."

There is another interpretation.

When the 2nd was being written there was a proposal (defeated) to add something into it about "common defense". Most of the debate regarding the amendment revolved around militia. This could be interpreted that there was already a broad consensus that the right to self defense, and the right to arms for self defense, was in existence and did not need to be specifically listed. That the only thing necessary to "spell out" was the right to have arms equal to those of the governments. This would fit well with the old English basis of the laws, the base of which largely revolved around more common infantry weapons or those suitable for self defense.

I am going to be a be a bit lazy here and use Wikipedia as a source (in part because I can't access a better one from where I'm at).

There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689

(Wikipedia - Right to keep and bear arms)

The Bill of Rights Act, 1689 allowed for Protestant citizenry to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law ,"

(Wikipedia - Right to keep and bear arms)

The English had tried to limit ownership of effective infantry arms. That was part of the reason for the 1689 Bill of Rights. I have not seen any writing on early English law that protected a "commoners" right to own heavy weapons of the time (cannon). The 1689 act, which would have been recent and applicable history for the founders, specifically addressed arms for "defense" and limited them to those "suitable to their conditions". It also allowed for laws to restrict which ones could be owned (and by who).

The weapons available in 1689, and what was considered common and effective, were different than even at the time of the American revolution. The bayonet had only been invented in 1680. Prior to that infantry carried a mix of muskets and pikes. It can reasonably be assumed that in 1689 the pike would still have been considered an effective infantry weapon for a poor person. Handguns were luxury items. Slow to load, subject to moisture and hard to maintain loaded and ready to fire, and limited to a single shot, they were far from the ideal self defense weapon. Swords, knives, axes and clubs filled that role for most people—yet were of marginal effectiveness as a primary combat arm in warfare. The Brown Bess was adopted in 1722. At the time of the American Revolution there were better arms available, just no more common of one. The founders would have been aware of that and also aware that arms had improved greatly, and warfare changed, in less than 100 years.

Taking all that into consideration, it seems reasonable that the founders would consider arms effective for personal defense and hunting as things that were already recognized in common law. They would fall under the 9th amendment unenumerated rights. However, the right to weapons of ever increasing power and effectiveness, to weapons more powerful than could be readily used for self defense, to heavy weapons, to future advanced weapons, to weapons equal or superior to that of any "standing army", THAT they might have felt needed more specific protection and enumeration.

If that's the case, then the 2nd could be interpreted as specifically protecting the individual ownership of machine guns and missile launchers. As protecting grenades and mortars. As protecting combat vehicles and other highly effective "weapons of war". As protecting those weapons and weapon systems that would put the citizen militia on par with the best a major country could throw at them. The 9th would be the primary protection for bearing weapons for self defense, with the 2nd backing it up in that that the individual ownership and carry of weapons were protected no matter how powerful and advanced they were, and even if they were NOT suitable for personal defense.

Best regards,

Jeff Colonnesi

To which A.X. Perez replied:

Brilliant!! I love where you take this.

I have always subscribed to the theory that part of Madison et alia's goal in passing the 2nd was to guarantee recognition that the people have the right to own appropriate weapons to overthrow a tyrannical Government. This, of course, serves as a warning for the "ruling class" to behave, thus preventing such uprisings, usually (Look up the Battle of Athens).

A.X. Perez

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

payment type

This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Big Head Press