Tom Baugh and Me: Clearing up some confusion about "White Hats" and "Black Hats." (I wear an olive drab boonie hat myself.)

Since the Guilford Court House rally there has been created in the minds of some folks the impression that has arisen that I agree with what Tom Baugh said (or would have said) simply because I gave him some of my sliver of time at the end of the rally and that I posted the link leading to his entire Black Hat/White Hat presentation.

This is false.

He has points, don't get me wrong. Pete at WRSA rightly calls Baugh "an important contrary voice."

For me, the operative word is "contrary."

My initial reaction back in late February to Baugh's writing was favorable. Although I hadn't read Starving the Monkeys in its entirety, in my rapid skim I found that there were things I agreed with and things that I certainly didn't. Indeed, at the urging of friends, I went ahead and recommended that folks read his book. In retrospect, I should have read the whole thing and written a review, something I still do not have time for.

But insofar as Baugh's talk on the subject of white hats and black hats, found here, it is both a false dichotomy and a siren song. Here's a snippet:

White hats hold rallies to convince others of the importance of their cause, hoping that if enough people could be educated, then the phantom majority would rise up and set things right. Black hats understand that the majority of people, addicted to their checks, want things just as they are. And black hats also understand that liberty, and a man's ethical claim to his rights, aren't dependent on, and shouldn't be dependent on, the whim of others, no matter to what numbers the tyrants may grow.

Which brings us to the upcoming election, and the hope for change. White hats believe that an election will change everything. Black hats accept the reality that it probably won't change anything, and that history shows that tyranny ratchets ever legally and legitimately forward at the whim of the populace, until chaos reigns.

White hats are afraid that their time is coming to a close. Black hats are confident that their time will come.

The image of black hat as worn by the only folks in the room who are hard-headed and far-seeing enough to recognize objective reality AND THEREFORE MOST ABLE TO FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE BATTLE OF LIBERTY VERSUS TYRANNY AND GOOD VERSUS EVIL is a seductive one.

It is also false. In my experience, black is the color favored by our collectivist enemies.

Here's a collectivist wearing a black hat.

Here's another.

Here's the ultimate in black hats.

Now as for me, I don't wear a white hat and I certainly don't wear a black hat. I wear an OD boonie hat and sometimes a woodland one. Why? Because I find them functional in both sun and rain, and are easily tucked into a back pocket when going indoors. It is a hat which attempts to avoid moral error without self-destructive naivete.

More to the point, I don't sneer at folks simply because they are not as far along the political continuum as I am. As I'm sure all of you know, political awareness is usually a process, not divine inspiration. Most of what radicalizes folks against the collectivist lie are the concrete examples that they are given in life. Some folks require a louder alarm clock than others, but that doesn't mean they won't ever wake up.

In between the time I began this essay and now, Malthus had some criticisms of Baugh that I believe are spot on.

Anyone who is familiar with Marx's "you are either on the side of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie" argument will have a head-start on the nature of Baugh's debating trick. He does not want a discussion concerning ends and means; he wants to poison the well.

I posted this at WRSA and offer it here also:

The black hat/white hat dichotomy ought to be the tip-off that author Baugh is confronting us with a false choice.

The question is not black or white but black (anarchism) or non-black (constitutionalism). There are countless permutations of constitutional government and most have a demonstrated superiority to Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature.

Neither law nor ethics will support Baugh's world-view and thus he is obliged to gin up support for anarchism by employing a threadbare logical fallacy. This is disingenuous, nonproductive and a sure road to moral bankruptcy.

MALTHUS

And later he added:

Point of clarification: I do not wish for anyone to conclude that Tom Baugh is morally suspect. I am not offering an ad hominem attack in response to his black-and-white logical fallacy.

Instead, the problem is his philosophical defense of anarchism. Those who continue to pour time and treasure into this epistemological sinkhole will find themselves increasingly indebted to nihilism.

Nihilism is handmaiden to irrationalism and brute force in politics. We have seen this scenario played out before in the history of Europe and know it always ends badly.

Black hats weigh heavily on their wearers.

MALTHUS

Some will think that Malthus is being unkind to Baugh. He is not. As evidence I offer an excerpt from my first run-in with Baugh's concept of who he sees as a black hat, and who a white hat.

It began with this email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: pete
Cc: georgemason1776@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 4, 2010 6:42 pm
Subject: SPLC and ADL

Pete and Mike,

Thanks to Mike, I'm developing a direct channel into the SPLC right now.

Question: Are the ADL and SPLC in tune with each other or are they competing propoganda machines?

If they are buds, I think I can get the SPLC to alert the ADL for me which ultimately would probably provoke a more genuine response.

What do you guys think?

Tom

I answered him, in part:

They sneer at each other behind their backs but they also share info. I assume SPLC has asked you for an interview. Tape it and tell them you're taping it. Or, if you can't get a tape of them, make sure it is by email. Tape is better. Is Georgia a one-party state? I think it is. They will ask you about "associates" by name. Remember they're trying to blow up their conflation balloon. Don't give them anything unless you've checked in advance with whoever they're mentioning. But don't tell them any lies -- tell them you can't recall.

I also offered an idea that we might use the contact to flip SPLC's known propensity for lying back on them in an actionable case. Baugh demurred. His response, in part:

I'm more into an investigative journalism thing to discover for myself whether they (either/both) over-hype allegations of hate to draw in donations LOL. We'll see.

One of the things I haven't yet discussed with either of you is that I think there is a very real possibility of the forces-that-be trying to spark a race war to stir up conflict in order to consolidate unjust power. I've reached out to a lot of various people who should have a horse in the race, and so far the only ones who have welcomed my advances have been those who have borne the brunt of hate allegations. Such as you guys, and in a different dimension, James Edwards of The Political Cesspool. People who get the benefit of media doubt tend to wander off to find lesser prey, comfortable in their nests of bias.

I'm going to give them (SPLC and ADL both) the benefit of the doubt to start, and a clean slate with me. If they are what they say they are, they will be happy to join me (us?) in promoting a message of unity among all liberty-loving Americans of all races and creeds to ward off impending tyranny. If not, they will reveal themselves and their biases, which I will duly report to my readers as I have about my experiences with Glenn Beck's staff. There are others who, to protect their own pies, have refused to participate in this unifying message, whom I have yet to out as I haven't yet exhausted my benefit of doubt with them, or consolidated my position yet.

Regardless, I plan to reach out to those on their hate lists and give them the benefit of the doubt as well. This includes the Nation of Islam, which, as has been reported on WRS, has a history of encouraging its members to be on guard against tyranny. I can't tell you how proud I felt to be associating with Americans who would report this issue fairly. Thank you for that.

I can think of nothing more threatening to a tyrant than to have his minions take their hands off each others' throats (for those who are genuinely angry at each other), or refuse to be pitted against each other any more for his benefit. And then, in unison, demand that he step back from the precipice. It is our country, all of us, not that of tyrants or those who assist them. Nor the country of the electorate who would demand tyranny in its behalf.

"Reaching out" to racial collectives appalled me. This was my response, in part:

----- Original Message -----
From: georgemason1776@aol.com
To: tom@starvemonkeypress.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL

Tom,

It's not about fun. It's about attacking your enemy (and, I might add, the enemies of the Founders' Republic) on every level, at every opportunity, especially when you have an opportunity to get between his ears. I've been at this fifteen plus years and giving these professional liars "the benefit of the doubt" is from my experience merely naive. . .

Insofar as your fears of a race war, we all share them. See http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/08/vanderboegh-birmingham-race-and-armed.html ; However, having anything to do with the race collectivists at NOI or Stormfront merely discredits you . . .

(Pete, for your benefit: "The Political Cesspool is a weekly radio show syndicated by Liberty News Radio Network, Accent Radio Network, and Stormfront Radio, a service of the white nationalist and supremacist website Stormfront.org" -- Wikipedia.) . . .

My enemy is collectivism in all its forms. I do not attempt to find common cause with my enemies -- and those of the Founders' Republic -- out of some misplaced good intention or mistaken belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." A man who practices that ends up with no friends at the mercy of his enemies.

Indeed, were you to seek common ground with such people, you would either be:

a: Unconsciously giving support to SPLC's lie that we are the same or

b. Consciously attempting to discredit my cause, that of the Founders' Republic.

I have been through this shit in the 90s, when people, mostly out of a false sense of weakness, sought allies in all the wrong places. It was shitheads like Edwards that killed 176 of our people at OKC, all in a failed sting arranged by the FBI through their principal provocateur Andreas Carl Strassmeier. . . There isn't a neoNazi, Identity or Klan group in this country that doesn't have its own FBI control agent monitoring a half dozen CIs. And this ain't a new story. Where do you think the 1963 Birmingham church bombers got their dynamite? From Gary Rowe, the FBI informant. The Fibbies were very careful to wait until Rowe died to re-try the bombers for that very good reason. From my point of view, THERE IS NO COMMON CAUSE WITH COLLECTIVISTS. Period. End of story.

Look, I haven't read your book. I'm struggling to finish my own and don't have time at the moment. I skimmed it a bit and took Pete's word for it. You wanted a mention to get SPLC interested in you, I did that. I endorsed it. I can un-endorse it in a New York minute.

I urge you to reconsider attempting to find common ground with collectivists. Unless you are a collectivist yourself, there is none. From their point of view, they look at conservatives, libertarians or Christians who make common cause with them as merely useful idiots and future victims once they have served their purpose. Ever read The Turner Diaries? If not, you should.

But understand this if you don't already. This is not fun. It is not a game. It is a dangerous, deadly struggle played for keeps that has been going on for a long time. Our side cannot afford mistakes. Nor can we afford being identified with our enemies. So, choose this day whom you will serve.

Mike Vanderboegh

Baugh answered as follows in toto:

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom (Starve Monkey Press)
To: georgemason1776@aol.com
Cc: bloviate@hotmail.com
Sent: Fri, Mar 5, 2010 10:48 am
Subject: Re: SPLC and ADL

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the impassioned email!

Let me quote you: "It's about attacking your enemy ... on every level..."

Let's now switch gears for a moment. We are on a path. Where we perceive we are on that path is reflected in our behavior. We can break the populace down into a few key groups and examine their beliefs.

1) Ostriches (some call these sheeple): Don't bother me, there is no problem.
2) Hopeful Activists: Things suck, but I think there is still a chance.
3) Skeptical Activists: I hope there is still a chance.
4) Careful Skeptics: There is no chance, so I'm treading carefully while I collect information.
5) Crypto: It's over the edge and I'm just waiting.

Where on this spectrum do you think I am? Where on this spectrum do you think my hard-core readers fall?

912 and Tea Party are in group 2. I think the 3Ps are in groups 3-5. I think that groups 3-4 will show up on 4-19, group 3 with guns, group 4 without. Group 5 isn't showing up for anyone, and not making a peep anywhere.

"Infiltrators": We have to assume that every movement is riddled with agent provacateurs who are trying to goad people into foolish action. Every movement. And of their victims the stupid ones are already in jail or dead or soon will be. Which leaves ...

Denounce or endorse, at your pleasure. I highly recommend that you take time to read it first, though. Doing either, or for the wrong reasons, without having read it might look foolish later.

You also might want to review your principles of 4GW.

And then ask yourself whether I am scaring the shit out of some people right now. And whether a lot of infiltration is getting teased out of hiding or otherwise rendering it impotent for getting good people killed or arrested just to serve a political agenda.

But even being denounced by you as a "collectivist dupe" can serve a purpose. I leave it up to your judgement.

So, with that last paragraph firmly in mind, I let the matter drop. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I figured that sooner or later the issue would resurface. And it has.

And now you know where each of us stands, I think.

If it remains unclear for any of you, feel free to comment and I will try to clarify.

Mike
III