HATEWATCH: SPLC's "Eye on the Radical Right"

[Prof]

Hatewatch, an SPLC blog compiling sovereign incidents, has reported as follows:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/11/0 ... ile-chase/

A suspect with an anti-police agenda and wanted for attempted murder in Virginia is under arrest in Great Falls, Mont., after leading police Thursday on a wild 40-mile chase during which he tossed seven ignited pipe bombs into the path of pursuing officers.

For the rest of the article, go to Hatewatch.

OBSERVATION:

While SPLC clearly categorizes "sovereigns" as rightist, I see them as anarchists.

Would anyone care to explain why anarchists are variously identified as either leftists or rightists by their critics, when anarchy is neither a right or left political movement but rather an anti-political philosophy?

[webhick]

I agree, sovereigns don't really fit into either category. I think what it comes down to is "not one of mine!" syndrome. If the author is left, then the anarchists must be radical right and vice versa. This places the undesirables as far from the author's own self as they can get.

[LightinDarkness]

The SPLC identifies them as right wing for two reasons (1) historically is mission has been civil rights oriented and that has made then suspicious of the right (as a historical fact this is somewhat understandable) and (2) because its historical (mostly endowment based, now) funding comes from left wingers. I say that as a supporter of the SPLC - I've actually had personal contacts with them and talked with them about several sovereign citizen groups. In their defense, if you trace the ideology of sovereign citizen groups you can usually go back to less-insane right wing groups like the John Birch Society (still out there, but not nearly as crazy as something like RuSA). Also, there is a running theme of these groups having a strong evangelical base, and SPLC correctly understands that people who have a evangelical outlook so strong that it dominates their politics tend to be conservative.

Personally I wish they'd call it LUNATIC FRINGE watch, but due to their funding again thats just not happening. But as I said, I still like the work they do.

[Number Six]

At one point Morris Dees referred to these radicals as "dangerous wackos". Not far from the truth. It is a wonderful, wonderful, world, and unfortunately there are certain elements in society who are not evolving like the rest of us, casting off useless and refuted ideas, ideologies, unloving attitudes, intolerance and so forth. They know who they are. "Star Trek" after which "Quatloos" derived its apropos name, had many episodes dedicated to clarifying the benefits of understanding of supposedly alien, strange or weird people, thereby including them while targeting pernicious people and their ideologies. This site has done a great service in educating so many on the many aspects of fraud so we can be ultimately rid of it.

[Prof]

My question is less directed at SPLC than to the general issue of where sovereigns fit -- left or right. I suppose that they could never be on the left, since the left to a greater (socialism) or lesser (welfare state; regulatory state) extent accepts government interference and control.

The right and far right also accept significant government interference and control, as with a facist state or dictatorship to minimally regulated captilism of the liberterian shade. Neither right wing nor left wing governments allow complete anarchy or sovereignty.

So, and given what I read, sovereigns must be anarchists.

First, do sovereigns believe that there is any role for any government?

If so, what role?

What powers?

Classically, what role does government play in an anarchist society -- again, as classically defined?

[Unidyne]

The self-professed "anarchists" that I've met do not hold allegiance to any government.

"Sovereigns" hold themselves to be highly patriotic, but only to their own personal concept of the USA.

Therefore, I don't consider Sovereigns to be anarchists.

[Lambkin]

Many (not all) anarchists are also of the collectivist variety, not interested in personal property. That's pretty much the opposite of a sovereign citizen.

[notorial dissent]

Prof,

from what I have seen, and admittedly my experience has been limited to the ones I have encountered in my personal life, and from what I have read, but the following things seem to be commonalities:

1. they are conservative, usually very to extremely, in their outlook on life,
   
   in many ways they resemble other extreme conservatives in their desire to go back to a better more idealized version of the past where things were as they should be, in many ways they are anarchistic, but not in the classic sense, and they certainly would not consider themselves as such, as in their own minds they stand for order and the way things “should be”,
   
   the ones I have dealt with all believe that they are each Sovereign and independent, in the strict sense of the word, but a power unto themselves, if only they could get the rest of the world to recognize that fact, which of course they never do,
   
   in common they also do not really have any concrete idea of what that ideal past really was, but it was better than things are now, if we’d only go back to “true law” ‘the common law” “God’s law” then everything would be wonderful again, equally they share the idea that these are a fixed and immutable fact, even when they can’t really even answer as to what they are,
   
   most are, or at least pretend to be, very religious, although the religion is more often of the extremely fringy and one off variety that tends to suit their own view of how thing should be, women/children know their place-chattel, if you are not white, male, and Christian-as they define Christian, you don’t count for anything,
   
   they do not accept or want any gov’t interference or control and are all convinced that anything resembling gov’t is infringing on their “rights”, although many of them pretend to supporting a theocratic sort of gov’t, and would right up until it started dictating what they could and couldn’t do
   
   many of the ones I have known deem themselves to be the only “true patriots” left standing up for flag and country and their mythologized version of what the constitution is.

I don’t know if this will help, but this is what I have seen in the dealings I have had with them over the years. Other results may vary.

[Prof]

I'm tied up until Sunday -- speech on Stern v. Marshall, draft of Chapter 11 Plan, and friends 60th Birthday in Austin Sat. More to come -- when I have a chance to go back to my references on anarchy.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

notorial dissent's: in addition to the points you noted most sovereigns also show an affinity for large amounts of firepower, which is another classic right-wing trait.

[notorial dissent]

True, another commonality is that they all seem to be convinced that "someone" is going to take their "rights" away from them, and they must be prepared to "defend" them. I think the appropriate phrase is "paranoid much"!! Mind you they are not real clear on what those "rights" are, or just "who" is going to be taking them away, but they are really convinced of it, and they are convinced that God is on their side and that they are doing God's work.

[Number Six]

True, another commonality is that they all seem to be convinced that "someone" is going to take their "rights" away from them, and they must be prepared to "defend" them. I think the appropriate phrase is "paranoid much"!! Mind you they are not real clear on what those "rights" are, or just "who" is going to be taking them away, but they are really convinced of it, and they are convinced that God is on their side and that they are doing God's work.

And add to that an overactive demonology which is quite effective if you believe you and your people are "righteous" while selective repositories of your flaws are evil, the government, the liberal media, different races:

"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much." ("Heart of Darkness")