Libertarian Party Chair Candidate Hancock Predicts Economic Collapse, Violent Revolution

Libertarian National Committee Chair candidate Ernest Hancock responded to 10 questions posted on IPR for him by saying they will be answered by videos on a DVD he will be mailing to LP national convention delegates.  This is the third in a series of reports that will use Hancock’s archives to anticipate what messaging he might send to LP delegates.

Questions 3 and 4 were about Hancock’s repeated public predictions of economic collapse and violent revolution. Examples:

0 thoughts on “Libertarian Party Chair Candidate Hancock Predicts Economic Collapse, Violent Revolution

  1. Fire in the Belly

    Would you mind linking the source videos?

    Great Depression: This seems to be a vignette in a larger talk. He advises getting out of the stock market a year ago. What was the rest of the context because the video seems to start mid paragraph in a larger context.

    Hancock on Bloodshed: Seems to be a 30 second quip out of a speech on how to minimize bloodshed in a revolution to a group that does not need a lecture on non-violence.

    Predicts Violence: Ah, the violence will come from ‘desperate people’ (I paraphrase) and people who are prepared have the best chance to survive if there is catastrophic economic collapse.

    Even pulled from their contexts I think Hancock looks good and doing the job. Going out and firing up activists is dog hard work. Education and activism has not only been woefully ignored by the National Party but the leadership has been a little lopsided and while they are all good people doing good work, we as an organization need to reinvigorate our base.

    The chair position and the LNC are not first a publicity wing as their mandated job. Its great if that is their bag and secondary activity but the JOB is to manage the infrastructure and the coalition. They are the promoters of inter-state activity and the referees of competition at the national level.

    IM(NS)HO Candidates are supposed to be the media whores so a guy like Hancock out there motivating activists impresses me instead of turns me off. I think he would give us what we desperately need:

    A strong and successful membership and donor drive.

    The question I have is could he work with candidates like Root or Barr? Because those guys are a special breed too who are just as important to the movement and donors as Hancock is.

    Does Hancock get that?

  2. Mik Robertson

    So Hancock gives bad stock advice, anyone can do that just as anyone can predict bad times ahead. I am more skeptical of the idea that liberty always wins when it comes to revolution and violence. Certainly the French revolution didn’t really go that way, neither did the Russian revolution. Mao? Castro? Ho Chi Minh? How about the occasional military coup?

    Even the American revolution did not really improve the situation of liberty all that much, once the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution.

    I’m also skeptical that one day people are just going to wake up and realize that libertarians are right and that is the way we should approach individual rights and social interaction. One of the things I would like to see in the Chair of the LNC is a firm grip on reality.

  3. Fire in the Belly

    Mik @3
    “I am more skeptical of the idea that liberty always wins when it comes to revolution and violence. ”

    Which Hancock quip are you referring to?

    I am skeptical about absolute statements in all categories for finding fact, but I know that they work wonders to rally people. Are men who are capable of the emotional appeal to grassroots activists, disqualified for the referee spot on the LNC simply because of that trait?

    The trait I would like to see displayed in the national leadership is fairness to the states, to the coalition efforts, to the education efforts and to the individuals that constitute all of them.

    I want to see a push for membership and participation through a broad appeal for getting involved. I feel like the LNC has been stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations. I think that it is a symptom of the want for consolidation of control and the trend needs some swing back. The consolidation has become a feedback loop for activist shrinking.

    Radicals and activists are winning the day in this interesting time. Politics is gaining popularity. I think that the LP needs to be ready to make the disassociated and nascent politico welcome and on the LP needs to have a culture that keeps them on philosophic track with good example, not destructive games.

    I think that a local organizer with a proven record for scalability of meme projection is not a bad choice to make sure that all new comers are empowered and in philosophic check.

    I want the media focused on the cool charisma of the candidates and I want the fire in the belly of the party stoked with activism brimming with education, recruitment and campaign support.

    Representatives of the activist base must have some time at the referee spot to reverse the shrink we suffer even while the voters choose to abstain from identifying with the major parties. They are the ones that best know how to implement national infrastructure for growth. The candidates and the media are a different animal than the people who tend to maintaining the coalition.

    The contention that it is image we suffer for success does not even enter into relevance until we have people to back that image up. It is scale we suffer, and scale comes from the grassroots. It comes from facilitators, organizers and creators. It comes from people with fire in their bellies, love in their hearts, and talent in their hands.

  4. Aaron Starr

    @4

    “I feel like the LNC has been stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations. I think that it is a symptom of the want for consolidation of control and the trend needs some swing back. The consolidation has become a feedback loop for activist shrinking.”

    I am confused by this statement and ones similar to it.

    The Libertarian Party is by design in its bylaws a bottom-up, volunteer driven organization. State and local affiliates are free to do whatever they please, or do nothing at all.

    The LNC does support state affiliates in its ballot access efforts. It spent $500,000 supporting ballot access efforts this last election cycle.

    Can you provide some examples of where the national headquarters interferes with state and local affiliates in how they run their internal affairs?

  5. Fire in the Belly

    AS@5
    “I am confused by this statement and ones similar to it.”

    Publicly airing pettiness is gauche but I am confused that you are confused. I know that you get to see a lot from your position as a National Officer.

    Down here in the bush it looks like there is a scandal or two a year causing some LNC member to step down or defend their position from removal or such. Invariably the scandal is weak, and the conflict is entirely internal and the entire episode is childish. People like me, activists and donors tend to look at that as less than healthy behavior for our organization’s caretakers.

    Maybe it is titillating to some… Dut the destruction it causes in morale for the street is terrible.

    I am sure everyone is tired of the purge tactic and seeing it used so cavalierly. Many I talk to have little doubt about what is causing membership drops: People in positions responsibility acting like the entire party is a UFC ring.

    You notice that I am not interested in pointing out and alienating individuals. I think mostly everyone serves with the best of intentions and with a set of natural human blinders to their own folly. So I do not criticize any of your colleagues in any seat specifically. I criticize that the paradigm as it has become only to illustrate the solution.

    I am interested in promoting the good aspects of people that I think would shift toward expanding operations to a friendlier bigger tent in all directions.

  6. Mik Robertson

    @4 “Which Hancock quip are you referring to?”

    That would be the one where he says freedom always wins in the end, it just gets really messy first. It’s that revolution thing.

    “Are men who are capable of the emotional appeal to grassroots activists, disqualified for the referee spot on the LNC simply because of that trait?”

    What would give you that idea? I’m just wary of those who make a habit of stretching the truth. That doesn’t mean they are disqualified from leadership positions. In fact it may help them get there because of the emotions they arouse in people by doing so. Look at Ronald Reagan.

    “Radicals and activists are winning the day in this interesting time. Politics is gaining popularity. I think that the LP needs to be ready to make the disassociated and nascent politico welcome and on the LP needs to have a culture that keeps them on philosophic track with good example, not destructive games.”

    Radicals are sharpening the contrast in political ideas. I would not mistake increasing polarity for increasing popularity. If the LP wants to be welcoming then what it should stop doing is telling people who want to increase liberty that they are not radical enough or libertarian enough to be part of this political party.

    “I think that a local organizer with a proven record for scalability of meme projection is not a bad choice to make sure that all new comers are empowered and in philosophic check.”

    Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

    “I want the media focused on the cool charisma of the candidates and I want the fire in the belly of the party stoked with activism brimming with education, recruitment and campaign support.

    Excellent! There are several choices among the candidates for LNC chair who would fit this bill.

    “Representatives of the activist base must have some time at the referee spot to reverse the shrink we suffer even while the voters choose to abstain from identifying with the major parties. They are the ones that best know how to implement national infrastructure for growth. The candidates and the media are a different animal than the people who tend to maintaining the coalition.”

    I have found this often to not be the case. Those who are better working with people in the local settings don’t often do as well in a more bureaucratic, structured setting. There are exceptions, of course. If organizing antics and promoting activism developed great party leaders, some of the socialist parties should have well developed organizations, but that is not really the case.

    “The contention that it is image we suffer for success does not even enter into relevance until we have people to back that image up. It is scale we suffer, and scale comes from the grassroots. It comes from facilitators, organizers and creators. It comes from people with fire in their bellies, love in their hearts, and talent in their hands.”

    I would tend to agree, and all politics are local. That doesn’t mean those good at grassroots organizing are good at national leadership, though. Look at Barack Obama.

    While you can fire up local activists by feeding them lines of BS, working as a national leader is quite a different dynamic. A national leader cannot feed lines of BS and get away with it for very long.

    I think what we need in a national leader is someone who can be credible, reliable, and consistent. Energetic is not on the top of my list of qualities, but it by no means hurts.

    They would need to have a full understanding of actual conditions and be able to communicate reliably to address those conditions. The cheer leading and exaggerations of the successful grassroots activist actually becomes a detriment under those conditions.

    We need someone who can build coalitions and include people in our efforts, not be a gatekeeper to ensure people are in “philosophic check”. Like I said, there are several candidates who could fit that bill for LNC Chair, I just don’t think grassroots organizer is necessarily the greatest qualification.

  7. Jeremy Young

    I don’t see why this is a problem. Hancock’s not advocating violent revolution, just predicting it. Plenty of people have done that over the years. He’s simply making a case, a good case, for why we need a third party in charge.

    The last installment of these was solid. This one doesn’t really seem to hurt Hancock at all. (Also, doesn’t Ron Paul also predict economic collapse? I could swear I’ve heard him do so on several occasions when talking about China’s control of the American national debt.

  8. Aaron Starr

    @ 6

    “I am interested in promoting the good aspects of people that I think would shift toward expanding operations to a friendlier bigger tent in all directions.”

    Okay, we agree on that, but that’s moving to a different subject than what you and I were addressing.

    Regarding the differences on the board, this has always been the case on the LNC to one degree or another. The important distinction now is that such differences are more visible due to the widespread adoption of e-mail and the emergence of public forums, such as this one. I suppose one way to address that would be to have all LNC meetings conducted in executive session, so that no one ever realizes that there are these differences, but such an approach would run counter to the culture of the organization.

    People need to realize that almost all boards have members with different opinions. The larger the board, the more likely it is that divisions will manifest. And with seventeen members, as is the case on the LNC, it’s a virtual guarantee.

    That said, because our organization is so decentralized, such differences do not come into play when it comes to what a state or local party chooses to do with its time, resources and talents.

  9. Aaron Starr

    @ 4 again

    “I feel like the LNC has been stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations. I think that it is a symptom of the want for consolidation of control and the trend needs some swing back. The consolidation has become a feedback loop for activist shrinking.”

    I believe the meme in the above statement simply has little to support it.

    We do not have a franchisor-franchisee model of organization. The national party and state parties are simply affiliated to each other. One entity does not dictate to the other. By design, we have an extremely decentralized model of governance.

    The success or failure of any state affiliate rests solely on the shoulders of those running that affiliate.

    There is no “stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations.”

    There is no “consolidation of control.”

    Can someone point to an e-mail from National that declares state and local parties shall only field candidates that meet certain criteria? No.

    Can someone point to a communication that tells local affiliates which issues they must address and how? No.

    Can someone point to a mandate stating how a local party must write its bylaws and conduct its meetings? Again, no.

    I have been involved with other organizations that do spell out with great granularity how their sub-units must run their meetings and the bylaws they must adopt. We have nothing even remotely resembling such a degree of control.

  10. Fire in the Belly

    Mik@8
    “Like I said, there are several candidates who could fit that bill for LNC Chair, I just don’t think grassroots organizer is necessarily the greatest qualification.”

    I do not advocate any one candidate for the chair myself. While Mr. Holtz pulls up the things that concern him about candidates, I choose to illustrate what I like about each and ask what I think is a pertinent question myself.

    I like the activist “get it done” attitude of Hancock. My question is “can he play nice” in a wide field and build coalition and keep the peace?” I think he can handle the organization. He strikes me as smart with art and craft. He is a cowboy, a pioneer and he has a schtick but I have not seen dumb.

    Have you seen the film Mr. Conservative? Goldwater made his first bucks whitewater rafting and filming it. Selling it town to town. He too would speak passionately, and often shoot from the hip. I am from the west and have a great respect for the pioneer. From them cities arise out of sand and sweat.

    AS @9 and 10
    “There is no “stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations.”

    There is no “consolidation of control.”

    Can someone point to an e-mail from National that declares state and local parties shall only field candidates that meet certain criteria? No.”

    You ascribe way too much active voicing in your interpretation of my words. I do not call anyone out or make specific issue. But, the LNC has had its face change often. Much too often the people that were there as elected representatives were replaced by appointees after being bullied.

    I do not look to blame anyone. I think it is a culture problem on that board. I would think they have better things to do.

    I have some experience around large teams in coalition settings and boards. I have seen all sorts of organizations. 17 people is not too much to keep peaceful. Actually its a great number of a multi-pronged effort without in fighting.

    It depends on the corporate culture. Some companies are dog eat dog and the winner goes to the biggest and meanest bullshit artist.

    Some, generally the ones that actually make things, have management teams that work together… you know for a profit and people that bring strife to the table are marginalized until they get the game. There are very successful family run corporations for instance. But outside of business for a moment: Parties are a different animal than a for profit energy trading commodities paper tiger or a Texas polygamist town’s wife assignment board.

    A party, a coalition group, needs to develop a culture of mutual respect or it will spend all of its time in fighting. You need keep the petty stuff off the table or you may die from non-profit auto-asphyxiation.

    You can’t legislate that stuff, you have to build a culture within the board of not whacking on each other. If there is whacking going on, it is up to the share holders to mix it up a little with the referee. If the board is that rambunctious, only bad things will happen.

    The referee at the LNC has been a suit and tie for too long in my book. There have been a lot of one sided battles with shots fired at rumpled collar activist representatives. Hancock has a rumpled collar and that is one thing I like about him, I think that aspect might add balance.

    Have you worked with him? What can you tell me about Mr. Hancock’s work ethic and capacity for getting along with folk? I really am curious.

    I am waiting to hear about Mr. Meyers and Mr. Hinkle more as well. This site is full of Phillies. Root I like; but primarily in the candidate role. Talk about dynamic, energetic and perfect for the camera and spotlight (more radical would be nice but I am betting it comes with time and confidence).

  11. Robert Capozzi

    If we conducted a focus group of unaffiliated voters and asked them at the end of it, by style and substance, who does Mr. Hancock remind you of:

    -Thomas Jefferson
    -John F. Kennedy
    -Ronald Reagan
    -Timothy McVeigh

    does anyone doubt the group would pick McVeigh? The incendiary language he uses would not reflect well on the LP, IMO.

  12. Fire in the Belly

    The position of chair is not a position that has anything to do with reflection. Image is for candidates.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    fire, ADR, but I disagree. The Chair sets the tone, and is often the party’s spokesperson.

  14. paulie

    “could he work with candidates like Root or Barr?

    Because those guys are a special breed,too

    who are just as important to the movement and donors as Hancock is ………..”

    ———— More’s the pity, right, Steve Gordon ?

    I don’t know why you are asking Steve Gordon. He hasn’t commented here in a long, long time and I doubt he’ll see your question.

  15. George Phillies

    @5

    It is important to remember that Mr. Hancock was in 2000 a member of the Libertarian Party of Arizona, whose organization was disaffiliated by the LNC for reasons that remain unclear. His discussion of LNC behavior is doubtless reflective of those historical events.

    As an aside, the LNC could meet in executive session end-to-end, at least until the Regional Representatives were replaced, but if it tried doing this it would assuredly leak like the Titanic after she split in half.

  16. paulie

    “I feel like the LNC has been stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations. I think that it is a symptom of the want for consolidation of control and the trend needs some swing back. The consolidation has become a feedback loop for activist shrinking.”

    I am confused by this statement and ones similar to it.

    The Libertarian Party is by design in its bylaws a bottom-up, volunteer driven organization. State and local affiliates are free to do whatever they please, or do nothing at all.

    The LNC does support state affiliates in its ballot access efforts. It spent $500,000 supporting ballot access efforts this last election cycle.

    I agree with Mr. Starr to some extent, but I think state and local parties tend to do well when national/HQ/provide more in the way of training, materials and coordination, as was the case in the mid/late 90s and very early 2000s.

  17. paulie

    Also, some of the infighting at national does have a demoralizing effect on many state and local activists. Although, that may just be an excuse, as they could safely ignore it IMO.

  18. paulie

    Down here in the bush it looks like there is a scandal or two a year causing some LNC member to step down or defend their position from removal or such. Invariably the scandal is weak, and the conflict is entirely internal and the entire episode is childish. People like me, activists and donors tend to look at that as less than healthy behavior for our organization’s caretakers.

    Maybe it is titillating to some… Dut the destruction it causes in morale for the street is terrible.

    I am sure everyone is tired of the purge tactic and seeing it used so cavalierly. Many I talk to have little doubt about what is causing membership drops: People in positions responsibility acting like the entire party is a UFC ring.

    All true, but see my previous comment. If national is not being of much help, why not just ignore them?

  19. paulie

    The last installment of these was solid. This one doesn’t really seem to hurt Hancock at all. (Also, doesn’t Ron Paul also predict economic collapse? I could swear I’ve heard him do so on several occasions when talking about China’s control of the American national debt.

    I believe you are correct.

  20. paulie

    Regarding the differences on the board, this has always been the case on the LNC to one degree or another.

    This may well be true, I’ve read/heard of pitched battles on past LNCs. However, my impression is that this term has been worse than usual in this regard. I’ll grant that I paid a lot less attention to the minutia of LNC activity before 2006/7.

    The important distinction now is that such differences are more visible due to the widespread adoption of e-mail and the emergence of public forums, such as this one. I suppose one way to address that would be to have all LNC meetings conducted in executive session, so that no one ever realizes that there are these differences, but such an approach would run counter to the culture of the organization.

    On the contrary, I think that the LNC would benefit from doing even more of its business in public. While I do understand the concerns about opponents knowing the details of our internal affairs, I think those concerns are exaggerated. When we were at our most successful in recent years (late 1990s), details of budget projects and funding levels, month to month membership numbers, month to month contribution fluctuations, counts of media mentions, etc., were widely publicized to party members and other interested people by the national office. With today’s technology, I think that if anything, the LNC would benefit if the party’s official taping of LNC meetings for the benefit of the secretary was also made available in video streaming and for later view by anyone who is interested.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate you all allowing us to do it on our own. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work out well: at the last two meetings we were able to figure out how to record, but no how to stream, and unfortunately the people that owned the equipment that made the recordings never made them available to us after the fact.

    Also, while as a non-LNC member I don’t know what is discussed in executive session, I’ve heard from LNC members – without any specifics – that executive session is overused.

    And, I think there is no reason why all of the communication on the LNC email list should be de facto executive session – much of it could probably be safely publicly archived for after the fact read-only view without any damage to the party whatsoever. But then again, that’s just a guess, since I can’t read the LNC email list.

    I also appreciate the budget summaries you have been sending out to explain what is going on in layman’s terms, but unfortunately, since I live on the road and very rarely (as in, sometimes only a year or more later) receive my snail mail, if at all, I miss most of them. I offered to promise not to share them with anyone via IPR or other websites or email forward if I could get them electronically, but my offer was rejected.

    Likewise, I think it’s a shame that LP News is only available by snail mail/hard copy. That was not the case in the past.

    I do thank Mr. Starr for coming on here to publicly answer these types of criticism.

    I should also mention that I am an equal opportunity transparency/sunshine advocate. I’ve seen the contention made here that those in the California LP who advocated transparency when Mr. Starr and his “faction” were in the leadership there, later failed to provide transparency when they came into leadership themselves. If the same thing happens at the national level, I’ll be happy to join anyone who seeks greater transparency from the new leadership. Remind me I said this if I ever fail to do so.

    Likewise, I asked repeatedly that all our caucus discussion themselves be in public. I still think that the fact that the transparency/sunshine caucus did its business in “private” and in variously restricted fashion is a large part of why it fizzled.

  21. paulie

    If we conducted a focus group of unaffiliated voters and asked them at the end of it, by style and substance, who does Mr. Hancock remind you of:

    -Thomas Jefferson
    -John F. Kennedy
    -Ronald Reagan
    -Timothy McVeigh

    does anyone doubt the group would pick McVeigh? The incendiary language he uses would not reflect well on the LP, IMO.

    I think that’s a rather unfortunately limited set of choices.

    Does Mr. Hancock advocate or use terrorist tactics of mass murderous violence, or involve himself in racist organizations, as Mr. McVeigh did?

  22. Robert Capozzi

    pc, I actually hadn’t heard that McVeigh was a racist as well…that does overstate, if so.

    From the videos we’ve been seeing, Hancock doesn’t quite cross the line of bloody revolutionary talk, but he gets awfully close in my book.

    Still, I like to be fair. If there’s a replacement for McVeigh on the list, I’m happy to swap one in.

  23. paulie

    I actually hadn’t heard that McVeigh was a racist as well…that does overstate, if so.

    McVeigh frequently quoted and alluded to the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord. :”The founder of the CSA was polygamist James Ellison, who was jailed for a period of time along with his ‘high priest’ Kerry Noble in federal prison. Robert G. Millar became one of Ellison’s spiritual advisers, and was also the founder of Elohim City. Ellison was also mentored by Richard Girnt Butler of the Aryan Nations and Robert Miles, founder of The Mountain Church in Cohoctah, Michigan. Both extreme right leaders taught and practiced the theology of Christian Identity, a religion which the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI) still has on its watch list as an ‘extremist religion’. Ellison had very close ties to the Ku Klux Klan and the Northern Idaho group, Aryan Nations, in Hayden, Idaho, led by Richard Butler, who was described as “the glue of the Aryan Nations movement in the Northwest, if not the country” by the supervisor of the Inland Northwest Joint Terrorism Task Force.[1] Miles had a very active prison ministry and newsletter, relating mostly to the violent white Aryan groups, of which there are many, most notably, the Aryan Brotherhood. After Ellison was released from prison, he moved to Elohim City, where he married Millar’s granddaughter.”

    “The CSA was an organization which believed that doomsday was imminent, and the 250-acre (1.0 km2) compound that was set up in Elijah became a community for its members. There they trained their members in paramilitary operations. The group strongly believed in white supremacy, and was strongly anti-Semitic. Like other prominent anti-Semitic conspiracy groups, they referred to the United States Government as ZOG, for Zionist Occupied Government. The military leader, who used the name Randall Rader during his stay at CSA, left the group in a rift with Ellison and joined the newly forming group The Order in Idaho. The CSA professed that the United States government would dissolve from its own corruption, whereas The Order advocated revolution.”

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4031

    “Since the raid on Zarephath-Horeb in 1985, activity by the CSA has been almost non-existent. Richard W. Snell was executed by lethal injection on April 19, 1995, twelve hours after white supremacist Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb destroying the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Many suspected that McVeigh selected April 19 as the day of his attack because of Snell’s execution and the anniversary date of the 1993 federal raid at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas—an event that has become a central theme in anti-government rhetoric.”

    Back to wikipedia:

    “The ATF positioned around 300 federal agents in Elijah, having them pose as fisherman because the area was a common destination for anglers.On the morning of April 19, 1985, they moved in and surrounded the CSA compound, putting some in fishing boats to seal off the lakeside area of the Compound. …”

    “There are several claims that the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing was tied to the ‘New Day’ teachings of Elohim City. …”

    “…Also, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred very close to the 10-year anniversary of the siege of the CSA compound. But the most plausible link is that Richard Wayne Snell, who was executed on the day of the bombing, had planned a similar attack on the Murrah building in 1983 after becoming upset with the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, Snell was heard taunting jailers that something drastic would happen on the day of his execution. It is plausible that McVeigh may have been mentored by Snell since Snell frequented gun shows, a CSA practice until shortly before Snell made active contact with the group that he is documented to have been a member of. By itself, that is understandable since Snell hid out at the CSA compound between pawn shop robberies. He did not, however, reside on the property. CSA considered him to be a ‘Patron’. Shortly after McVeigh was released from the Army he became very active at gun shows.”

  24. paulie

    I actually hadn’t heard that McVeigh was a racist as well…that does overstate, if so.

    It does more than overstate.

    Racism aside, does Mr. Hancock advocate or use terrorist tactics of mass murderous violence as Mr. McVeigh did? I suggest the answer is no.


    From the videos we’ve been seeing, Hancock doesn’t quite cross the line of bloody revolutionary talk, but he gets awfully close in my book.

    How so? Prediction does not equal advocacy.

    Still, I like to be fair. If there’s a replacement for McVeigh on the list, I’m happy to swap one in.

    Well, it’s your list, so who would you suggest?

    If it were my list, I’d add Ron Paul as the public figure most or many Americans are familiar with whose views are very close to Mr. Hancock’s.

    Out of your list, my pick would be Mr. Jefferson, although that would not be quite fair to Mr. Hancock: for one thing, Mr. Jefferson did not just predict a violent revolution, he took an active role in justifying and leading one. For another, he was a man of his time, and had racist beliefs that would not be considered acceptable in a public leader today, as well as being a slave owner.

  25. George Phillies

    @24

    I do not recall a past instance in which an LNC member was suspended, albeit briefly until restored from the LNC by the Judicial Committee, from the LNC. There was one effort to remove a Presidential candidate, but that failed.

  26. Brian Holtz

    The idea @12 that electing Hancock Chair would minimize infighting is laughable. Hancock has repeatedly made clear that he has been at war with all iterations of the LPUS leadership since the mid-1990s.

    Infighting and controversy around the LNC/LPUS leadership was much worse a decade ago than it has been in the last few years. George Phillies wrote a whole book on the alleged scandals of the late 1990s. For a very one-sided view of other LNC controversies of that period, see http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/controversies.html.

    I have never heard of a period in which the LNC did not have factional disagreements, and if that ever happened/happens, the first thing to ask is who got purged and why. The allegation that “the LNC has been stifling local activism, education and coalition building with machinations” is evidence-free.

    Speaking of McVeigh, the top story right now on Hancock’s FreedomsPhoenix.com says McVeigh was framed and that the Oklahoma City bombing was like 9/11 — a false-flag operation planned inside the government.

    Hancock’s sites have been saying this for years. Another site of his says of Oklahoma City that “the likely perpetrators had closer ties to the police state and NO ties to any militia group”.

    More information on this subject will come out later in this series of reports on Hancock.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    pc, sure, there’s some comparison to Ron Paul, although Paul is generally MUCH more measured than these Hancock videos show.

    “Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.” – Timothy McVeigh

    “The thing is is that we are in a situation now that this revolution can be peaceful or it could be violent. And I think there’s going to be violence….What’s coming can NOT be stopped.” –Ernest Hancock

    The Patriot/Militia movement bleeds into the white separatist movement bleeds into the explicitly racist right. We probably all saw that played out most unfortunately during the whole NewsletterGate and Stormfront affairs.

    That is definitely a direction I’d like to see the LP steer FAR away from. I have no reason to believe that Hancock is racist, but his frequent allusions to violence and general apparent propensity to catastrophize could easily become attractive for these hate-filled edges of the LM.

    Highly contra-indicated, IMO.

  28. paulie

    @24

    I do not recall a past instance in which an LNC member was suspended, albeit briefly until restored from the LNC by the Judicial Committee, from the LNC. There was one effort to remove a Presidential candidate, but that failed.

    You would know better than me, as you have been paying close attention to the LNC far longer than I have.

    I do remember hearing/reading that the Judicial Committee was only invoked once in the past, to resolve something that happened at a national convention, and IIRC this was back in the 1970s or 1980s. Not only was it called into action this term, but it came close to being called again on another matter as well.

  29. Brian Holtz

    I’d add Ron Paul as the public figure most or many Americans are familiar with whose views are very close to Mr. Hancock’s.

    Hancock is an anarchist whose mantra is that the Constitution established a “collective”. Paul is a minarchist who practically venerates the Constitution, while Hancock despises it.

    A comparison of the positions of Hancock and Paul is coming soon in this series of reports.

  30. paulie

    Infighting and controversy around the LNC/LPUS leadership was much worse a decade ago than it has been in the last few years. George Phillies wrote a whole book on the alleged scandals of the late 1990s.

    I do remember some of that controversy, and recall thinking it was overblown at the time and that it was causing good people to lose interest in the party – both the ones being accused, and the ones who took the accusations to heart.

    However, if I am interpreting Dr. Phillies @ 29 correctly, he seems to share the opinion that it is even worse now. Perhaps I misunderstood?

    For a very one-sided view of other LNC controversies of that period, see http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/controversies.html.

    I slodged through that before, and don’t really feel like doing so again.

    Speaking of McVeigh, the top story right now on Hancock’s FreedomsPhoenix.com says McVeigh was framed and that the Oklahoma City bombing was like 9/11 — a false-flag operation planned inside the government.

    1. Did Mr. Hancock write that story, or state that he agrees with it?

    2. The possible participation of government agent(s) in OKCB is not implausible. See http://www.constitution.org/okc/jdt.htm if you want to explore the claims more fully. If the article in question, which I haven’t read, suggests that Mr. McVeigh had nothing to do with OKCB, I’d say off hand that that is silly. I wouldn’t find it necessarily implausible if it claims that he was a junior partner who was set up to take the entire fall along with another junior partner in the conspiracy*, by others who escaped responsibility.

    *As I am using the term, it can also include the very limited conspiracy that McVeigh was in fact convicted of participating in to engineer OKCB.

    Hancock’s sites have been saying this for years. Another site of his says of Oklahoma City that “the likely perpetrators had closer ties to the police state and NO ties to any militia group”.

    Are those statements made personally by Mr. Hancock, or just published by him?

  31. paulie

    sure, there’s some comparison to Ron Paul, although Paul is generally MUCH more measured than these Hancock videos show.

    I did not mean to suggest that their positions are anything like identical. After all, the list of people whose names most people would recognize is by definition a very limited set, and my ability to think of one for the purpose of comparison on the drop of a hat is more limited still.

  32. paulie

    “Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.” – Timothy McVeigh

    “The thing is is that we are in a situation now that this revolution can be peaceful or it could be violent. And I think there’s going to be violence….What’s coming can NOT be stopped.” –Ernest Hancock

    That may sound very similar on casual glance, but I have yet to see where Mr. Hancock says that it is a good thing, much less where he suggest that we should *actively engineer it*.

    If you have such evidence, please introduce it.


    The Patriot/Militia movement bleeds into the white separatist movement bleeds into the explicitly racist right. We probably all saw that played out most unfortunately during the whole NewsletterGate and Stormfront affairs.

    That is definitely a direction I’d like to see the LP steer FAR away from.

    I agree that we should steer far away from racism, and would prefer to avoid mass violence if at all possible.

    I, too, believe it may come to that, but if so, I don’t thank that is something to look forward to or gloat over.

    If it does happen, by no means can I predict whether we will emerge better off or much worse off in every respect.

  33. Hotlz's Root Campaign Works Overtime

    Holtz: “A comparison of the positions of Hancock and Paul is coming soon in this series of reports.”

    You mean, in this series of pro-Root spins, which will try to cherry pick factoids and spin them into an anti-Hancock smear.

  34. Aaron Starr

    @ 29

    “I do not recall a past instance in which an LNC member was suspended, albeit briefly until restored from the LNC by the Judicial Committee, from the LNC. There was one effort to remove a Presidential candidate, but that failed.”

    This is a false statement.

    This member failed to maintain his eligibility to be an LNC member because he failed to pay his dues.

    After he paid his dues and again became eligible, the board unanimously voted to reinstate him to fill the vacancy.

    This took place many weeks before any JC hearing. The only reason why it even went to the JC is because this member insisted that they hear the case.

  35. paulie

    You mean, in this series of pro-Root spins, which will try to cherry pick factoids and spin them into an anti-Hancock smear.

    Time to defend Brian from what I consider unwarranted attacks. He has already answered that he has not decided whether he supports Root for chair or one of the other candidates. I see no reason to disbelieve him. It’s true that he opposes Hancock, but I would not call his calling attention to certain facts to be a “smear.”

    In fact, we have – and will continue to – have investigative posts and negative commentaries previously published elsewhere regarding other candidates for chair, such as Mr. Root.

  36. Fire in the Belly

    RC@31
    “The thing is is that we are in a situation now that this revolution can be peaceful or it could be violent. And I think there’s going to be violence….What’s coming can NOT be stopped.” –Ernest Hancock

    Out of context to the point of almost slander.

    You cut his words out of the middle removing:

    “But its not going to be the way you think. It’s going to be people that cant eat. Its going to be people that are starving. its going to be people who are begging for food until they stop begging and they start becoming more insistent. So you need to take care of yourself. Because…”

    The thing Hancock is referring to that cannot be stopped is economic collapse… not a violent revolution. He is not supporting violence in any way here, he is recommending that people be prepared for what could be the worst.

    In 2008, I think he may have had a good point, we were at the brink of systemic collapse. We were what? One bank, Two back failures from bundles triggering their failsafe defaults?

    Telling Arizonians to be extra prepared… well if you lived in the middle of the desert you might understand better… being prepared for services like electricity or water being interrupted is a life and death decision.

    The people in Arizona that he is talking to are a determined, independent pioneering folk without a lot of use or love for federal power. I think he was probably reading his audience well.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    fire, interesting perspective. Actually, that Hancock things an economic meltdown will lead to violence is in line with the quotes I used. I found the food point superfluous. I read LRC, so I’m pretty up on this strain of end-times thinking.

    Hancock expects the worst of times ahead. He expects blood in the streets. He talks about stocking up on bullets so they can be traded for bread.

    Hey, it could happen, I’m not saying it can’t. I happen to think it’s a lot less likely than Hancock does, but he’s certainly entitled to his opinions.

    I just happen to believe a person with his views should be LP Chair, as he’s likely to steer the LP in a 70s-style survivalist, arm-yourself-to-the-teeth direction, and I don’t think that plays broadly and it certainly doesn’t play for me.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    ack . Fixes:

    “Actually, that Hancock thinks…”

    “I just happen to believe a person with his views should NOT be LP Chair…”

  39. Fire in the Belly

    RC@41
    “Hancock expects the worst of times ahead. He expects blood in the streets. He talks about stocking up on bullets so they can be traded for bread.”

    He is talking to a bunch of food storing, bullet stocking, government mistrusting desert dwellers while in the midst of an economic meltdown. He is an activist leader, who in this role, was firing up activists.

    If you microscope and twist context then claim that these quotes disqualify people from positions in infrastructure, no activist leader could ever become chair. Controversial statements are an activists stock in trade.

    We are faulting Hancock for doing a good job.

    Easy to do when 30 second clips are taken and then misquoted in side by side comparison with a terrorist/murderer. C’mon man… back off the McVeigh bullshit it is contrived and slanderous.

  40. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, what is it with you and McVeigh?

    For someone who wrings his hands over what the public perception of your LP is, why do you persist in comparing libertarians you don’t like to Timothy McVeigh?

    I get the fact that you have an intense hatred for anyone more radical than Mister Rogers, but comparing prominent LP member Hancock to McVeigh is really a little over the top.

    I’m not particularly fond of moderate absolutists and I’m certainly not above tossing a few pejoratives their way, but I generally refrain from comparing them with mass murderers – so far.

    There is one mass murderer I know of who was very soft-spoken and unassuming. I believe some people said he seemed to be a nice, polite man. His name was Jeffrey Dahmer. I’m thinking he might be the perfect guy to compare moderates to.

    Oh by the way, what was that St. Louis Accord thing that you used to prattle on about, Capozzi?

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mr. Starr,

    You write:

    “This is a false statement.”

    Commendable labeling, and I hope you’ll make a practice of prefacing all your communications with it.

    Paulie,

    You write:

    “I do remember hearing/reading that the Judicial Committee was only invoked once in the past, to resolve something that happened at a national convention, and IIRC this was back in the 1970s or 1980s.”

    I don’t think that’s an indicator of less controversy so much as it’s an indicator of technological advancements making it easier to appeal to the Judicial Committee.

    Various aspects of the theft of the 1996 presidential nomination, the 1999-2000 Cisewski purge, and the 1999-2000 Arizona disaffiliation might all have attracted Judicial Committee appeals if it had been easy, but it wasn’t. As late as 2000, Internet presence on the part of LP members was far from universal, and “instant” news via blog wasn’t really the norm yet.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    tb, thanks for asking. McVeigh actually has been associated with Ls, at least by voting for them.

    I use him as illustrative of not a way to go, not a direction to go if we want to begin the process of restoring liberty. Some Ls have played footsy with the extremist hard-right, a tactic I believe is not indicated.

  43. Alexander S. Peak

    Violent revolution is not going to be successful for any political group in this political culture. Only nonviolent revolution has any potential.

    As much as I love Jefferson’s rhetoric about the tree of liberty, I think violence is more-often ineffective than effective in promoting liberty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *