Press "Enter" to skip to content

Brian Holtz: ‘$100 Contest: Ernest Hancock or Timothy McVeigh?’

Posted by Brian Holtz at Libertarian Intelligence. Any implied opinions are Brian’s, and should not be taken as an IPR endorsement or counter-endorsement of any LNC candidate.

Ernest Hancock said recently on his radio show that he’s considering sending to each Libertarian NatCon delegate a copy of the conspiracy-theory video Invisible Empire.  One of the video’s claims is that Timothy McVeigh was a government “black operations” agent and that the Oklahoma City bombing was a “false flag” operation designed to “demonize critics of world government”. (The video also talks about “implantable brain chips” and says: “Imagine: a planet where every human being is required to be chipped at birth. This would be the final tool implemented in a command-and-control world government system in which the elite rule the masses with total control of their lives.”)

The quiz below tests how good a job McVeigh did in impersonating someone like Ernest Hancock, whose Viper Reserves web site said “the likely perpetrators [of the OKC bombing] had closer ties to the police state and NO ties to any militia group”. Viper Reserves was set up to defend Viper Militia members like Dean Pleasant, a 1994 LP candidate in Arizona who was jailed in 1996 after stockpiling ammonium nitrate and creating a videotape surveilling federal buildings and advising how explosives could bring them down.  The New York Times quoted Hancock defending the videotape as “educational”.

See if you can tell which statements were made by McVeigh, and which by Hancock.  Post your guesses in the comments where you see this contest, and I’ll score them. The first person who scores 100% can decide which Hancock opponent in the Chair race gets my $100 donation.

  1. If you’re not at least a little uncomfortable with your position, it isn’t radical enough.  Take the most extreme position you can.
  2. I’m concerned about a United Nations takeover and establishment of a single world government designed to place severe limits on individual freedom.
  3. There will be some bloodshed — how much?  Are you sure you want to go this far?  It’s not a battle of who has the most guns. It’s a battle of who has the most heart, and who has the most will.
  4. There will be a single currency, a single police force — one all-powerful central government for everyone on the planet.
  5. So now it’s how many cans of Campbell’s Soup can you get? How much water do you got? How many friends do you have? How much land can you plow? What’s coming can not be stopped.
  6. There are over 300,000 names on a Cray Supercomputer in Brussels of “possible and suspected subversives and terrorists” in the U.S., all ranked in order of threat.
  7. It’s gonna get to the point of Big Brother. It’s gonna get that bad. And if it’s not done with video and audio, it may be with electromagnetic waves, are they gonna have a certain frequency on your power grid?
  8. At Waco, the feds picked a windy day on purpose so the building would catch fire quickly.
  9. They want the building to go down. They need a bridge to blow up. It justifies their existence.
  10. The CIA flies drugs into the U.S. to fund many covert operations.
  11. The Declaration of Independence had absolutely nothing to do with voting. It was all about what happens when voting doesn’t work. You will never vote yourself free.

This quiz was inspired by the Al Gore Or The Unabomber? quiz. See also my Rothbard or the Unabomber? article.

As a bonus, here is video that was a front-page “featured article” on Hancock’s FreedomsPhoenix site.  It was an attempt to “pre-empt” the “lies and propaganda” of the recent MSNBC documentary featuring McVeigh’s extensive jailhouse confessions.

About Post Author


  1. Andy Andy May 22, 2010

    “{Brian Holtz // May 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    It’s obvious that there has been lots of lying about 9/11. I just haven’t seen any of it coming from al Qaeda and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

    You mean al CIAda.

  2. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    It goes even higher than that. I could tell you, but that would kill you 😛

  3. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi May 21, 2010

    ob: Yes, we’re being lied to. You’re not going high enough up on the food chain…it’s all being orchestrated by the Grays out of their base camp at Area 51. The Grays, in turn, are getting orders from The Matrix, who ultimately gets its programming from the Wizard of Oz. 😉

  4. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    @32 Was this before or after he was tortured?

    Regardless, truthers tend to believe Al Qaida is a CIA front, so if that is the case, then it would follow that Al Qaida’s version events would be a lot like the official US government report.

  5. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    It’s obvious that there has been lots of lying about 9/11. I just haven’t seen any of it coming from al Qaeda and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

  6. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Persuasive evidence that 9/11 was an inside job:

  7. Darryl W. Perry Darryl W. Perry May 21, 2010

    for $500 I’ll let you buy a banner ad on Free Patriot Press that I’ll keep up for 12 months…

  8. Observation Observation May 21, 2010

    I’m wondering what Mr. Holtz will say when the information finally gets out to everyone that we’ve been lied to–big time–about the evvents on 9/11/2001.

  9. Andy Andy May 21, 2010

    McVeigh was a government patsy. The OKC bombing was an inside job, like 9/11.

  10. Trent Hill Trent Hill May 21, 2010

    A good discussion, and a relevant one if we ever go back to the ad-buying system. Frankly, $25/ad for this site is REALLY low, people should’ve been hopping at that chance.

    GoogleAds has provided an additional revenue stream, beyond the reasons for which my boss purchased the site (reasons which I can’t discuss publicly or privately).

  11. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Hmmm, good point. I’d still stick a “paid by” on it just so casual readers are not confused, as you said you have no problem with. But it’s not my site, so what I think is not that relevant anyway.

  12. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    Ernie doesn’t believe in getting authorization from a campaign to advertise it. He stresses repeatedly that a strength of the R3volution was that its decentralization allowed it to avoid campaign finance rules.

    Suppose Ernie played up Ron Paul’s antiwar stance in a primary state where Paul preferred to emphasize his secure-the-borders position. Should Ernie have to get permission from Paul to advertise Paul’s antiwar stance?

    My graphic doesn’t purport to be by Hancock. It just purports to be by someone who cares — one way or the other — about the 9/11 aspect of his campaign.

  13. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    LOL, he knew that.

  14. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    @20 Well, it’s above my nonpay grade as well, so this is just an opinion.

    I’m not sure it’s obvious satire. The first time I saw it, I did not know that Ernie had not actually made the ad, given that he did in fact say that 9.11 truth should be an issue – it was reasonable to suppose that he might make an ad like that.

    The problem IMO is not satire, or even vile anonymous comments, it’s impersonation. One of the few rules that we do try to have in the comments is not to impersonate anyone who could reasonably be expected to show up in IPR comments for real. In fact we have removed comments for that reason before.

    So, IMO the ad should be OK as is as long as either it makes it clear that Ernie did not authorize it, or if Ernie actually does authorize it. Otherwise, it seems to me that it crosses the line into impersonation and exaggerates the extent to which Ernie is making 9/11 truth central to his campaign.

    But again – Trent may simply not have had time to consider it, or he may have entirely different reasons.

  15. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    I’m requiring that it link to my anti-Hancock page anyway, but as an ad buyer I have zero problem with a disclaimer saying who paid for it. As an IPR staffer, I have a bit of a problem with disallowing obvious satire in ads on a site that is so committed to allowing the most vile anonymous trolling in its comments. But that decision is above my pay grade.

  16. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    @18 I’m not trying to make money for myself off this, I simply want it to go to my #1 choice for chair. If he doesn’t use it for the chairs race, he can put it to good use in the special election he is running in right now.

    Regarding your ad, I can’t speak for Trent, but if I was running IPR, I would only run it if either A) it included the disclaimer “paid for by Brian Holtz” or B) Ernie said it was OK.

  17. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    A rationally self-interested winner would have put the $100 up for auction among the four Hancock opponents, who should have bid right up to $100 minus the transaction costs involved. Of course, this assumes (as in the no prospect for reciprocation, so maybe this tells us that Paulie values a good relationship with prospective Chairs.

    Speaking of my money, I still haven’t heard from Trent whether he’ll accept the ad I’m trying to buy on IPR:

  18. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    We have a winner! The even are McVeigh, the odd are Hancock.

    Which Hancock opponent gets the $100?

  19. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    That would be 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 Ernie
    2,4,6,8, 10 TM.

    How’s that?

  20. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    1, 3, 5, 7 and 11 all sound like Ernie’s style.

    If 2, 8 and 10 are McVeigh, that leaves 4, 6 and 9, 2 of these being McVeigh.

    9 Sounds kinda like Ernie, let’s go with that.

  21. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    Paulie @10: 82%

    Even Hancock is eligible to play. McVeigh too, since here at IPR we take with a grain of salt the report that the government executed someone alleged to be its OKC operative…

    (My initial Bob score of 89% was a scorer’s error. The ruling on the field was appealed and corrected to 73%, above.)

  22. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    Hmmm. That can’t be right. If Shane is at 55% that follows that it’s 6 Hancock, 5 McVeigh.

    If Bob is at 89%, he had 4 for McVeigh, at least one of which (#3) I know is Hancock, which would mean he got at least 2 wrong or 9/11 = 82% , not 89%.

    So there must be 2 More McVeighs in there that I did not identify.

  23. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    2, 8, 10 – McVeigh
    Rest: Hancock

  24. Brian Holtz Brian Holtz May 21, 2010

    Bob @4: 73%
    Nick @6: 36%

    Paulie, I can’t think of why you’d be disqualified.

  25. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    @7 I think that was actually San Marcos

  26. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi May 21, 2010

    tb, weren’t you and jim davidson organizing a Lincoln Brigade to liberate Iraq 10 years back 😉

  27. Tom Blanton Tom Blanton May 21, 2010

    Which individual made the following statement:

    I support limiting government — and that included Saddam’s government.

    a) George W. Bush
    b) Dick Cheney
    c) Bibi Netanyahu
    d) Max Boot
    e) Brian Holtz

    I’ll donate 2 cents worth of advice to Wayne Root in the name of whoever can guess the correct answer.

  28. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi May 21, 2010

    all Hancock except 2, 3, 8 and 10.

  29. paulie paulie May 21, 2010

    I’m assuming I’m disqualified?

  30. Shane Shane May 21, 2010

    All Hancock.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

3 × 5 =