The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Derek Black: Have Stormfront Founder’s Son’s Politics Changed?

By Mark Potok on December 18, 2012 - 5:10 pm, Posted in Extremist Propaganda

There was a time, not so long ago, when Lamb and Lynx Gaede, daughters of an infamous Montana neo-Nazi, were considered the next big thing in the white supremacist movement. They were blonde, blue-eyed teenagers given to swastikas and Hitler worship, and they formed a white-power musical group called Prussian Blue, named after the color of Zyklon B residue in the Nazi gas chambers.

But then the twins grew older, rejected the views of their mother April Gaede, took up for the medical marijuana that alleviated their serious medical conditions, and said they’d come to “a place of love and light.” “We’re healers,” is how Lamb put it. “We just want to exert the most love and positivity we can.”

Could Derek Black be headed down the same road? Or is the son of Don Black, the former Alabama Klan leader who runs the racist Stormfront forum from his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., trying to have it both ways?

The evidence is mixed. But Derek Black, who has engaged in racist activism in the past, in recent weeks posted a remarkable statement on a students-only Web forum at the elite New College of Florida, where he is in his third year.

Derek Black

Derek Black, far left, stands with his fellow students at New College during his freshman year.

In it, he sought to respond to fellow New College students who had expressed fears of him, based largely on reports about his father’s views and articles about his own past racist activities, including one on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) website. He clearly said he is not a white supremacist, a neo-Nazi or a Klansman and does not hold such views. He said he doesn’t dislike anyone “on account of their race, religion, or anything similar.” “I do not believe people of any race, religion, or otherwise should have to leave their homes or be segregated or lose any freedom or whatever other terrifying similar-vein ideas have been posted in threads about me,” he said. “If anyone cares,” he added, “I’m also pro-choice (regulated by states), pro-gay marriage (with gov’t not defining marriage between people), and anti-death penalty (regulated by the states).”

Describing a 2008 episode in which he won election to the Palm Beach County Republican Executive Committee but was ousted because he failed to sign a GOP loyalty oath, Derek Black said he ran “based on the libertarian-ish views I hold (such as protection of personal liberty, no foreign wars without imminent threat), as well as regulation for environmental conservation and an inclination toward protection of domestic industry.” He said that although he had moderator privileges on Stormfront, by far the largest racist Web forum in the world, he does not exercise them.

Reached via E-mail by Hatewatch today, Derek Black confirmed that he had sent the statement to fellow students “in response to uncomfortable feelings about me some students at my college held. I had never publicly commented on the huge, heated threads about me.” But he added that he had not abandoned his view that white assimilation in a multicultural society is harmful to whites. “Everything I said is true,” he said of his statement to students, “and I also believe in White Nationalism. My post and my racial ideology are not mutually exclusive concepts, and people can believe both. WN [white nationalism] doesn’t dictate specific creeds so much as my concern about white assimilation, which I still think is very much a problem.”

Derek Black’s current political views, assuming his recent statement accurately reflects them, do seem to have moderated. By the age of 12, he had created a children’s page on his father’s website, complete with white pride songs and anti-Martin Luther King Jr. bedtime stories. At around the same time, he was profiled in a USA Today article and an HBO documentary, both about organized racism. He accompanied his father to large numbers of white supremacist events.

As late as 2010, when he had a radio show on WPBR radio in South Florida, his first scheduled guest was Gordon Baum — the head of the Missouri-based Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity” — a far cry from Derek Black’s claim that he dislikes no group. And just this September, he spoke at Stormfront’s “Practical Politics Seminar” in Gatlinburg, Tenn., on how to advocate for white people effectively. During the same month, he attended a meeting of the European American Leadership Seminar for the second year in a row. The SPLC plans to list the group as a hate group in 2013.

In his recent comments — his first public statement at the school on his politics — Black described some reaction to him at New College: “glares” at public lectures, “the occasional middle finger in the library,” a few “threatening emails.” But he concentrated on others’ fears of him, saying he’d heard “that people might be scared or intimidated or even feel unsafe” because of his purported views, and inviting students to E-mail him personally about his politics. “Making these statements obviously does not instantly create comfort or security for everyone who’s uncomfortable,” he concluded, “but I hope it might help slightly.”

  • Erika

    Brock, you really do not know when to quit and are extremely good at posting arguments which manage to refute themselves. In fact, at this point, there is very little need for anyone to even refute you since you have just entirely refuted your own point. Now go back to high school and retake that Government class you must have skipped. In failing to even keep your arguments straight and refuting yourself, you have ceased being an interesting plaything for me.

    And honey, you also reveal yourself as being a hardcore neo-Confederate white supremacist by your question: the main freedom that states had in 1850 that they do not have in 2013 was the right to compltely deny some people their rights. You do not care at all about individual rights – instead, you have revealed himself as someone who wants to bring back slavery.

  • Brock Henderson

    Erika, a government which is absolutely supreme over STATES with them having no recourse or refuge to remedy abuses by said government ceases to be FEDERAL at the point in time total unlimited supremacy, with no concern over whether its actions are truly pursuant to its constitutional powers, becomes a reality. At that point in time it becomes an EMPIRE. Especially if the states are rendered subservient – that explicitly totalitarian word you used – by force. Provinces? Counties? Those are a different story, of course. If all the American states had always been nothing more than administrative units such as those, there would be no debating your position. In fact, there would be no need for federalism. The American people would have formed a unitary national state. Kind of like what the most radical members of your precious ill-named Federalist Party wanted! Hey, what do you know, it’s all adding up! As for your claim that the states ARE MORE than just administrative units even under the current imperial regime you love and worship, because they do have the right to set some of their own laws, please give the entire list of the rights our present so-called states can make now in 2013 without Capitol Hill and the White House declaring war on THEIR OWN PEOPLE, just like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Now make that same list for the 1850s. Yeah. Something’s missing.

    States, by the very definition of the term, are sovereign countries. France is a state. Kazakhstan is a state. The Central African Republic is a state. They call the shots in matters of giving up whatever measures of sovereignty. Argue that point, then you are arguing nonsensically that 1) the American states weren’t ever truly STATES, 2) the American states ceased to BE STATES upon the effect of the Constitutional government, 3) The American government created the so-called states, not the other way around, so top-down rule, not bottom-up, is the name of the game, or 4) yeah the American states did create the federal government but they gave up ALL of their independence and sovereignty . . . even though they had JUST BECOME INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN by winning their independence from George III . . . thereby doing nothing but exchanging the British Empire for a new American one.

    And I think I’ve been rather clear in conceding the obvious, that yes, the American states did give up a tad bit of their powers as completely independent sovereign states when ratifying the Constitution. Meaning they were no longer completely independent. The Articles of Confederation DID in fact expire when the Constitution went into effect. Assuming I never argued to the contrary, and I don’t think I ever did, then please consider that straw man you put together – my claim that the Constitution created a confederation – devoid of a leg to stand on.

    The States did ratify the Constitution. And they gave up an exclusively defined list of powers which 100% sovereign and independent nation-states, on the other hand, do possess. Coining money, taxing imports and exports, forming treaties with other states, joining with one or more other states to become one, becoming a dictatorship or any other type of government except a republic. But ALL OTHERS not listed in the original seven articles, yeah I think there was this last amendment in the Bill of Rights which mentioned something about that.

    As I said, super-power-hungry Federalist Party apparatchiks, plus especially the monarchists, would have loved for there to be no Bill of Rights at all, just like yourself, but wow, that’s a really big insult to the people who ratified that document – trivializing its first ten amendments as though the states ratifying the Constitution didn’t really care about them. Literally just a recommendation. Give me a break. Yeah, and I RECOMMEND taking some water with you on a 5-mile walk through Dallas, TX in the summer. Why don’t we give the good people of the Bay State and all the others in the late 1780s the benefit of the doubt that they really meant that exact word? All other evidence from the Debates says otherwise. No people of any state, fresh from a war of independence, would ever freely give people like you and your ideological ancestors any legal wiggle-room or justification to create a Napoleonic empire over their homes and land. The so-called Anti-Federalists – in reality, Republicans – made sure of that.

    Assurances that all other forms of functional sovereignty not being given up by the states would remain with the states and that they were not being circumvented, bypassed, or much less eliminated, also came from most of the good Federalists, anyway. Richard Henry Lee, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and James Wilson said such things. Want me to post the quotes? Nah, I’ll go easy on you and just leave one, from Mr. Madison, Federalist 45:

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

  • Erika

    Brock, you have to be joking – so basically your argument is based upon a James Madison quote which explicitly refutes what you are arguing (that the U.S. is a confederation of independent sovereign states). The U.S. is a federal system – the Constitution clearly made the federal government supreme.

    The Massachusetts statement also refutes what you are saying – Massachusetts was recommending what became the Tenth Amendment. Also note, that was a recommendation only – Congress was free to ignore it – they were going to ratify the Constitution only (and note that contrary to what you are trying to argue, most of the original 13 states ratified the Constiution before the Bill of Rights was passed). However, the actual Tenth Amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states contains one change from that it says that powers are reserved to the states or the people.

    So basically what you are taking is a few documents from a debate out of context and claiming that they show that your opinion which actually gets refuted even within the documents you are quoting is wrong.

    You also seem to ignore the fact that the Constitution not only makes the federal government supreme, it contains no provisions allowing for the states to leave – only for new states to be admitted. That indeed makes me believe and feel really confident in that you’ve never actually bothered to read the Constitution.

    And the Senate – of course, you would make that argument – however, far from showing that the states are supreme, it shows the opposite. Namely, that the U.S. is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is one where the overall sovereign government is comprised of subservient states which are able to set local laws (and thus are not mere administrative regions). The states must obey federal laws and are prohibited from exercising the powers generally accorded to a sovereign state under international law. Thus, many of the reserved powers are day to day things such as criminal law, traffic laws, traffic registration, etc. However, the states are prohibited from engaging in foreign relations, regulating interstate or international commerce, declaring war, immigration law, and the other powers expressly given Congress or the President. States are also prohibited from setting their own citizenship rules. And guess what – those powers are the powers which sovereign nations have under international law. Therefore the states are not sovereign nations and the U.S. is not a union of sovereign nations. Your entire premise is therefore completely wrong. The Senate does not change the fact that the U.S. is a federal republic – every federal republic gives a certain degree of latitute towards individual states. However, a federal republic is not a Confederacy (a union of indepedent states who independently have the sovereign powers of an independent nation) or a body like the European Union.

    You claim to be in college – given how ignorant you are about basic early American history, one wonders whether that college is actually accredited. But assuming you are going to a legitimate instiution, try taking a class about early American history. It may not help since your ignorance is pretty entrenched – and its quite possible you may have and had a complete nutcase of a professor and you have not learned basic logic yet (basic logic, look at the underlying premises of a statement – if false, then the statement is false).

    Maybe if you get more education you can learn. Or maybe you are just hopelessly ignorant. If so, there is nothing i can do for you. i can’t help those who are unwilling to try to help themselves. Its hard for me to give up trying to help because i’m an attorney and its my job to help people. If i give a person bad advice and it hurts them, i have trouble sleeping at night. If i give a person good advice and they don’t take it and act against my advice and hurt themselves, i shrug my shoulders and sleep soundly. All i can do is show a person the way. Its like the saying about leading a horse to water – trying to teach people is the same way.

    Brock, i have a feeling that you belong to the terminally ignorant group so there is nothing that anyone can do to try to teach you better. Good thing your ignorance is about basic historical fact and not say ignorance of the basic sciences of say gravity or electricity. Ignorance of those subjects could be fatal – ingorance in basic historical facts and our Constitutional system of government just makes you an American :)

  • Brock Henderson

    So you really think that I was not aware of the difference between the House and the Senate, even though I just posted a transcript of dialogue between Madison and Henry during the Virginia Ratification Convention which covered that exact subject, aadila? In point of fact I was just making an addendum underlining the main premise of Madison’s statement ABOUT THE HOUSE, that it is the only legislative feature of the government under consideration which passes for being truly democratic, that is. Even then its consolidated populism indicative of one single unitary American State – Erika’s dream – is reigned in by the much less democratic Senate.

  • aadila

    “And even though Senators have been chosen directly by the people for almost a century, it still retains that characteristic totally inimical to a consolidated popular democracy – equal representation amongst the States which greatly differ in population, 2 each.”

    *Sigh*

    I anticipated your argument, because as I said there is nothing new in what you are saying. Please have the courtesy to go back and read what I said about the House of Representatives, to wit:

    “Specifically, to ensure the maximum representation for the will of the People, our Congress is structured with a House of Representatives to ensure the greatest possible representation by geographic population. ”

    So you see, Brock, I can anticipate and debunk your arguments even before you manage to formulate them because what you are arguing is predictable, stale, and threadbare. You might as well argue that the earth is the center of the solar system because it looks that way to you. Saying so doesn’t make it so.

  • Brock Henderson

    Patrick Henry:

    “That this is a consolidated Government is demonstrably clear, and the danger of such a Government, is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration of those Gentlemen,–but, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States.”

    James Madison, in reply:

    “Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this state, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it. But, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. Should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of America, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. In this particular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. The existing system has been derived from the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people. If we look at the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is, in some degree, attended to. By the new system, a majority of the states cannot introduce amendments; nor are all the states required for that purpose; three fourths of them must concur in alterations; in this there is a departure from the federal idea. The members to the national House of Representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, in proportion to the numbers in the respective districts. When we come to the Senate, its members are elected by the states in their equal and political capacity. But had the government been completely consolidated, the Senate would have been chosen by the people in their individual capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. Thus it is of a complicated nature; and this complication, I trust, will be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mere confederacy.”

    And even though Senators have been chosen directly by the people for almost a century, it still retains that characteristic totally inimical to a consolidated popular democracy – equal representation amongst the States which greatly differ in population, 2 each.

    Thirteen separate sovereignties . . . your reading comprehension skills are good enough to understand that, aren’t they? The people of Massahampshorkylvanialina never existed.

    Yes, consistent with your tendency to be right about many things, you’re also mostly right about the subjects being addressed in the Bill of Rights – mostly people in their individual capacities, not States . . . except for that pesky 10th, though!

    The Form of the Ratification of Massachusetts:

    “. . . And as it is the opinion of this convention, that certain amendments and alterations in the said constitution, would remove the fears, and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the federal government, the convention do therefore recommend, that the following alterations and provisions be introduced into the said constitution: First. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers, not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution, are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised. . . .”

    The above is part of a ratification document, which is of course the final word concerning what a legal document under consideration is to mean, not the intentions of the few power-hungry aspiring rulers who wrote it and framed it. This is not to say the latter does not matter, quite the contrary, it matters a lot.

  • aadila

    I would refer to the virtues of parthenogenesis at this moment but Reynardine has forbidden it, and she, as the doyen of this stammtisch, merits considerable respect. I would therefore suggest Brock give up his search for a woman and invest in a nice pink inflatable doll, which will come closer to fulfilling his fantasies, and no doubt relieve the good people of Sacramento. I am not a specialist in such matters but I believe with a little bit of searching he might find an “obedient housewife” model that says yes dear, yes dear, yes dear.

  • Brock Henderson

    Ugh, I sit down to a nice lunch and this is what I find? So many falsehoods, so little . . . oh wait, there’s still 13 days until my college semester begins. In that case, I’ll take it slow but steady:

    aadila the hun,

    “As an aside, you may think that it is an original idea or that I have never heard the argument that America doesn’t have a democracy.”

    Eleven score and a few years more is roughly the age of that fact.

    “I am rather conservative, really.”

    All available evidence says you’re not.

    I didn’t have as many freedoms as most other kids in modern-day America growing up, but my household wasn’t authoritarian by a long shot. My parents are happily married, 31 years and counting. My axe to grind with the female sex is my own. You see, WOMEN are a vanishing endangered species. But there’s plenty of females out there, being everything EXCEPT women. Forgive me if I am tired of seeing women turn into female competitors with their male counterparts rather than look to men for a symbiotic relationship in which they are and loved and cared for, not to mention reproduced, by their husbands.
    I went to public schools all my life including higher ed, with the exception of a couple of years of Christian preschool.

    Anybody who believes I listen to a laughable non-conservative buffoon on his twentieth marriage – Rush Limbaugh, in total spite of the fact that I’m a conservative: I DON’T.

    Erika,

    Elk Grove, Sacramento County. where I live on my own. I stated previously that I’ve gone to public schools all my life. I like many of The Duke’s movies, and even a few of Reagan’s are rather good. But with a place like Hollywood being the industry in which those 20th-century American pop culture icons originated, why would an American CONSERVATIVE idolize them at all, much less to the point of posters on the wall? Weren’t there several marriages and a few affairs between the two of them? Needless to speak of Reagan’s governance of both California and the whole country.

    Haven’t seen Birth of a Nation or any silents. I prefer sound. While of course I am loyal to the rule of law that has been legally, duly, and freely ratified by the people of the U.S. as the Constitution of the U.S., the answer to your question about the Articles is anybody who would want the maximum amount of freedom and liberty won by the American people at Yorktown. Anybody who is wise to the devious designs and intentions of people like yourself.

  • aadila

    You are right, Erika. Brock needs to run, not walk to his nearest e-retailer, and obtain a copy of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, before he can make any pronouncements about what the Founders were thinking. English common law was de facto American law before the Constitution. Blackstone is still cited in SCOTUS rulings today.

  • Erika

    and here i was sure that brock was an old Tea Party type – but a jobless homeschooled child of old Tea Party types who lives in his parent’s basement also makes perfect sence. Probably lives in Orange County in a house with a shrine to John Wayne and Ronald Reagan.

    And Brock, you can put all of the words from a debate you want to and it will not change the fact that the result – the Constitution does not support your interpretation. And believe me, if you try to say that Thomas Jefferson said something, i am going to want to see that quote being sourced to documents (and even then Thomas Jefferson is just one person who ultimately was on the losing side of the debate at the writing of the Constitution and retreated fast from his stated positions once he actually became President). What part of “debate” do you fail to understand?

    The Constiuttion was a result of compromise – however, the Federalist faction won. In fact, your interpretation of the Constitution is completely and totally looney. The fact that you think that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect states says that you have extreme trouble with reading comprehension. The fact that you claim that every Supreme Court Justice since John Marshall is completely wrong about the Constitution speaks volumes about where your head is at (and also means that you really do not understand the British Common Law traditiion at all).

    And honestly, if you were swaddled in the Confederate flag at birth by Confederacy worshiping neo-Confederate parents who would watch The Birth of a Nation every Friday night, you would actually make more sense. Then you would just be a neo-Confederate twit rather than whatever it is that you are. Your ideology is such that it may well defy categorization. i mean, who actually pines for a return to the Articles of Confederation?

  • http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/24/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-new-gop.html aadila

    My guess is that Brock was raised in an authoritarian household where his natural tendencies as a child were stifled and he was forced to “comply”. Chances are his parents were rabidly conservative, probably divorced or perhaps his mother was subservient and he veers toward his male role model given the subtle aggression against women evident in his comments.

    He could be home schooled as evidenced by the faulty critical thinking and reliance upon a specific subset of ideas he feels he has mastered and it is to these ideas he tries to lead us to in debate.

    I see this a lot here actually, where these right wing ideologues try to set the “rules” of the debate and channel conversation along very narrow lines to a pigeon hole that represents their predetermined worldview. Usually their arguments come from third party sources (such as Limbaugh), so they are not very well equipped to cope with a debate outside those narrow lines. Very much an “either-or” thinking process, and of course, closed minded.

    There are a lot of these right wing memes: that liberalism is a “religion” full of zealots; that progressives shun “individual responsibility”; the media is a “leftist” conspiracy; and on and on, always with narrow, limited definitions and prefabricated arguments that soon crumble under scrutiny. Is it any wonder that even veteran GOP strategists like Nicole Wallace are now frustrated at representing the “stupid party” (see link above)?

    The religious ideologue who insisted upon universal moral absolutes and was eventually perplexed by the pineapple was another example of someone who has a lot of information but lacks the educational foundations to cope with critical challenges.

    It would be nice if we could get some real debate going here. This is like fishing in a barrel.

  • Gregory

    I agree that Brock sounds like one of Limbaugh’s interns, probably home schooled as well.

  • aadila

    By the way Brock, I am not a leftist. I am rather conservative, really. Ruslan is a leftist.

  • aadila

    Straw man, Brock. Let me set your fallacy ablaze.

    I stated that describing our government as a democracy does not _require_ using the words of the Founders. I did not say that it was not possible to use the words of the Founders to describe our democracy, nor that the words of the Founders were meaningless or irrelevant. At no point did I say that the words of the Founders are stodgy, arcane, oppressive, regressive and undemocratics, nor do I feel this way. Therefore you have presented a straw man argument, and this is a fallacy.

    While it is certainly true that ours is not a “direct” democracy, it is undeniably a representative democracy. Specifically, to ensure the maximum representation for the will of the People, our Congress is structured with a House of Representatives to ensure the greatest possible representation by geographic population.

    As I stated above the United States government is both a republic and a democracy. Hence, your argument is again not relevant and fails miserably to rebut my affirmations.

    It pains me to say this but it is obvious your education is simply not of sufficient quality to justify your arguments, nor have you presented an argument which can stand up against any reasonable test of logic.

    As an aside, you may think that it is an original idea or that I have never heard the argument that America doesn’t have a democracy. But that is really a topic for the neophytes of political science. So I suggest debating that with your peers instead of coming here where people actually know what they are talking about.

  • Brock Henderson

    Aron, I don’t read/watch/listen to Alex Jones. Most people who are as politically conservative as myself are much OLDER than me. Meaning they have a lot MORE life experience than me. Naivete? Don’t think so.

  • Brock Henderson

    I am looking right now at pages upon pages of documents from the Founding generation. Debates during the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, ratification statements from the statehouses, etc. Sorry, aadila, they refute and discredit what you said. There are many quotes which reiterate the common-sense piece of wisdom that a democracy is a horrible type of government, which is why the government created by the people of the United States in 1789 ISN’T one. I don’t deny that there are characteristics of democracy in it, just to clarify. Just ask me to post whatever quotes and statements which provide ample enough evidence to teach and educate you about the American government created back in the late 18th century, and I will. Erika chickened out when I challenged her on this over at the Radical Right Secession thread. Hating the words of the Founding generation of American people concerning their thoughts on government and the government the Constitution created seems to be a common theme here on the SPLC blogroll. No wonder it has been officially listed as an alienist and xenophile organization.

    Ah, then again, what have we here?

    “defining our system of government does not require using the words of the Founders”

    Thank you! Finally a leftist just comes out and says what they all really think regarding that stodgy, arcane, oppressive, regressive, and undemocratic legal document. You wish to completely ignore and sweep under the rug of history the most authoritative – of course – voices on the matter of what kind of government the Constitution created. They are a pesky barrier to democracy, socialism, human rights, and the overall Marxist revolution, aren’t they, aadila?

  • Aron

    Brock it was a reference to your political naïvté.

    Generally it’s only young, gullible men who are attracted to the Alex Jones.

    And I know I’m turning twenty-six on the thirteenth. But I like to think my head is better screwed onto my neck than most guys my age.

    If you view this as hypocrisy (in which I fully admit to revel), I will appeal to older friends on the site.

  • aadila

    Brock, I will indulge your high-school level query only once more on this topic.

    The U.N. is not a state. The U.N. is a global forum that indeed becomes a global police force, but that force comes not from the U.N. per se but its Member States, as I have stated accurately now three times. Belgium in the case of Resolution 143 had every reason to be frightened because Belgian troops were about to be attacked by 30 countries. The irrational part is thinking that the U.N. as an entity is responsible for military action, when such action takes place by individual states on a voluntary basis according to the will of national governments.

    Secondly, defining our system of government does not require using the words of the Founders, so I will not indulge in your word games. Ours is by definition, both a democracy and a republic. If you haven’t learned that by now, it would not be the least bit surprising given the ignorance you have displayed on other topics.

  • Brock Henderson

    aadila,

    “What sort of person “opposes” a declaration of human rights agreed to as the basis for a civilized society by pretty much the entire world?”

    Are you sneering at my opposition, or believing that it isn’t real? You don’t need to attach quotation marks so far as I can see. The answer to your question is somebody and anybody who realizes that IT ISN’T the basis for a civilized society.

  • Brock Henderson

    Ah yes, my example I used about UNDHR enforcement. That was just a number that came to my mind, Aron. 15, 20, 25 years ago, during my upbringing is the span of time I was shooting for.

  • Brock Henderson

    aadila,

    Please demonstrate that there is a difference inherent in that distinction you made concerning U.N. troops. What is irrational about being frightened of the potential for a global forum to become a global police force? Please substantiate your claim that the American government created by the Constitution of the U.S. is a democracy, using the words of the Founding Fathers and the parties who ratified it. If you can’t, I will assume that you’re not being honest with that statement.

    Aron,

    Twenty-eight in a week and a half. What does my age have to do with anything?

  • aadila

    Also Brock it occurs that what may be immediately obvious to some is still obscured to others, so I would like to point out your error of logic.

    You stated:

    “About the UNDHR, I postulated the THEORY that only a HYPOTHETICAL international monster-government could realistically make the UNDHR into more than just a document, enforce it, that is. Pretty sure the U.N. isn’t doing that right now..[].”

    Yours is a good literal example of what a slippery slope fallacy is…taking rational facts to support an irrational conclusion when taken to theoretical or hypothetical lengths. Thus, I was precisely pointing to the slippery slope fallacy inherent in your argument, which you have sadly failed to rebut.

    To wit, the UDHR does not require a monstrous superstate to be implemented; it merely requires local legislative action homologous to the declaration. Since there is nothing left of your argument to stand upon but sour grapes, I will consider this matter settled.

  • Aron

    Judging by what Brock just wrote, he’s only twenty years old.

    So I think that accounts for his naïvté perfectly.