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

Oath Keepers ‘Patriot’ Group Plans 50 Anti-Gun Control Rallies Tomorrow

By Ryan Lenz on February 7, 2013 - 3:50 pm, Posted in Antigovernment, New World Order, Patriot

In the wake of White House moves to implement some gun control by using executive orders, the antigovernment “Patriot” right has exploded with fury, claiming that virtually any regulation amounts to an infringement of the Constitution or even a prelude to a national “gun grab” by federal forces hoping to disarm citizens once and for all.

These and similar claims have come from nearly every corner of the radical right. But one of the most noteworthy recent responses comes from the Oath Keepers, a group of conspiracy-minded current and former members of law enforcement and the military who believe a tyrannical and gun-hating “New World Order” is planned by global elites. Vowing to fight any legislation to ban “assault weapons,” the Oath Keepers have announced rallies at state houses across the nation on Friday with the aim of sending a message to lawmakers that the “they will be held accountable if they choose to dishonor” their oath to the Constitution.

At issue are plans on both federal and state levels for increased gun regulations following the Dec. 14 slaying of 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school –– regulations that Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes says are being pushed by “disarmament freaks.”

In a December manifesto entitled “My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an ‘Assault Weapons Ban,’” Rhodes denounced federal efforts to rob him of “every terrible implement of the soldier” and vowed not to disarm, “regardless of what law is passed by the oath breakers in Congress, or signed into law by the oath breaker in the White House.”

“It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns,” Rhodes wrote, referring to calls to restrict or ban “assault rifles.” “And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call ‘sniper rifles’ (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!).”

It is unclear what the turnout to the rallies will be, but in the past hundreds of Oath Keepers have answered calls to muster in such places at Quartzsite, Ariz., where Rhodes insisted the New World Order had begun its power grab just last year. And just as it did then –– despite its charged rhetoric –– the Oath Keepers are again calling for “peaceful demonstrations.”

All the same, a different statement seems to be coming from the rank-and-file.

As someone calling himself James C. Ferris wrote on the Oath Keepers’ website on Wednesday, “I believe it is time we did like they did in 1776,” he said. “There is no use in havind [sic] our guns if we won’t use them.”

  • Erika

    Aron, has anyone provided conclusive evidence that Brock Henderson is not a brussels sprout?

  • Aron

    Brock, as a I said before, I don’t hate you. I dislike and pity you.

    I was merely asking if you had a job as you strike me as someone who would be unable to function in the real world. Not that I’m belittling you (you’ve already done that for me).

    If you’ve actually paid attention to my posts, you’d see there’s only one thing I hate. And it’s a brassica. Not a person.

    Well, maybe one person. And he has commented on other posts. But I won’t mention his name.

  • Reynardine

    Brock, I suspect the part you wanted me to get was “arsenal of weaponry”, because the stuff you cited was just not dangerous. There is no use citing law to you, because you make up law and you make up cites. No one is going to put up with your Gish gallop, and no one is impressed by your threats. Get some psychiatric attention before some court sends you on a quilted vacation.

  • Erika

    two responses – first my flat out mean girl response:

    Oh it looks like that special little snowflake Brock has melted down. What an adorable little temper tantrum as the strong armchair commando gets in a tizzy due to the mean girl. Maybe he can run upstairs to his mommy to comfort him :P

    Okay, my more serious response (but its still kind of mean, sorry to the little fragile teacup, but the real world can be like that),

    Brock, you are one hostile person. You are also extremely ignorant. You need serious help in both categories. More for the hostility actually, because hostility will always destroy you in the end. Your ignorance may well be terminal however due to your arrogance.

    And i’m sorry that you apparently believe that if a “female” has an opinion contrary to yours that she can’t be a woman. You seem to have no problem calling me a girl though. Apparently you think that belittles me. Silly boy you have no clue about that either. You have long past the point where you are just pounding the table :P

    its pretty obvious that your view of women is as twisted as your view on the Constitution.

  • Gregory

    Brock,
    You lost your argument because history is not on your side. By “history”, I mean the factual/actual events and decisions that shaped the course of events, rather than the fantasy world that you inhabit. Quote all the speeches and papers you wish, they have little effect on what actually happened.

    As for the rest of your tiresome shtick, basically you are an Internet Tuff Guy ®. Your provocation may seem brave on your side of the screen, but what the rest of the world perceives is a pathetic little boy, evoking more pity than fear or hatred.

    In the current vernacular, Epic Fail. I can say, with some certainty, that you would not behave this way in my presence, as I am an old man with little tolerance of the behaviour you seem to consider “manly”.

    I will repeat my previous admonition; Grow up. Get a clue.

  • Brock Henderson

    Aron, you are pathetically desperate to marginalize people you hate, aren’t you? Well, you have found good company with the SPLC . . .

  • Reynardine

    And exactly, Brock, how does any assignment of gender to Erika play into this? You state you have been lurking for some time. Did those peach bottom jokes drive you into a darkened theater in Onancock?

  • Aron

    Brock, do you have a job?

  • Brock Henderson

    We’ve been over this before, Reynardine. Many a blog ago. I have an arsenal of weaponry at my disposal called The Debate on the Constitution. It includes the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, statements of ratification from the statehouses, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution. I guess you don’t remember where Erika made the argument that – haha, pardon me while I laugh – the Constitution is a document ratified by PEOPLE and not STATES. Meaning, of course – and the Federalist Party spared no drop of ink or breath during their speeches explicitly reassuring the Anti-Feds that the proposed document would do NO SUCH THING – that the government does in fact remove and eliminate the state governments as barriers to its reach and scope. How MANY excerpts from the speeches made during those debates do you want me to post here, Reynardine, where Madison or Hamilton explicitly refute such nonsense?

  • Reynardine

    I guarantee you, Brock, that you will never get a chance to find out if Erika is a woman or not.

  • Brock Henderson

    Erika, you possess a law degree and you are female, indeed, but you are not intelligent, nor are you a woman. Learn to spell and cease your feminist war against both manhood and womanhood, then you might qualify. I’m a jerk, you say, because of the way I address you on this blog? Erika dear, just one question for you:

    How does it feel?

    I mentioned awhile back that I started monitoring this blog perhaps as long as 6 months before I started posting comments. What I gathered from my perusal of the mind-numbing stupidity emanating from these cyberquarters is that a “jerk” is the exact way YOU act towards people with opposing views who comment on this blog.

  • Gregory

    ZOMG! Erika misspelled a word?

    Really, Brock, grow up.

  • Reynardine

    Brock: you have refuted not one of Erika’s arguments. All you can come up with is that, in a long and detailed response to you, there was one misspelling or misprint of a word otherwise spelled and used correctly at least a dozen times. Otherwise, her arguments were cogent and well stated, and you did not endeavor to refute a one logically.

    We do gather that the freedom you feel was infringed upon was the freedom to deprive others of theirs. You have stated it was an unbearable infringement of your human dignity not to be able to treat others with indignities normally visited on livestock. To you, treason is the refusal to obey traitors, and your right to bear arms appears to be to threaten others with weapons of mass murder if they refuse to bow to your will. You have the right to believe these things; though you have no right to publish them here, they are being so published. What you do not have the right to do is put your ideas into practice by force. The day and hour you defy the guarantees of your sovereign thus, you will find that you and we indeed owe our allegiance to the same sovereign, and that sovereign will indeed extend its protection even to those of your fellow citizens whom you despise most

  • Brock Henderson

    Erika, you silly little airhead, we’ve been over this before. The indisputable fact that states – independent nation-states, that is – were the parties responsible for ratifying the Constitution is discussed explicitly between James Madison and Patrick Henry. Remember those quotes from the Debates I posted? Now don’t you make me post them again, young lady, I don’t want to have to make you look like an even sillier little girl. There’s also a couple of things called logic and reason: Let’s see, the entities that arose from the War for Independence from Great Britain were independent STATES. You know, like France, and Italy, and Sri Lanka. If another government exerts full and unlimited power over a collection of STATES, then they ARE NOT STATES ANYMORE. Provinces, counties, prefectures, territories, they could be called any of those things, but not states. I missed the part where the United States GAVE UP their STATEHOOD to the government they created in 1789. To give up all of the independence fought for just a few years prior would be nothing short of self-inflicted masochism. That’s why they DIDN’T. Like it or not, and I know it’s definitely the latter for you, there is that “pursuant to the Constitution” caveat attached to the Federal Supremacy Clause. There is nothing FEDERAL about a government which exerts top-down unlimited authority and power over the lower forms of government under its jurisdiction. That is an explicitly and exclusively NATIONAL government. After all – and please, Erika, for your own intellectual well-being, read the following line very carefully – the STATES created the FEDS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Only in that way would an unaccountable, all-powerful national government which you pine for, make any sense. And once and for all, there is this one type of government principally defined by its assertion of nation-state status by way of bullets instead of ballots: an EMPIRE.

    As for your description of the vices of the Confederacy, wow! You’re saying that governments tend a little towards tyranny during wartime, and their people tend to flee in order to avoid the paths of destruction? Brilliant! Didn’t know that! I thought freedom and liberty absolutely FLUORISHED during war!

    Moron.

  • erika

    poor brock, what a burden it must be to be a special little snowflake who is right when everyone else is wrong and no matter how much evidence to the contrary there might be he can always fall back on “brock is always right.”

    Odd that this supposed defender of the Constitution winds up sounding like nothing as much but an old school royalist speaking about the “divine right of kings.”

  • SentientHominid

    The vantage point of OKs and IIIpers is understandable – NOLA, less than a decade in the past. First-hand knowledge, this poster was present when it happened. USMIL (USAR, USNG and USA) forcibly confiscating lawfully held weapons. Unfortunately, the marginal few, on the periphery (of all groups), cast the longest shadow.

    Regardless of circumstance, the pretext is set. Never let a crisis go unleveraged. Sandy Hook, the same as Katrina. Right or Left, it simply doesn’t matter. What matters to the unaccountable political class, (just like the bourgois, the royalty, the communists, the CEOs, and dictators of all stripes before them) is the preservation of their power and authority. To the detriment of everything and everyone else. Benevolent human leadership is an oxymoron, as is truly altruistic job performance.

    I believe our nation and it’s founding principles are the only hope left for humanity. Only in America can you stand and act. The rest of the world is indeed a very dark place, in that regard. Having broken bread on 5 continents, in mud huts and 4-star hotels, with a good sampling of modern race, religion, and sociopolitical groups, – as both friend and adversary, I can say I truly see the benefit of human existence under divine law, and innate rights and dignity unassailable by the gerrymandering, interpretation, and meddling of men.

  • concernedcitizen

    @Brock: correction people who enslave others and oppress and kill people based on the color of their skin and or religious beliefs are not our countrymen. They are nothing more than poisonous seeds inhabiting what would be a great and prosperous garden of civility.

    And some people are just born with wonderful Souls they are gifts from God and yes Morris Dees is a good man and I believe would have been a good man no matter what color God made him.

    And then there are those men who are like the bad seed “devil children” and it is our human plight that we must exist amongst them while we walk the earth.

    @ Erika: I believe you posted this:

    “What a charmer this Brock is. Seriously, we have a guy here who is pro-child labor and wants to bring back the Articles of Confederation (and also thinks that the states have free reign to do whatever they want to people including allowing people to own slaves). If his positions weren’t truly world class nutty in and of themselves he is also a complete misogynistic jerk.”

    What’s scary is that there are whole communities who buy into this sort of thought. They also believe in burning books while sipping out of the communal beer bong.

  • Brock Henderson

    “successionist”

    Ladies and gents, I present to you, the brilliant legal mind of this blogroll at work (look at Erika’s comment right after Mr. Potok’s comment on Vermont secession).

    Really, Erika? SUCCESSIONIST? And you’re a lawyer?

    You have just confirmed yourself to be a total moron, Counselor. Congratulations.

  • Erika

    Brock, as i told you before, your interpretation of the Constitution cannot survive past the first line. And if the first line of the Constitution wasn’t enough there is always the Supremacy Clause which makes the Federal government supreme over the states. The Constitution also requires state officials to swear or affirm allegence to the Federal government. And if there was any doubt after those things that the Federal government is the supreme sovereign it is removed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

    When the text of the Constitution makes it clear that the Federal government is a union of people and supreme over the states you do not need to look outside of the plain language of the Constitution. The most fundamental rule of statutory intepretation is that unambiguous plain language always carries the day.

    In fact, you hold a view that has been rejected by everyone. i mean, even the actual Confederates favored a system of government where there was a central government with a President and a Congress. In fact, ultimately the Confederate States of America government became more and more powerful as the war progressed. The Confederacy created the first income tax and instituted the first draft – and overall the Southern government became extremely tyrannical. There were many instances where people who opposed secession were summarily executed or imprisoned. And in many portions of the South (especially in the mountains where the rich flatland planters were much less popular than the federal government), more men joined the Union Army than the Confederacy. The Confederate Army when it started to lose the war and retreating would take everything that it could and burn the rest (much of the burning has been wrongly blamed on the Union Army which lie should be easy to see through – why would someone burn what you just captured? Seriously, take Atlanta, why would the Union after fighting for months to capture the rail center of the deep South at Atlanta then burn it? That makes absolutely zero sense as a strategy – and of course, it didn’t happen. It was the retreating Confederates that burned the cities like Atlanta – but as part of the “Lost Cause” Myth the Union Army got the blame for what the Confederates did). During Sherman’s March to the Sea the Union Army was often welcomed as a relief by whites (and obviously the freed slaves viewed them rightly as an army of liberation). That is why especially in the deep south and west there were many cases where Confederate soldiers would desert and then actually go to the Union Army and join it.

    Of course, being steeped in the mythology of the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” you do not know any of that. Instead, the South merely wanted to go their own way. Just ignore that their own way was a government founded on the principle of “White Supremacy” and would deny all rights to the majority of its occupants (remember that in the South poor whites were one step above slaves and essentially had no rights). In fact, the existence and experience of the pro-Union southerners who were often summarily executed should be sufficient to show the error of your ways. It is in fact, the large number of Southerners who remained loyal to the Union – or maybe initially joined the Confederacy and left during the war to rejoin the Union as has been well documented – whose rights were totally violated and as mentioned above often were imprisoned or executed who show that secession is never pretty and simple. The creation of West Virginia where several western counties in Virginia seceeded from Virginia and petitioned to join the Union also shows that secession is not going to be a simple matter.

    The problem that you face ultimately is that the only way that secession can ever take place is that if you have a democratic society with a clean line between distinct ethnic groups with the assurance of minority rights after the division. That can happen – the split of Czechoslovikia is the one peaceful example ever. The Czechs and Slovaks were always distinct groups who got artificallly grouped together after World War I. Both sides essentially lived in distinct areas and were committed to democracy and human rights, That is rare. That is also not at all the case of the U.S. where there are many different ethnic groups, political views, social ties. Ultimately you do have a point in saying that where i am from has very little in common with you – Georgia and California are vastly different places. But yet, we are both Americans and this is the only country we got. And in case of a split, there will be no clear lines – i live in Virginia now and Virginia comprises about 5 distinct areas which all have very little in common with each other. In fact, the only thing those areas really have is that they all see themselves overall as loyal Americans first and Virginians second.

    By contrast you have the former Yugoslavia where you had a much more mixed population, much less commitment to democracy and minority rights, and no fixed dividing lines between ethnic groups. You also had a longstanding terrorist movement by secessionists. That is a much more common situation – and the result was war and genocide.

    The U.S. does not have neat lines – the states are all mixed ethnically to some degree and many are mixed ideologically as well. The U.S. does not have near universal support for a split. In fact, one of the real ironies of you pushing secession as a right wing wacko is that if California in fact did become its own country it is likely to be much more liberal than the government you are leaving. The vast majority of Americans support the continuation of the Union. If put to a vote, the number of people who really want to leave the U.S. could probably fit in one county or a small island. Maybe you need a couple of counties that no one would miss much (like in southern Georgia or western Kansas) and then put all of you secessionist freaks together and let you have your way.

    And yes, Brock you are a neo-Confederate – your view of the Civil War is entirely lifted from the myth of “The Lost Cause of the Confederacy” – you support secesssion, and you claim that states have the right to leave the Union (despite the fact that there is no provision within the Constitution allowing for secession (there is a provision allowing states to enter the Union) and despite the fact that the plain language makes the Constiution a Union of the People and not the States). You also ignore that the majority of Southerners actually opposed secession – and that the Confederate States was built on a foundation of slavery and systemically violated the rights of the pro-union white minority (with the exception of mountain areas like eastern Tennessee where the Nashville government had little control). Even defeated, the formation of the Ku Klux Klan showed that there were still Southerners who were fighting for White Supremacy (and note that in many cases, the KKK was strongest in areas where the support for the former Confederacy was weakest and most of their victims in those areas were white southerners (not blacks and carpetbaggers which were mainly targeted by the KKK in areas with large freed slave populations – these are areas where there were very few slaves and the Confederacy if they allowed voting would have lost the vote in 1861) who had always opposed the Confederacy.

    It is your worship of the Confederacy (seriously, you’d think that you went to public schools in Georgia or something) in addition to your support for secession which makes you a Neo-Confederate. The evidence is overwhelming that you are such.

    And Brock, if you really want to seceed you can do what some people have done – namely get your own island and have the Brock Republic. It doesn’t even have to be real. In fact, i think the guy who had Sealand recently died so perhaps you can take it over. It might get rather lonely living out in the middle of the ocean and you have to watch out for hurricanes (especially Hurricane Erika) but you would get what you want – a government completely under your control. Seriously, it is pretty clear that the governmental system you actually favor is a dictatorship in which Brock is absolute dictator. You may well figure that is the only way you could be with a woman – and based upon your attitude it is probably right.

    And Gregory, while i’m sure that Brock’s mysogny plays some role in his reaction to me, the guy has basically proven himself to just be a jerk. He pretty much hates everyone who doesn’t see Brock Henderson as the special snowflake that is right while everyone else in the entire United States is wrong. He might even hate himself, i don’t know. But while i’m sure that he has a special hatred for intelligent women he does seem to pretty much hate everyone. Maybe he’ll grow out of the juvenile mysathrope act someday and be willing to share and join us here in the real world – but until then, it seems like he’d be happier on an island.

  • Brock Henderson

    Gregory, don’t shoot the messenger. T’was not I, Brock, that made any argument with Erika. It’s the evidence, Sherlock. The transcripts of the debates that took place amongst the representatives of the American States over the proposed Constitution do all of the necessary debunking and discrediting of Erika the Circus Clown’s silliness for me. It’s pretty easy to do since that “200 years of American jurisprudence” hogwash you mentioned is itself one big 200-year journey of removal from that Constitution, as far away as possible.

    Sigh, alrighty Ruslan, hmm, where to begin . . .

    Oh yes, the definition of a nation. Generally that’s true – a real nation must consist of people with at the very least SIMILAR goals and principles. Ones which are not at total odds with each other. Culture, customs, and traditions are the most important, though. Where observable segments of a society possess polar-opposite views about these things, there is no nation of people, just masses of people under the jurisdiction of the same government, usually by brutal totalitarian means. This is common knowledge, not an arbitrary definition. Concerning the request to prove a negative, that’s fair enough. That begs the question, though: What binds you together in common cause with radical right-wing Americans? What values do you share with us? Which American historical figures do we AND you look up to as heroes – and for the same reasons? This goes for all of you, by the way. This ought to be good.

    But Ruslan flunks U.S. History 101 for actually calling secession a type of insurgency. Please, dear boy, submit for our consideration, transcripts of the requests for aid from the Feds, submitted by the legislatures of the Southern States, for the purpose of quelling their several insurgent rebellions. Again, this ought to be good.

    And you answered your own question about the South’s treatment of its non-citizen population, if there is at least a piece of a brain behind that skull. Otherwise, here it is: Generally, people in a country who are not citizens of that country are . . . . wait for it, I love surprising people! . . . NOT treated the same as its people who ARE citizens! Don’t you just love learning new things?!

    Moron.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Beautifully said, Gregory!

  • Gregory

    Brock,
    Well, that was quite the manifesto of outraged immaturity. I haven’t the patience of Ruslan so this will be brief.

    For starters, you did not debunk Erika. Your argument consisted mostly of fantasy and wishful thinking, hers consisted of 200 years of American jurisprudence. In short, she kicked your ass. Maybe you could have accepted defeat with more grace if her name was Erik, rather than Erika, but we know that you have problems with women.

    As for your infatuation with secession, I doubt you could fill a Volkswagen with like minded rebels. You do have an option, however. Simply find a country that meets your fantasy and go, because the US will never be that country. Of course, you will have to leave the confines of your parent’s basement, but isn’t that a small price to pay for the liberty that you crave?

  • CM

    Mr. Stewart, no one is “labeling patriots as hate groups.” What are being identified as hate groups are the fake self-styled patriots who use lies and misrepresentations of what American democracy is all about to advance an agenda of insurrection.

    You’re quite right when you say that “upholding an oath is an honorable thing.” When you take an oath you’re *expected* to honor it. That’s what makes it an oath. You don’t have to take another oath saying that you’ll honor the first one, or join an organization that claims to unite people who really really really plan to honor their oaths. That would be superfluous and silly. So clearly, Oath Keepers isn’t about keeping oaths, it’s just a far-right political pressure group.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ” Provide proof with conclusive evidence that as far as the actual definition of a nation goes, Brock and Reynardine and Erika belong to the same one. This will be a difficult task for you, I understand, because you worship the state as God.”

    Oh good, the old libertarian chestnut: “You STILL question my totally unproven claims about economics and my totally unsubstantiated historical narrative? WELL YOU MUST WORSHIP THE STATE AS GOD!!!”

    Sorry but that doesn’t fly in the real world.

    ” The state is to be the tool used for consolidating authority over all those who stand in the way of the inexorable march toward the destruction of Western Civilization, and eliminating them in whatever way they stand as a force of opposition.”

    Gee I don’t know if you heard, but “Western Civilization” had quite a few states, many of them far more authoritarian than say, the post Civil War United States. In fact since civilization appears right around the same time in human history as the development of private property and thus class-base society, you could almost say that all civilization went hand in hand with a state.

    ” So if we are both under the jurisdiction of the government headquartered on the Potomac, then as far as your silly little shrunken minds are concerned, we are members of the same nation. Because the nation is the state, and the state is the nation. The Almighty State is our God.”

    You seem to enjoy telling other people what they think or believe. The truth is that since the world is divided into nation states, for all intents and purposes you belong to the same “country.” Nation? Perhaps not, depending on how you define it. However, while you seem to be skirting around the topic, I have a feeling I know exactly why you think that we are not members of your “nation.”

    ” In order to truly make a case that you and I are members of the same nation, you’d have to use the real definition of the word “nation.” You’d have to show that we are three people who live for the same goals and live by the same principle. ”

    Why should that be the definition of “nation?” It would be clearly suitable to describe many things which are not nations. Your definition is totally arbitrary.

    “You would have to realize that the main premise of left-wing thought – that there are only two dimensions of human existence, the individual and the state – is of course provably false.”

    “Left-wing thought” is a big place, buddy, what sort of “left-wing” thought preaches that sort of dichotomy? Also, do you realize that a major advance in the concept of nation states came from the left-wing French Revolution?

    ” But take a crack at it, you two. Prove that you do not HATE conservatives.”

    The fact that most of us are laughing at you suggests we don’t necessarily hate you. Also do you realize that you just asked us to prove a negative?

    ” I started monitoring this website a little while before I made my first comment, and the tone that you have always taken towards conservatives is that of someone communicating with a sworn ENEMY.”

    Why? Just because we don’t buy into your BS historical narrative that doesn’t stand the light of examination? Is it because we refuse to accept your arbitrary definitions for various things?

    So say it, loud and proud. I understand that it’s true. Now

    “Erika, we’ve been over your stupidity that is immediately debunked and discredited upon reading the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and ratification documents. ”

    I didn’t really follow your “debate” with Erika but I happen to know that Erika is a trained lawyer whereas you, well, haven’t really established yourself as trained in law.

    “Ruslan, I have not been told any fairy tales. No part of life is a fairy tale, because contrary to what you maintain, man is not God and hence can never become anywhere near perfect,”

    I have never asserted that man was god, and the antebellum south was far from perfect. In fact, perfect wasn’t really necessary. I’d settle for not owning people as property.

    “. Neither my parents or public school teachers – the only kind I’ve ever had, by the way – have played a part in my view of history. ”

    While I’m not sure they would have helped, it seems to me your view of history was shaped largely by internet sites about the New World Order, various pamphlets handed out at gun shows, and books which have a stern-looking middle-aged white guy on the front standing with his hands on his hips in front of an American flag.

    “Aron, I do not give a rat’s tail what the U.N. say about what is and is not genocide. The people of the North declared war against the people south of them whom they declared to be their own countrymen. ”

    The South fired the first shot.

    And while one can argue over whether the UN definition of genocide is appropriate or inadequate, it is pretty clear that putting down an armed insurgency is not genocide.

    “The next four years saw the U.S. government achieve a status which only the empires of history most famous for the terror they inflicted upon the world can claim: one which turned its guns and cannons on ITS OWN PEOPLE. It waged war AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS. ”

    And how about how the South treated its own citizens…you know the ones they didn’t call citizens?

  • Reynardine

    All right, rabid badger and sanctimonious Mr. Stewart, if we were the haters, we would be invading your websites and spewing invective at you constantly, wouldn’t we? We don’t. If memory of some past link serves me, Ruslan has gone on a hostile link and made a cogent argument, without resorting to the kind of verbal viciousness that you display here.

    As for you, Brock, I have had cause to study all the aspects and parameters of citizenship. Until you go elsewhereand formally renounce your citizenship, the United States of America is your sovereign, to whom you owe allegiance and which owes you protection in return. The First Amendment of that sovereign you scorn is exactly what enables you to engage in that speech, and you know it, because I believe you are otherwise too craven to endanger yourself, but if ever you act on those sentiments, you will find that your citizenship brings you under the treason jurisdiction of your sovereign.

  • Mr.Stewart

    It is not appropriate to label patriots as hate groups. I would say someone upholding their oaths is an honorable thing. Anyone attacking that aspect of our traditions and values it in fact the intellectual aggressor. People need to wake up and realize that its not just who is in power that are at fault its those who continually denigrate each other including the publisher of this group. To truly recognize the culprits of the problems of society we must look around to the failure of those to execute the policies of the people who put them in office from GWB to BHO and for the most part modern presidents in general. In layman’s term everyone needs to grow up and recognize that our problems have been because we have “ignored” the “principles” of our founding documents.. nothing more and nothing less….

  • Brock Henderson

    Reynardine and Erika, demonstrate for all of us what world view, common principles, and culture you and I have in common. Provide proof with conclusive evidence that as far as the actual definition of a nation goes, Brock and Reynardine and Erika belong to the same one. This will be a difficult task for you, I understand, because you worship the state as God. The state is to be the tool used for consolidating authority over all those who stand in the way of the inexorable march toward the destruction of Western Civilization, and eliminating them in whatever way they stand as a force of opposition. So if we are both under the jurisdiction of the government headquartered on the Potomac, then as far as your silly little shrunken minds are concerned, we are members of the same nation. Because the nation is the state, and the state is the nation. The Almighty State is our God. In order to truly make a case that you and I are members of the same nation, you’d have to use the real definition of the word “nation.” You’d have to show that we are three people who live for the same goals and live by the same principles. You would have to realize that the main premise of left-wing thought – that there are only two dimensions of human existence, the individual and the state – is of course provably false. You will never do so. But take a crack at it, you two. Prove that you do not HATE conservatives.

    Once again, your culture is different from mine. The way you approach life and the many questions it poses to us is different from the way I do. I started monitoring this website a little while before I made my first comment, and the tone that you have always taken towards conservatives is that of someone communicating with a sworn ENEMY. So say it, loud and proud. I understand that it’s true. Now open your own minds just enough to be able to admit it to me. I am your enemy. You are my enemies. We are at war with each other. Why else would you be followers of an organization dedicated to monitoring people like me as though we are threats to the achievement of some kind of goal, and as such ideally need to be eliminated? Members of one nation do not view each other that way.

    Erika, we’ve been over your stupidity that is immediately debunked and discredited upon reading the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and ratification documents. I pay my respect to the authority of the Feds over the states wherever it is undeniable that said authority was GIVEN to the Feds by the states – the entities which of course created the Feds. Uh, wow, did you REALLY just say that people who simply “oppose” the Feds are neo-confederates – a term which you obviously use not in its real literal sense but simply as a marginalization tactic? Not call for secession or nullification, but just simply OPPOSE? You have just proven yourself to be an extremely dangerous person as far as your relationship to your fellow “countrymen” is concerned.

    Ruslan, I have not been told any fairy tales. No part of life is a fairy tale, because contrary to what you maintain, man is not God and hence can never become anywhere near perfect, not in the antebellum Southern U.S. or in your horrific dream society. Neither my parents or public school teachers – the only kind I’ve ever had, by the way – have played a part in my view of history. Yes I did use the word “romanticize” a few comments ago, and you can go ahead and disregard that. That was just a little too positive a spin to put on it.

    Aron, I do not give a rat’s tail what the U.N. say about what is and is not genocide. The people of the North declared war against the people south of them whom they declared to be their own countrymen. The next four years saw the U.S. government achieve a status which only the empires of history most famous for the terror they inflicted upon the world can claim: one which turned its guns and cannons on ITS OWN PEOPLE. It waged war AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS. Since the war between the North and the South was so horrifically untraditional in that way, this was indeed an act of genocide, in the real sense of the word. The soldiers of a country’s army were ordered to kill their own fellow citizens, and they definitely did. The U.S. and Mexico were already two separate sovereign governments at war between 1846 and 1848. Ditto Japan/Germany and the U.S. in WWII. That’s just war, plain and simple.

    But anyway, now your precious American Empire founded by St. Lincoln is all over the globe, ridding Middle Eastern countries of excess population, most prominently. How do you like your Empire now, Aron?

  • dj

    This is the first & last time i’ll post on this board. Almost everything i’ve read is by, hateful, agenda pushing radicals attacking the American constitution.

  • Erika

    Brenda, maybe you should meet Brock, you seem to be his type :P

    And if you want to see a real attack on the Bill of Rights, look up the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Or see the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Or read some of those lovely opinions by the Roberts and Rehnquist courts before then. And then wonder how come despite all of these blatant attacks on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eigth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not get a reaction from those so called “Oath Keepers” who keep in mind are mainly law enforcement professionals which is to say the driving force behind most of the real attacks on the Constitution (see Amendments Four, Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen) – while a notion that perhaps some restrictions on guns equals treason.

    So if the cops kick down your door and take your personal mail and seize your property to be sold for their benefit without ever charging you with a crime its okay, but if you can’t buy a 30 round magazine its tyranny. That is despite the fact that the SEcond Amendment expliticitly calls for a “well regulated militia” which is much weaker than the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law”

    And then try to learn some history from someone who isn’t Glenn Beck or David Barton. Then get back to us.

    Thanks :)

  • Reynardine

    Brenda, dear, your health would improve if you would cease to first swallow, then regurgitate, that which has already passed through so many other digestive systems. Alimentary, my dear Brenda.

  • Kiwiwriter

    Well, Brock, I haven’t answered your comment aimed at me, mostly because I have a lot more important things to do than address the words of an internet troll.

    However, I have a few minutes, so I’ll answer you.

    No, you are perfectly correct. The Constitution does NOT specifically state that secession is forbidden. You were obviously expecting me to say “The Civil War settled that,” which would play into your arguments that America is an empire held together with bayonets, and give you smug satisfaction.

    However, the Supreme Court, which under the Constitution, interprets the Constitution, decided in the case of Texas v. White that states could not secede from the Union. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase delivered the majority opinion, and his decision is actually referred to by the White House in its response to the petitions for Texas to secede from the Union. Look it up.

    So the Supreme Court has spoken. Now, if you believe that is wrong, there are numerous remedies to that situation, and we have seen Supreme Court decisions overturned by federal legislation and the Supreme Court itself. Plessy v. Ferguson fell to Brown v. Board of Education, for obvious example.

    I suggest that you explore the appropriate remedies to this gap – unite with like-minded secessionists, chip in your dollars, and either elect representatives who will support your position, or undertake legal action to address this situation. You could, of course, also take the path of previous secessionist attempts, but that would only provoke the response you probably desire, of being the object of massive force, which would certainly at least give you an opportunity to become martyrs to your cause.

    However, I am more interested in your views on child labor, feminism, and civic discourse.

    Your comment on child labor, verbatim:

    “No, Hayes and McKinley didn’t do anything to abolish child labor according to my knowledge. They’re so reprehensible for that, aren’t they, Aron? A kid learning the value of hard work and – gasp! – becoming a disciplined ADULT at an early age! . . . how evil that is!! Everyone knows nowadays that children are supposed to be bored, angst-ridden, spoiled-rotten classroom drones exploring their sexuality and playing iPhone games. Thank God that the past is past!”

    So you seem to think that the world – or at least your corner of it – would be a better place if children were removed from the classrooms at an early age and sent to work in steel mills, coal mines, shipyards, and sweatshops, and denied an advanced education. At what age should they start punching clocks? Sixteen? Fourteen? Twelve?

    According to historian Walter Lord, in his book, “The Good Years,” published in 1960, but still highly accurate: in 1913, “Twelve-year-old Owen Jones tore and bruised his hands in the breakers of a West Virginia coal mine. Tiny Anetta Fachini twisted the stems for artificial flowers under the lonely lamp bulb of a New York tenement sweatshop. Eleven-year-old Sam Bowles did his best in the weaving room of Georgia’s White City Manufacturing Company – for 40 cents a day.

    “At an Atlanta cotton mill one nimble-fingered boy stretched three thousand flour bags a shift; but he had plenty of practice, for he worked a 60-hour week. In Pittsburgh, an unknown little girl rolled 1,000 stogies a day – which meant, looking at it another way, that 1,000 times a day she had to bite off the end of a cigar.”

    Mill-owner Frederick Gordon considered working children 60 hours a week to be a matter of “charity.” There were no federal laws affecting this, and when asked, President Woodrow Wilson declined to take action. He said it was a matter of “states’ rights,” so I’m sure you would approve of his position.

    I can see from your position that these kinds of labor conditions offer many advantages to business. They certainly improve profits for the small “capitalists” you admire but also for the large “Capitalists” that you despise. Either way, it opposes socialism in any form. And you have a considerable point in that these child laborers learned valuable lessons about hard work and discipline. They also lost arms, legs, eyes, and lives in the machinery they operated. They also did not gain access to higher education, so their career opportunities were severely stunted.

    On the other hand, they probably had a good deal of “angst” from the harsh conditions, were probably “bored” from the repetitive nature of their work, very likely explored their sexuality at an early age, but they certainly were not “spoiled-rotten classroom drones” and absolutely did not have Iphones.

    I read this and thought about how you will apply this theory when you have led the secession effort in California and the Stars and Stripes are replaced with that of the “Bear Flag Republic” or the “Brock Henderson Republic.” Obviously you will have child labor for all at an early age, and you won’t have kids who will suffer the pain and agony they have today, and you will have a thriving and productive industrial economy.

    And to be sure, there are examples of such states in both fiction and reality. Suzanne Collins offered us “Panem,” which had starving kids in the various industrial and agricultural districts working in a state of slavery and starvation to provide the inhabitants of the Capitol with all their supplies, and regular “Tributes” for the “Hunger Games.” Another novelist, George Orwell, gave us “Oceania,” in which children worked in the coal mines and factories, supplying an endless war whose purpose was to be continual, destructive of production, and aimed at its own people.

    I was also reminded of Herr Hitler’s directives for the occupation of Poland, in which he ordered the creation of a “leaderless labor force” to serve Germany. Polish children were not to be taught to read or write. They would learn to count to a maximum of 500, write their names and “that it is God’s command that he should be obedient to Germans, honorable, industrious, and brave.” (Source: “Blitzkrieg,” by historian Len Deighton)

    That’s fine. Sounds like a plan. It supports industry, business, profit, and it maintains order, production, and obedience.

    Of course, there are a number of problems: the workers of these various ages may not be too productive…they might be annoyed or rebellious against their conditions… they might even oppose the system. But I think the big problem with this diktat or ukase is that if we close the schools, eliminate higher education, and put all the kids in factories, we will effectively eliminate all but the simplest professions.

    I mean…we’ll have no doctors, no dentists, no surgeons, no nurses, no engineers, no architects, no mathematicians, no scientists, and no inventors. We’ll also have trouble generating military leaders. We will also lack bankers, corporate executives, and business leaders. We would also lack artists, lawyers, judges, teachers, philosophers, writers, musicians, but I don’t think you’d consider folks like that much of a loss.

    But we’d be short of a host of other professions: pharmacists, agronomists, traffic engineers, and geologists. Have you thought about that part? Where will your republic find them? Will you bring in “guest workers” to do these jobs? Or will you limit access to those professions to a financial, religious, or political elite? Will that ensure that you have the best minds tackling these issues? What will happen when your knowledge bases fall off and people just simply don’t know how to do things?

    Well, at least we know one thing: your society won’t have women involved in it. As you say: “Oh, and I despise feminism, an ideology which you claim to subscribe to. That’s the reason for the misogynistic pet-names. If I can say or type something which I believe just might tick off a feminist and really drive her into a rage against the “oppressive right-wing patriarchy,” you can bet I will. An ideology which states that women can do the same things as men, or vice versa, is worthy of ridicule, as are its most assertive and unabashed followers.”

    So according to you, women cannot do the same things as men. Interesting. Well, I’ve never heard of a man getting pregnant, so that’s certainly true. But I’d like to hear precisely what, in fields that are not divided by physical attributes, men can do that women cannot do. Marie Curie won a Nobel Prize, Indira Gandhi and Boadicea led their peoples into victorious wars, and Phyllis Schlafly and Sarah Palin went into the political arena and gained immense following and support…as conservatives, I should note.

    But what I’m really interested in is your writing…and your solution. See, you come here and berate the folks in this discussion group, using a mix of sarcasm and condescension, mixing the styles of a sneering bully and an overbearing teacher trying to correct a class of unruly fourth graders, trying to elicit from them the “correct” answer in a twisted Socratic dialogue. However, you fail.

    What actually comes over is dripping hatred and contempt for your opponents, which is standard for radicals, a spatter of rhetorical gunfire aimed at your various straw men, and the usual determination to frame the debate only in the terms that you set.

    Well, you’re not winning friends and influencing people here. I’m sure that when you go back to the web pages you normally haunt, you will probably brag about how you stood up for secession and against the evil conspiracies of the Frankfurt School, and your pals will applaud.

    But it doesn’t accomplish anything, does it? I mean, none of us are going to join your cause.

    And you portray us as follows: “Because with a Satanically-inspired level of blood-boiling fury, you hate me. And people like me.”

    I don’t hate you. I think you’re pompous, arrogant, smug, condescending, and sarcastic, but I don’t hate you. Never have. Never will. Hate is a useless emotion. The people you hate either don’t know or don’t care that you hate them. Both the Mob and the Bible teach you not to hate your enemies. Nor do I waste that much time on you – as my delay in answering you shows.

    What I think you should do is stop wasting your time, lucidity, and passion here, on Hatewatch. You’re not going to gain California’s secession from the Union, you’re not going to restore child labor, and you’re not driving me into a rage.

    Nor can you really say you’re gaining ground for your cause. If you think child labor is truly a moral and admirable practice, go argue the point with the National Child Labor Committee, which was founded in 1904 to end the practice. They’re still around, located at http://www.nationalchildlabor.org/ I think they’ll be most impressed by your views and the energy, force, and gravity with which you present them.

    You should unite with your like-minded secessionists, pool your funds, and begin legal and actual proceedings to separate from the Union. Find a pro bono or public advocacy lawyer and argue your case. Don’t just sit behind a computer keyboard and hurl sarcastic cracks about Benedict Arnold and Nathan Bedford Forrest – get up and fight the battle. Forrest wasn’t a superman. Neither was Arnold. Nor, for that matter, was Thomas Jefferson. Do something about it, instead of whining and sneering. Don’t just sit there. Is that all you can do? Pound a keyboard?

    So my real question to you is this: has anything you have done in this cause actually improved your world, your county, your neighborhood, or your life? Do you have an actual, realistic, implementable, solution that will make your life better?

    Or is whining on the web really all you’ve got?

  • Aron

    Brenda,

    The Nazis were not socialists. At least not after 1934.

    And Socialism is not a hate group.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ” I do object however to you portraying people who support the bill of rights and constitution as “hate groups”.”

    So you object to something nobody did? Brilliant.

    “You are also inaccurate when you lump all hate groups as right wing. Nazis are socialists which is a leftist hate group. You need to correct your site.”

    No, Nazis weren’t “socialists.” If you knew anything about the history of the NSDAP and interwar Europe you would understand perfectly as to why they happened to use the name “socialist” in their party’s official title.

  • Kiwiwriter

    “Your articles by and large are very informative. I do object however to you portraying people who support the bill of rights and constitution as “hate groups”. Is everyone who disagrees with your leftist ideology a hate group?

    You are also inaccurate when you lump all hate groups as right wing. Nazis are socialists which is a leftist hate group. You need to correct your site.”

    Well, Brenda, you should read these articles a little more closely, because they pretty clearly analyze how the organizations they describe as “hate groups” do indeed, practice hate as a matter of policy and value.

    And you should read your history a little more closely, because the Nazis were not “socialists,” despite their egalitarian trappings and use of the word “socialist” in their title. They were “national socialists,” a right-wing nationalist and fascist organization, allied with large business, rabid nationalism and racism, and Germany’s generalitat. If anything, they were anti-labor and anti-leftists, suppressing the unions and left-wing parties at home, and then going off to kill more than 20 million Russian Communists alone!

    If you need to understand this further, get your hands on the three books by Professor Richard Evans, “The Coming of the Third Reich,” “The Third Reich in Power,” and “The Third Reich at War,” and these three books, meticulously researched and well-written, will pretty much give you the full story of the Third Reich, from Hitler’s bunker to housewives in Hamburg, including the euthanasia programs, the sadistic medical experiments, the use of slave labor to support big business, and the destruction of German intellectualism. Go and study.

    And as for “everyone who disagrees with your leftist ideology a hate group” sneer, show me where SPLC has condemned Mitt Romney, or the Republican Party in general in this blog?

    I don’t think you really find these articles “by and large informative.” If they had, you would have understood those points.

  • Brenda

    Your articles by and large are very informative. I do object however to you portraying people who support the bill of rights and constitution as “hate groups”. Is everyone who disagrees with your leftist ideology a hate group?

    You are also inaccurate when you lump all hate groups as right wing. Nazis are socialists which is a leftist hate group. You need to correct your site.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ” Far from it. I was making a distinction between such free enterprise and profit-worshipping corporatism.”

    No such distinction exists. The problem is that your understanding of the past is simply a romantic fairy tale that you were taught by parents and probably schools as well. If you actually lived in those times(or had studied history a little deeper from books whose covers don’t consist of a stern-faced middle-aged white guy in front of an American flag), you would find that those captains of “free enterprise” were even more rapacious and greedy than those of today(although they’re certainly getting there).

  • Reynardine

    Brock, dammit, when you were a wee badgerling in your sett, didn’t your mama tell you what a diet of fire ants and toadstools would do to you? Now look what you’ve got for a brain: an omelette not even a trashcan maggot would eat. Aren’t you ashamed to parade that in front of us? Well, we’re embarrassed, because however much you deny it, we *are* your countrymen, and damned if we appreciate the way that reflects on us and the *one nation, indivisible*, to which we owe our allegiance.

  • Gregory

    I’ve been waiting for this moment as it approached with tedious inevitability. Brock has completed his transformation into Ignatius J. Reillly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._of_Dunces)

  • Aron

    Brock, I’m going to break my vow to ignore you on this thread because I really have to ask you something.

    How does the American Civil War fit the UN definition of a genocide? Save for your buddy Nate Forrest’s actions at Pillow, there were no major race- or creed- based massacres.

    Granted, the actions at Pillow and Andersonville counted AGAINST the secesh score, but that doesn’t really count, right?

    And honestly, if you hate the current state of America, please secede. Go and proclaim the Great Brock Pokemon Refuge and Sovereign House of Pancakes. We won’t stop you.

    But don’t expect any help from us or any other government, either. I can get my Pokemon and pancakes elsewhere.

  • Erika

    Brock, when someone constantly takes the Confederate view of things, denies that hte Constitution makes the federal government supreme over the states, opposes the federal government, calls for a confederacy of independent states, and advocates secession and “states rights” they are a neo-confederate.

    And honey, America isn’t perfect but its the only country i got. My family has been here since before 1730 so i’m not going anywhere because i have no place to go. If you do not like it, you are perfectly free to move to any other country that will take you. Because that is the only way that you can stop being an American. Secession will never happen because the people do not support it. The people really didn’t even support it when the Confederacy tried to leave – only a minority of people in the South supported the Confederacy (which is why the Confederacy quickly turned increasingly tyrannical as their unsuccessful rebellion progressed)

    and i’m not going to be a good girl by your definition either because i’m never going to just sit there, be quiet, have no mind of my own, and let you mysognistic men control everything.

  • Brock Henderson

    So states that were in a union calling it quits and going their separate ways is a way of “destroying” a country. You truly believe such a provably, indisputably, and thoroughly false statement, don’t you Erika? And that conversely, sending a government’s army into its own lands to wage war AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS is not a way of destroying a country – it’s just giving it a nudge in what you know to be the right direction, even if you have to break a few eggs to make that omelette . . . right?

    Then it’s query time. Think honestly about the answer to this question, and respond in like manner:

    Are you and I a member of the same nation?

    Now, Erika, you keep your fingers off of those keys until you can respond honestly like a good girl. Remember, if you can remember what you should have originally learned about what a nation truly is, and how it is defined, although your mind has probably rejected such inconvenient facts. It’s a group of people with a common culture, language, set of beliefs, customs, and traditions. It has nothing to do with the existence of a government exercising jurisdiction over a certain amount of people.

    Spoiler alert!

    No. Well, at least I can answer here on my end. No. Hell, no, thank the Lord, I am NOT a member of the American nation, whichever one that is, that you are a part of, Erika. You and I are functionally strangers from foreign countries. Do you know why? Because with a Satanically-inspired level of blood-boiling fury, you hate me. And people like me. If you are not familiar with writer Tim Wise, please google “Tim Wise Open Letter to the White Right.”

    Get it? Conservatives have long known how liberals feel about us, and with the ideological ancestry of modern-day leftism having some roots in the interventionist, meddlesome, egalitarian New England Puritan spirit planted in the soil of this very continent, we have known for probably 200 or more years. Some conservatives point to the cultural Marxist writings of Gramsci, Marcuse, and Adorno, and to the Port Huron statement. They’re on the right track but of course they haven’t looked back far enough. At any rate, whether it be by genocide in the so-called Civil War, or by infiltration of all the institutions of psychological and educational influence as prescribed by the Frankfurt School, your eyes are on one prize regarding the American people who stand in opposition to the American Empire: destruction. So enough with the pretense that we are all one nation. We’re not, and never have been, not in the most authentic sense, at least, from Day 1 at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock to the present day. Reynardine is not one of my countrymen, nor Aron, nor Ruslan, nor I any of theirs. In what ways of viewing our community, family members, government, etc. are we alike? None. Look at the dualistic mindset that’s been created in you. You are so blinded with rage against Americans like myself that you still stupidly insist on calling someone who does not live anywhere near the South nor wishes to create a confederacy a neo-Confederate.

  • Erika

    Aron, Vermont almost fits my criteria as an area to give the successionist morons in that in winter it would no doubt qualify as being unihabitable – at least by my standards. However, it seems likely that the residents of Vermont would object and not want to move. By contrast, give the residents of southern Georgia the chance to move anywhere else and they would no doubt jump at it. The ones who actually like southern Georgia enough to stay are probably neo-Confederates anyway and would fit right in. Basically no one would notice any difference if southern Georgia became Teabagistan..

  • Aron

    Thanks Mark, I knew it was around here somewhere.

  • Mark Potok

    Aron, we wrote a big story on the Vermont secessionists — and their rather shocking embrace of racist Southern secessionists back in 2008:

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-i.....eets-south

    We also have an update on the story coming in the next issue of the Intelligence Report, due out March 5. It’s an obit of Second Vermont Republic founder Thomas Naylor.

  • Aron

    God Empress Erika,

    I can’t seem to find the links, but I recall that there is actually an active secessionist movement in Vermont that has existed for a couple decades now. It is exactly as silly as it sounds.

  • CM

    Brock,

    You’re awfully smug for someone who has yet to write anything that makes the slightest sense. “Profit-worshipping corporatism” is exactly what the capitalists have created, and it’s specious to argue that it could have happened differently “if only.” But if that’s what you want to argue, I can certainly see how re-imagining the past and rewriting history, as you’ve been doing here, would be helpful.

  • Erika

    Brock,so basically you are saying that you are intentionally offensive because you believe that women are intellectually inferior to men. Yet like the white supremacists you disprove your theory of male supremacy every time you say something :P

    And furthermore you have unambigously said that you hate this country and want to destroy it. Apparently if say Mississippi wants to bring back slavery its perfectly okay for you. Or if Virginia wants to abolish all environmental laws and bring back child labor to work in the new uranium mines* with no safety protection its okay. And sure, in Calfornia it may not be a problem if say Kentucky abolishes all clean air laws, but for people on the east coast who are downwind from Kentucky it would be a real problem.

    Good thing for you that will never happen – see, while you talk about matters of purely local concern, the reality is that almost everything you buy was produced elsewhere. About the only place where i can get something local is the farmer’s market a couple of blocks from my house – and even in that case, the seeds were likely imported from elsewhere. and the trucks the farmers use to take their crops to market were produced elsewhere as was the gasoline. The Supreme Court recognized the reach of interstate commerce in Katenbach v. McClure and Wickard v. Filburn – and thngs have become much more interconnected since 1964. In fact, it is odd that as advances in communications and transportation brings the world closer together that your reaction is to divide things further. The economy operates on a national and international level – and not on a local level. The interconnectness of the economy is why economic issues are all national in scope In fact, there is relatively little of purely local concern left in the U.S. (mainly criminal laws, operation of school systems, fire departments, police forces, sanitation services, local roads, street lights – that sort of thing is local and has always been left primarily to the state and local governments in this country. And if the state doesn’t want to receive federal input into those areas they can always say “no” to the block grants which help fund them. States have not done that.) Basically you have zero understanding of the concept of federalism and what a federal government is.

    Yes, i’m sure that California could perhaps be its own country – it has a large land area, a large population, and a diverse economic base. On the other hand, California’s state government is one of hte most dysfunctional in the world thanks to the tax protest movement and Proposition 13 which has been just as much of a disaster as anyone with a functional understaning of economics could have predicted. California also has a big enough market that they could set their own regulations of goods and be okay. But what about North Dakota? Or Vermont? Or Alabama? Or Virginia whose economy depends upon federal spending? Could those states function as independent counties? Would manufacturers forced to meet 50 different standards to sell in a country where they currently have to meet one bother with creating goods for say Delaware? Its doubtful.

    And ultimately that is why your treasonous dream of destroying the United States of America will never happen. The multinational corporations who control this country’s economy won’t let it happen. And anyone who is not a complete moron knows that the plan to create 50 different countries out of one would fail misarably. That is why there are maybe 1% of the population who are in fact neo-Confederate twits like you who actually support seccession. But obviously you do not. What does that tell you?

    Personally i think we should just round up all you neo-Confederate twits who favor seccession in some part of undesirable barely inhabitable part of the U.S. (my pick is southern Georgia) and let you have your own country. Then the rest of the U.S. can set up a betting pool on how long it takes before you losers are begging to get back into the U.S.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Gee Brock, I wonder what it is about feminism(the radical idea that women are human beings) that irks you so much. The typical case is a guy who is extremely insecure and has problems relating to women. Such “men” long for a time when women’s options were so restricted as to make them more available to any man.

  • Brock Henderson

    CM, reading comprehension seems to escape thee. I never for a split-second said that good-natured and community-centered free enterprise which I romanticize about is the reality we live in today. Far from it. I was making a distinction between such free enterprise and profit-worshipping corporatism.

  • Brock Henderson

    Erika, since I have never lived in the South I do not believe it be superior to my native West, because I do not have the requisite experience to compare and contrast. Is English your second language? It must be, as this is my third time, I believe, telling you that I am not a neo-Confederate. Southerners who wish to bring back the CSA are neo-Confederates. I am a secessionist. I believe California should separate from the rest of the Union. As should all the other states. And while it is none of my official business unless California is the subject of debate, I also believe many of the states themselves would do very well to break up. You get irritated at that concept, don’t you, Erika? Federalism! The idea that maybe, just maybe, there is a multitude of issues which are not national in scope or scale, but rather internal issues of just one household, neighborhood, town, city, county, or state, which are the business of that one body of citizens and theirs alone! Agh, there’s such little justification for the existence of your precious American Empire as it exists today when we consider that point of view!

    Oh, and I despise feminism, an ideology which you claim to subscribe to. That’s the reason for the misogynistic pet-names. If I can say or type something which I believe just might tick off a feminist and really drive her into a rage against the “oppressive right-wing patriarchy,” you can bet I will. An ideology which states that women can do the same things as men, or vice versa, is worthy of ridicule, as are its most assertive and unabashed followers