The anti-government grammar of :David-Wynn: Miller

Discuss

91 Responses to “The anti-government grammar of :David-Wynn: Miller”

  1. Anonymous says:

    ‘Freemen Of The Land’ – some *might* find this topic interesting…

  2. caesar female says:

    Nice work Andrea. I’d money you if I had any.

  3. mdh says:

    Grammar Nazi’s are the scourge of the interwebs!

  4. Anonymous says:

    He should leave the US (excuse me the “:US:”) and move to someplace where they don’t have any mean old nasty rules or taxes to crimp his style, like Somalia. Actually the warlords there might introduce him to their rules and the AK-47.

    He sounds like a selfish spoiled brat.

  5. Anonymous says:

    David-Wynn: Miller or David hyphen Wynn FULL COLON Miller or David-Wynn Full Of Shit Miller. It’s all the same.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I think all this nuts who think they can reject all authority that State and Law may have over them should be granted their wish… and also lose all PROTECTION State and Law grants them. Thus making them fair game for anyone else (citizen or not) to rob, rape, kill or enslave.
    Let’s see how may of them are left after a while.

  7. Jason Olshefsky says:

    Isn’t plain old “cheating on your taxes” easier?

  8. Camp Freddie says:

    I wonder if changing my name to “Freddie ;DROP TABLE Citizens” would work.

    http://www.xkcd.com/327

  9. turbokoala says:

    Argh, this monies me so much!

    Interesting idea, even if the guy is nuts.

  10. Steve says:

    I agree with the sentiments.

    However, to change things, you use peaceful methods.

    As my fellow tea-partyers and I started to do so last Nov.

    Not to mention all over the (civilized, Western) world, where anti-gov’t sentiment is ramping up.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Everyone on Boing Boing is an expert on US society and politics.

    I am on Boing Boing.

    Therefore, I am an expert on US society and politics.

    … and if you are some Euro-kook trying to claim that this incident is somehow representative of all “USians”… believe me, you’ve got far worse problems on your side of the pond. Right-wing much?

  12. nixiebunny says:

    :CueCat

    Didn’t work for them, either.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Joe and Simon never foresaw this would happen when spiking the punch with AUM at the KCUF convention.

  14. ill lich says:

    The whole “sovereign citizen” argument is pointless unless they wall themselves off and create their own country, which would be fine with me as long as the never cross the border, ever (“damned illegal immagents ruining this fine country!”) If you’re going to use public roads, public water supply, power from the US grid, then you are not a sovereign citizen. What do these guys do when their house gets robbed or their car gets dented? Declare war? As sovereign citizens they can’t go to the police only when it suits them.

    • Anonymous says:

      “The whole “sovereign citizen” argument is pointless unless they wall themselves off and create their own country,”

      I agree that its pointless, If you tryed to claim some land whom ever has a clam on it already will get out their guns. The issue is that you cant opt-out unless you wish to be a hermit, or live in the likes of Somalia. Or you end up in a state work/housing program = prision.

      Democracy is so corrupt and inbred to the point that the global banking system is falling apart, It’s no surprise that people like Miller turn up.

  15. robaustin says:

    The problem with these folks is they don’t seem to understand that if you play someone else’s game, you have to play by their rules. You can’t live in society by your own rules. You may think you do, but when you break society’s rules you get punished in the manner prescribed by society’s rules. Can you imagine Kevin Garnett refusing to follow the rules of basketball, and deciding he had the right to carry the ball instead of dribbling it? They wouldn’t let him play very long.
    If these sovereign people really want to be sovereign then they have to live outside of society. Move to the wilderness, be totally independent, then I can accept their claims to be sovereign people. But then they have they problem of what to do when their claim to a particular piece of territory conflicts with the claim by another sovereign entity, like the United States government. Maybe they should look into signing a peace treaty. It worked for the Indians.

  16. bardfinn says:

    Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, ATINLA.

    Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that the transfer of money can be speech, and thus is protected by the First Amendment. So, it’s conceivable that money could be used verbishly in a communication. Change! (puns, lawl)

    This does not negate the fact that the government is allowed, by the Constitution, to tax wages and sales and other exchanges of money for X where X is whatever (waves hands). Yes, detractors, really, you as a natural person citizen may be taxed according to the Constitution. Why? Because Congress said so and the Supreme Court has not told them “No.”. That /really is/ how it works.

    Simultaneously money and speech.

    Cue tax evaders arguing that taxes are prior restraint in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  17. Robert says:

    Everyone needs money. That’s why they call it money.

  18. Poorer Richard says:

    Good arguments, but one thing that really rankles me is how every cheapskate out there immediately becomes an anti-tax/anti-government/tax-reform/tea-party wonk.

    It’s not cheap to run a country as large as ours, whether it’s highways and bridges, feeding a military, keeping fire and rescue protection in place, protection from tainted food or medical quacks. Everyone who benefits (including tea-party placard holders over 65 who are covered by Medicare)from the services our country provides (including corporations who compile huge, tax-free profits)should pay their fair share. One way or another, not standing on the sidelines hurling insults or taking aim like a coward.

    If we want to save our “noble experiment” it’s time that we put our signs down and gather to find a consensus. The way things are heading, situations like the Tucson tragedy will become the norm, as they are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Put up or shut up.

  19. Keith says:

    Anon: The guy’s a kook, and I happily pay my taxes, but “money is a verb” is kind of an interesting mental construct.

    Buckminster Fuller did it better.

  20. surreality says:

    Ach, poor Wittgenstein…

  21. musicman says:

    I can’t believe no one has said fnord yet.

  22. AnthonyC says:

    Ignoring the majority of the craziness in the post, note that in parts of the country, using a name openly for a prolonged period counts as a legal name change, if you want it to.

  23. andyhavens says:

    Crazy is a verb, too.

    It’s verbs all the way down.

    Nouns are a lie of the moneyed elite, who insist on their thing-ness in order to perpetuate a system of ownerlordship. You cannot own a verb. You can only be/do it. And since we are, all of us, only able to do 60-seconds worth of verb in any 60-seconds worth of time, in a noun-less society, all men are truly equal. Or, should I say:

    ALL LIVING IS SAME LIVING

    Wow… this bat-s**t philosophy stuff is easier than advertised.

  24. Anonymous says:

    FOR THE GOVERNMENT MAEKS 3-TRILLION-DOLLARS A YEAR OF THE TEACHINGS OF :David-Wynn: Miller through the harvest of the fictional-parse-syntax-grammar-trust-ponse-tax-evations.
    for the international-contracts and internatinal-banking-adds 10-times more value to the money-supply with the correct-sentence-structure-parse-syntax-communications. and
    For these 90 posts of this website are with the 2nd-grade-reading-level in their adverb-verb-illusions.
    miller was a tool and die welder and metallurgist, not a tool maker.

  25. Stooge says:

    Christ, what a verb!

  26. Sxe says:

    I feel your pain.

    A few years back a fellow subcontractor at my company was into some of the same shenanigans with Canadian law… a guy in British Columbia had figured that a “natural person” (IE, an actual breathing human) differed from a “legal person” (IE, a person as defined by the law), and successfully argued this in a low-level court. The logic was that your name on your birth certificate is in all-caps, and your birth certificate is a document creating this corporation called YOUR NAME IN CAPS that represented you in all financial dealings. Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our version of the Constitution) applies only to natural persons, and can be interpreted in part as freedom from taxation, this guy figured the birth certificate creation of a legal person was a sneaky way of the government negating one’s rights.

    The original guy developed a Ponzi/MLM scheme in which he’d teach you how to defend yourself as a natural person in court, in exchange for 7% of the income generated by you as a natural person for the next two years. Obviously the advantage for most people is tax evasion (or rather, a flat 7% tax rate paid to your mentor for two years, and then freedom from taxation, as participants saw it.) I asked the subcontractor if he would still make voluntary donations to the Canadian government in lieu of taxes and the weasel sneered and said, “Are you kidding me?!?”

    I remained interested, because if it worked out for him I would have tried it myself for the sake of full rights and freedoms. As it happened, the Canadian government got wind of this, and just after the weasel subcontractor had paid his program “sponsor”, the original guy got destroyed in court.

  27. IamInnocent says:

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”…

  28. rebdav says:

    So having once known a few of these anti-government types they do make a well studied historical and common law case that corporations are taxable and citizens are not based in part on a wishful theory that the 16th amendment was never actually ratified. It is a moot issue and they do lots of work for no return except a jail cell in our current enforceable statutory law climate.

    Do I believe that there is a conspiracy by the most powerful to enrich themselves off of the backs of everyone else in part by using the state as an enforcer? You bet. Do I think that using these silly tricks will help fend off attacks by the business and government, no. The US constitution is a great radical document not a magical circle of legal protection.

    The reality is that while taxation on income is debatable and most of those defending the individual on this issue seem to be wild eyed lunatics I must say it is wrong tax people on income but not corporations, how about no special rights for non-human entities.

    • Brainspore says:

      Do I believe that there is a conspiracy by the most powerful to enrich themselves off of the backs of everyone else in part by using the state as an enforcer? You bet.

      I’m not sure “conspiracy” is the right word seeing as how they’re doing it right out in the open and everything.

  29. Anonymous says:

    The guy’s a kook, and I happily pay my taxes, but “money is a verb” is kind of an interesting mental construct.

  30. yclipse says:

    Is this the reason that we sometimes see the site rendered as bOING bOING?

  31. Ugly Canuck says:

    Superstitions exist under the rubrics of religion, of science, and ( as this article reminds us) of law.

    Speaking generally, I only wish to add, that people ( me too!) have much to learn.

  32. rebdav says:

    These same fruitcakes are the ones who wish that society could collapse so they could have a Year of the Jackpot existence in their post apocalypse cabin in the woods with a good woman and a high powered rifle. I think it has to do with some people being squeezed into a very narrow life role in life and realizing at 40 that they wont be an astronaut or president but are maxed out on credit cards and facing foreclosure.
    I still love to listen to them argue the fine legal points, the sovereign man argument is seductive but so are secret agent delusions.

  33. awjtawjt says:

    Oh yes, there is a long history of this stuff. A couple around here in New Hampshire recently got put away for a long time on tax evasion and weapons charges, after the wife (a dentist by profession) tried a bunch of similar shenanigans. They stayed holed up in their house for months, until finally they were tricked and apprehended, tried, put away.

    The thing is, it’s aggression, all these weird arguments about parts of speech and punctuations. Not that the gov’t isn’t aggressive too. We all are. The solution to these ill-logic standoffs usually boils down to: our guns are bigger and more plentiful than your guns so come out with your hands up or we shoot.

    There is no arguing with the bullet or the fist punching you in the face. And that is the fact of life.

  34. Anonymous says:

    This is absurd. I can’t believe that the King of Hawaii isn’t being treated with more respect.

  35. Anonymous says:

    It’s also notable that when someone in the USA becomes infamous, their middle name suddenly becomes essential. Jared Lee Loughner is probably just Jared Loughner to the people who know him.

    • oheso says:

      It’s also notable that when someone in the USA becomes infamous, their middle name suddenly becomes essential.

      It’s a libel thing. If you’re saying in print that X shot Y, you want to make sure that you’re identifying the correct X. The first time this really came to my attention was the case of Mark David Chapman (whose first and last name by themselves might be rather common). Helps that I was studying journalism in university about that time.

      Seems to me there might have been a case (prior to MDC) where they didn’t publish the middle name of an assassin and some guy with a similar name sued. Sorry, reference not coming to me at the moment (and could simply be a product of my addled, diseased mind).

  36. sabik says:

    Maybe he should try David-Wynn’);drop table taxpayers;–

  37. Anonymous says:

    This reminds me of a Reason Magazine article on the fringe beliefs of tax protestors.

  38. robbersdog says:

    There’s a mistake in the first line of the Wiki article:

    “David Wynn Miller (born 1949)[1], also styled :David-Wynn: Miller, is former tool ”

    It says former, but it seems he’s still at it…

  39. huntsu says:

    You know, if a corporation can be a person why can’t a person NOT be one?

  40. Anonymous says:

    I just read the article and I think there’s a misstatement:

    “In 1998 Miller assisted Ingleside, Illinois resident George Johnson in his legal defense against child molestation charges. [14] Miller was convicted and returned to prison in 1999.[15]”

    Should it be “Johnson was convicted and returned to prison”?

  41. Jenonymous says:

    *sigh*

    Again, the American Left has earned the Permanent Pussy Merit Badge in my book for never pointing out that you never see “extreme” Lefties spouting this crap.

    Instead, we consume ourselves trying to preserve the other side’s feeling-weeeelings and trying not to make them feel bad for being retrograde knuckledraggers who will gleefully put a yellow ribbon magnet made in China and sold at Walmart for slave wages on their SUV which uses Saudi gas but then yell and scream if 9/11 responders need Federal aid.

    I hope that everyone wounded sues the fuck out of Sarah Palin and her little “oh, I meant it in a jokey way” assassination map.

    • SKR says:

      Again, the American Left has earned the Permanent Pussy Merit Badge in my book for never pointing out that you never see “extreme” Lefties spouting this crap.

      No they spout an entirely different type of crap such as wishing for a new virus to wipe out 80% of the human race in order to bring it more in line with their idea of carrying capacity. Or they spike trees knowing full well that it could kill the lumberjack. There is an ample supply of violent nutjobs on the right and the left.

      I would also argue that this guy doesn’t seem to fall squarely on the right. He sounds like he would be more at home with ferret wielding nihilists. I mean, “words are meaningless and dreams are reality” sounds more like something I would have heard at art school rather than a Republican fundraiser. Oh but the object of his ire was a Democrat so he must be a rightwing nutjob rather than just a nutjob.

      • mdh says:

        SKR, seriously, you’re fighting the ghost of Lefties Past. Nobody spikes trees anymore, not since the early 90′s, and the tree-spiking was (in the first place) a response to the protesters getting the shit beaten out of them by the police and the loggers pretty regularly. Look at the work of the late Judi Bari, then please, please stop spreading such FUD.

        You saying someone is being violent (who isn’t) opens them up to attack from anyone who might agree with your lie. And passing along a fact as a fact when you have no idea about its truth is a lie. So stop lying, It causes people to want to beat each other up. Or shoot each other.

        And it’s not a ‘liberal’ position to hope 80% ought to die of some horrible disease, that’s a socipoathic apolitical point held by many kooks with all sorts of beliefs.

        So, any other examples? Or are you just an angry young man with a keyboard and an axe to grind?

        • SKR says:

          You know there are decaffeinated brands out there just as tasty as the real thing. Jenonomous was saying that the left didn’t have kooks this crazy and I think she is wrong and presented two examples that were the first ones to pop in my head. I apologize if they weren’t up to date enough for you. Boy I’m glad I didn’t mention the SLA.

          @ Anonymous#63. The kooks on the right get laughed at too.

          I still think this left/right politicization doesn’t hold a whole lot of water though, especially if you read the Mother Jones piece. He’s a nutjob. No political party holds a monopoly on crazy.

      • Anonymous says:

        The difference is, the examples you cite are from the extremes and are regularly denounced by the establishment Liberals. We laugh at PETA too, mostly. We may sympathize with the Sea Shepherds or Green Peace over their goals but we do not accept or condone their actions.

        The extremes on the right are accepted by the majority and the establishment. The leaders on the right embrace violent rhetoric and make excuses for their vitriol against the Politically Correct. The right knew within seconds that they would be blamed for the attack and immediately started clutching at every straw of defense they could. If one truly believes one has done nothing wrong, one does not get defensive so quickly.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jen, a number of them have, but of course our wonderful GOP/Media Complex doesn’t publicize the best and most cogent ones, for obvious reasons.

  42. PaulR says:

    A more cogent challenge, IMHO, of generally accepted notions of what a person is is outlined by John Harris, a UK carpenter. He notions are based on contract law, rather than typography.

    It’s kinda like listening to Douglas Rushkoff talk about the history of economics.

    John Harris at The Foundry, 24th February 2009
    http://www.tpuc.org/node/590

  43. alllie says:

    That is… absolutely insane.

    Then I thought about it. How is it crazier for person to be a corporation than for a corporation to be a person. Except the corporation doesn’t have to pay taxes on income, except they do. Right?

    The Supreme Court, making corporations people, is the craziest of all.

  44. Kat Rose says:

    At the rural county court that I clerked for several years ago there were a couple of recurring defendants (and never for anything major; they’d usually get hauled in for speeding on rural roads – claiming that they had the right to decide for themselves what a safe speed was) who refused to recognize the authority of the court and would file mountains of documents, all based on ‘sovereign citizen’ nonsense. Their legal talisman of choice was “all rights reserved.” According to them, as long as they put that phrase after their name then, according to them, no law applied to them.

    The thing that I would always have to bite my lip to keep from laughing at during court sessions was that they even made up their own notary seals (to ‘notarize’ their *own* documents), and they indicated: ‘My Commission Expires: Forever.”

    • Padraig says:

      I’ve come across similarly weird people.

      I worked for years in complaints handling for the State government.

      You’d get all sorts of weird interpretations of legislation and interesting (mis)understandings of history.

      I often found them interesting. They were only challenging if you didn’t know the legislation and history involved. Then I’d have a reason to go off and do some interesting reading and be PAID to do it.

      Great job. Weird people.

  45. shadowfirebird says:

    It seems to me it would make more sense for all my financial dealings as a citizen to be wrapped in some sort of corporate layer.

    I mean, look at bankruptcy. Here in the UK I can choose to declare myself bankrupt – I’m still me, but all (meh) the people I owe money to suddenly aren’t allowed to persue their claims any more. It would be entirely more logical if we were instead to say that Shadowfirebird, Inc, no longer existed, and I was re-incorporating under Shadowfirebird II, inc.

    And how about marriage? Simpler, surely, to amalgamate corporate layers, Heinlein-like?

    Of course, it’s one thing to suggest that this system would make more sense if we adopted it. It’s a quite another, loonier thing to suggest that it already happens…

  46. MattF says:

    The word you’re looking for is ‘nuts’, or, if you want to be more dignified about it, ‘schizoid’. R. D. Laing notwithstanding, the ramblings of crazy people do not, in fact, reveal hidden truths about the real world.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’d have to agree with that.

      However, what they can tell you are things of an immaculately crafted imaginary world, which is often enough to give one pause for thought. I love talking to the craziest people on the left and the right because so many story ideas are revealed to me that way, crazy people are an inspiration.

      I’d say that anyone who could deny that is likely just jealous, and the shame is is that they don’t channel this into writing as opposed to crackpot plans which really don’t fit the scope or shape of our existing reality. But in a non-existent one, they’d be quite fascinating.

      I’ve always honestly believed there’s genuine worth in even the deepest levels of insanity, because as the human mind works, there’s always such a fine line between creativity and insanity. And any person that subscribes to one could so easily topple over into the other.

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      They sure don’t.

  47. knoxblox says:

    “I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.”

    —Adam Savage

    • Ceronomus says:

      “I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.”

      —The Fourth Doctor in “The Deadly Assassin

      • knoxblox says:

        Wow, literally decades since I saw that episode. I thought that quote sounded more than familiar.

        Tsk, tsk, Adam. Tsk, tsk.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, forget all this silly sovereign citizen foolishness. I just spent a precious hour of my sleeping-time trying to determine if Adam Savage’s quote really was a Tom Baker reference.

          However, I consider it to speak well of Mr. Savage if that is what he lets himself be known for.

  48. Rayonic says:

    Look, we’re missing the most important question here:
    Has this guy ever met, seen in person, or been within 500 yards of Sarah Palin?

    In the name of calm and respectful public discourse, we have to know.

    • Anonymous says:

      That question is made irrelevant by the internet and news media. I have never met, seen or been within 100 miles of Sarah Palin and I know who she is, what she says, ect. The question is, did her website in anyway shape or form his thoughts in regards to the target. That is very hard to prove. Unless he had her site bookmarked, quoted from it, ect. As irresponsible as she was to make such a post on the the web, Palin is protected under the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. I certainly hope that she is taken to court over it. The court can decide if there is evidence one way or the other….but maybe it will be a lesson in using a bit of thought before posting such material on such a political active forum.

  49. LinguisticsProf says:

    Why would you spend 3 hours on such crap?

    • Andrea James says:

      @LinguisticsProf: I worked on that biography because I knew thousands of people would be reading it this week. Much of my work on Wikipedia is on biographies that are obscure and controversial, because they often attract a lot of editors with conflicts of interest. I strongly believe that any biography of a living person should be as complete and accurate as possible, regardless of their views. You should be able to read it without being able to tell if it was written by a proponent or opponent of the subject.

      • futnuh says:

        Andrea, thanks for the effort. I, for one, appreciate being able to go to Wikipedia and read a coherent biography of an incoherent person. It’s not my right to do so; Wikipedians like yourself make it possible.

  50. adamnvillani says:

    I suppose it’s too much to ask for these loonies to listen to reason, but if you think that the law really says one thing, and that thing keeps getting challenged and rejected in court, then guess what? The law isn’t what you think it is, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

    • enkiv2 says:

      The law is a social construction, like money. Like money, it is backed by violence, and gains its value through a combination of violence and submission. The law, unfortunately, means whatever people are willing to let it get away with meaning — which can become quite absurd, given the current combination of apathy and imbalance. Of course, the survivalist types don’t have any chance of a successful coup, and I imagine would not put into practice a superior system were they to succeed; however, attempting to subvert the entirety of legislation through legislative tricks is doomed from the beginning. Legislation does not gain its power from consistency (like mathematics does) or from sense or utility in general, but from the fact that its bodyguards are the police and military branches.

      • Ugly Canuck says:

        “Legislation does not gain its power from consistency (like mathematics does) or from sense or utility in general, but from the fact that its bodyguards are the police and military branches.”

        So for you there is no difference between a despotic violent state and one which is democratic and peaceful?

        For this “definition” flattens any differences which there may be between them….are you trying to make some moral point with this reduction?

        • Ugly Canuck says:

          Legislation derives its true power and support from the consent of those whom it governs.

          The violence is simply distracting “flash”; and the very need for any great level of it to enforce the Legislation in fact betrays a weakness or fault or flaw in the Legislation or law itself – if for example constant violence is required for any enforcement of a law at all, one may with justice say that that is therefore not “law” at all: but the very definition of crime. Nothing then but a decree without consent, enforced by violence.

          No no no: the consent of the governed makes law, not effective violence in the enforcement of command.

          • Padraig says:

            …and that’s a fair enough summary.

            The population in general determines that the State has legitimacy. The act in accordance with little need for enforcement.

            The greater part of most pieces of legislation act to ensure the safety and security of people’s well-being.

            Of course you can argue that some legislation is outrageous (we have enough of that here in Australia) and benefits a small number at the expense of the majority. By this I mean that providing loons the right to express their stupidity is NOT to the benefit of the majority, but it is not a great impost. Improper laws give benefits to those who do not need them at the expense of others – such as biased taxation laws and other means of giving benefit to large corporations at the expense of the general population.

            As you said, the greater the involvement of the police and military in managing the population, the greater the resistance which exists. Governments loose their legitimacy in these circumstances and in those countries where people can vote for different parties, they then loose their power and position.

            In OECD countries, most political arguments and fighting revolve around the ability of the sitting party to act properly. The opposition wishes to undermine the governments legitimacy in the eyes of the population.

            When the general community believes the government has lost legitimacy and seeks to extend its power using force, the primer for a revolutionary explosion is lit.

  51. Jenonymous says:

    Hooo-kay.

    Everyone go read this now.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/independents-day.html

    To quote a friend of mine: the scales are balanced if you ignore the elephant on one side.

    Warning: Copybot likes copying and pasting:

    — July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how “liberals” are “destroying America,” walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.

    — October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.

    — December 2008: A pair of “Patriot” movement radicals — the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted “to attack the political infrastructure” — threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.

    — December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear “dirty bomb” in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.

    — January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.

    — February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.

    — April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.

    — April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama’s purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.

    — May 2009: A “sovereign citizen” named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.

    — June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.

    — February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one “domestic terrorism” too.)

    — March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.

    — March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.

    — May 2010: A “sovereign citizen” from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.

    — May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.

    — May 2010: Two “sovereign citizens” named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.

    — July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.

    — September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year–old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the “Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.

    The Left just does not do shit like that.

    Instead, we run around trying to make fucknuts like the above feel “part of the dialogue.”

    I WISH someone on the Left had the cojones to go after the Right, legally. Anti-gubmint county ranting against taxes? No Federal funding for you, ever, for anything. No Social Security, no VA benefits, no road care, no nothing. Call the Tea Party on their bullshit, and if they love the idea of living in a third-world country, let them.

    • SKR says:

      There is a question as to whether Neo-Nazis should be considered right-wing considering the political/economic system espoused by the Nazis is National Socialism. I don’t know if the current Nazis adhere to this however.

      Lets not forget all the anarcho-communist violence at events like the G20. Let’s aso not forget the radical environmentalist groups like ELF and ALF. ELF sets fire to forest research stations and issues warnings like,
      “But in this message, ELF also issued a stronger warning: “In pursuance of justice, freedom, and equal consideration for all innocent life across the board, segments of this global revolutionary movement are no longer limiting their revolutionary potential by adhering to a flawed, inconsistent ‘non-violent’ ideology. While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice….”

      or how about

      Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB): RCALB has been accused of being the ‘terrorist wing of the Animal Liberation Front’. ALF does not support the actions of RCALB. RCALB has taken responsibility for two successful bombings (luckily no one killed) and a third attempted bombing.

      Animal Rights Militia (ARM): ARM has taken responsibility for several mail bombs, and is most famous for a 68 day long hunger strike. ARM has been accused as being another militant wing of ALF.

      Justice Department The Justice Department, also accused of being another militant wing of ALF (also denied), has been accused by The Independent of “the most sustained and sophisticated bombing campaign in mainland Britain since the IRA was at its height.” The organization has attempted to assassinate Prince Charles, and has also attempted the assassination over 80 researchers.

      I would even throw in the environmental Luddism of the Unabomber but mdh would probably accuse me of bringing up old shit from the 90′s like history isn’t relevant or something.

      • alllie says:

        National Socialism was not socialism. Hitler was sent out by the government to spy on the infant Nazi party. He took it over and kept nothing but the name. The Nazis were fascist. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. It is as far from socialism as it is possible to be.

        • SKR says:

          I suppose I should have been more clear about the Nazis because of the whole third way synthesis thing. Also, both the far left and far right try to hang that albatross around the other’s neck thus making attribution to either left or right problematic and why it would bring up a question. As far as keeping nothing but the name and moving to fascism, that took quite a while and was a means to control the workers. So yeah it wasn’t Marxism. But I would argue that if someone is trying to tally up a balance sheet of left and right extremism, it might be best to avoid the Third Way issue all together or better yet give up the false dichotomy of left and right. Yeah that’s probably better since it would avoid the whole, “our side is brillant and saintly. Their side is insane and evil,” position that some people like to present.

  52. Utenzil says:

    Ok… [scan Wikipedia article... ponder]…

    So in David Wynn Miller’s utopia, everyone talks like a LOLcat?

  53. Freddie Freelance says:

    I for one feel that Mr Loughner was more likely influenced by General Semantics & Alfred Korzybski statement that “language ‘enslaves’ us by conditioning our brains to perceive a false reality.”

  54. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if Miller’s philosophy is what got that engineer in Austin in so much tax trouble before he flew his plane into the IRS building.

  55. ill lich says:

    If you read some of David Wynn Miller’s arguments and examples, it becomes clear his real tactic is to be completely indecipherable in court, so that nobody will have any idea what he’s talking about, hence the contempt of court charges his followers often get. I doubt he talks that way in real life, can you imagine him going to the hardware store to ask about how to fix a door, but not being allowed to use any verbs? “FOR THE DOOR. . . uhhhh, Door. Something. Hinge. uhhhh. . . let’s see, ‘to fix’ is a verb. . . oh, yes: DOOR BROKEN. . . is ‘repair’ a verb or a noun?”

    It reminds me of abstract rap freestyles we used to do as jokes: “Word talk language sound sentence speak communicate!”

Leave a Reply