I’ve been writing from a politically incorrect point of view about such topics as affirmative action, radical feminism, etc., for over 15 years now. My context is that of a political philosophy which (I hope) promotes freedom and responsibility for all individuals of whatever race/ethnicity, liberty in society, and discourages readers from trusting concentrations of power. Affirmative action programs, I often argued, are of questionable benefit to the majority of blacks, tend to trigger racial resentments that wouldn’t have been there otherwise, and concentrate power over the hiring process in the hands of faceless bureaucrats.
At first it annoyed me when some left-liberal would read such things and accuse me of being a closet racist, or worse. But by the time I’d moved to Greenville (2005), it only amused me.
I’d encountered the real thing, you see.
Pen articles on such topics for the online world, where anyone and his grandmother can surf on in, and you’ll soon attract unwanted attention. I’d started writing for LewRockwell.com near the end of the 1990s. By 2002—and writing with a year-long fellowship with the Mises Institute—every time I’d bring up race or affirmative action I’d hear from one or more of a group of incendiaries who clearly were racists—and white supremacists. And proud of the fact!
In the beginning I’d tried to reason with them. Pointless. These people, it had become clear, had more in common with hard-leftists than with guys like me. They, too, were tribalists who saw people as group members first and individuals second; they were also racial/genetic determinists through and through. As such, they were impervious to arguments by guys like me. I think I was one of the people this crowd had singled out, for whatever reason. A few other liberty writers (Karen de Coster is an example) would tell you similar stories of going back and forth with these people.
These people believed we are group members first and individuals second; that blacks are genetically inferior to whites; and so should be in positions of subservience, rather than be treated as individuals allowed to rise on their own merits. Some of these people made me uneasy. They struck me as mentally unbalanced. Their writings were laced with predictions of racial warfare in America that they seemed to welcome. Their emails were sprinkled as liberally with the “n-word” as they were with casual obscenities. I finally began deleting their stuff unread.
Somewhere in this mix I’d run across a reference to one Hal Turner of North Bergen, New Jersey—who had both a website and a talk radio show on a network he’d been clever enough to set up himself, or so it seemed at the time. Turner wasn’t one of the people who’d emailed me, just someone I’d seen cited as an exemplar of “the movement.” I kept encountering references to him, so one day out of curiosity I checked out his site. That was in either 2005 or 2006.
To say this guy makes David Duke look like a bleeding-heart liberal is still to understate the case. Turner’s site was the most extreme I’d run across. His descriptions of minorities are unprintable in a respectable publication—not just due to blatant racism but because they, too, were laced with obscenities and seeming physical threats. His hatred of Jews went well beyond denying the Holocaust. He seemed right on the edge of inciting violence against blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and homosexuals. I wondered how he got away with it! (I later learned that his site had attacked by hackers several times, and that more than one ISP had shut him down.)
Turner put his money where his mouth is from time to time. Obviously he’s made enemies, and has had physical confrontations from time to time. Back in 2006 he duked it out in front of his home with a Hispanic who happened to be Jersey City Commissioner of Veterans Affairs at the time. What Turner had said to provoke the confrontation: “illegal immigrants are breaking the law, and people like me should break the law as well by shooting them down.”
This sort of thing made Turner a dream come true for hard-left outfits like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Anti-Defamation League compiled a lengthy list of choice Turner quotes (at http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/turner_own_words.htm). Neither may be your favorite organizations, either, but what do you expect?
As it turns out, this might be the point. And we may have a disturbing object lesson here how federal agencies and satellite groups of the power elite work to manipulate the “opposition”—possibly by provoking it into acts no civilized person would endorse.
Turner was finally arrested a couple of months ago following apparent threats against federal judges and lawmakers—something he’s done before. According to an Associated Press report, Turner’s act was a ploy from start to finish: “Hal Turner worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line,’ defense attorney Michael Orozco said. ‘His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest,’ Orozco said.”
An ‘agent provocateur’ is someone who works undercover to discredit a group or movement by inciting its members to do something illegal—such as commit acts of violence against minorities or federal judges or politicians. Turner was known among white supremacists for rallies that were on the edge of provoking violence. He held one in Kingston, N.Y., in 2005 following an incident at a high school in which a black student beat up a white student pretty bad, giving him a severe facial injury. Turner claimed to be on the side of justice, demanding severe punishment for the black student who was already looking at possible prison time for assault. The white boy’s mother grew nervous around Turner and declined further association with him. He viciously berated other white supremacist groups for their lack of aggression with “savages.”
Turner’s June 3 arrest followed calls posted on his website to “take up arms” against two Connecticut politicians and one other official. He was arrested again on June 24 for threats to judges of the United States Court of Appeals in Chicago. He was denied bail when FBI agents found 200 rounds of ammunition and 150 hollow-point bullets in his home. On June 30, his website was officially shut down, replaced by a blog set up by “Family of Hal Turner.” The updates appeal to Hal Turner’s rights under the First Amendment:
“You all know that Hal was arrested for expressing his opinion, that is, EXERCISING HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS under the First Amendment of the Constitution. You may not agree with his opinion, but his right to say it MUST BE DEFENDED. If Hal is convicted, EVERYONE LOSES his right of FREE SPEECH! Journalists and newscasters will not be able to express their opinions. They will be forced to write and say what they are told!”
Thus reads one histrionic entry. But wait a minute! Legitimate “journalists and newscasters” do not threaten public officials, even in jest. The First Amendment was written to allow responsible citizens to discuss public issues responsibly without retaliation from their government. It was never intended as an absolute carte blanche allowing citizens to say just anything they pleased, including inciting violence!
In early July, Turner was extradited to Chicago, where he remains incarcerated. Near the end of that month, he alleged his connection to the FBI as a paid informant. The judge initially was not buying it, giving him ten days “to produce concrete evidence of [his] help to the FBI …”
Turner has pled not guilty to all charges. The above-mentioned AP report continues, “Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die. What Turner’s defense alleges, however, is that the incidents that now serve as the basis of charges against him are not materially different from the actions that he undertook in the employ of the federal government.”
The allegation that Turner was on the FBI payroll first surfaced in January, after unidentified hackers confronted him in the forum section of his own site. The confrontation, as you’d expect, was vicious, but the hackers had evidence of having retrieved Turner’s own emails to an FBI agent. One of these read, in the aftermath of a published threat against Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.): “Once again, my fierce rhetoric has served to flush out a possible crazy.” The hackers also claimed to have emails where Turner discussed payment with his FBI handler.
A few days later, Turner abruptly announced that he was separating from the white supremacist movement and quitting all political activity. “I will no longer involve myself in any aspect of it,” he said. He also ended his radio show.
Had the FBI just unloaded him, deciding that he was damaged goods—or perhaps just plain too hot to handle?
So what are we to make of all this? What does Hal Turner really believe? If he really believed the sorts of things he posted on his site, or stated on the air, then why act as a paid informant to “out” his fellow racists? Obviously, he did not “end” his political activity. He continued with the threats. This suggests that he really does believe his own rhetoric—and was just using the FBI to gain some extra income.
The Hal Turner saga has provoked debate within criminology itself. How far are paid informants to be allowed to go? “This is clearly over the line,” said sociologist James Nolan of West Virginia University, an authority on police procedure and a former unit chief in the FBI’s Crime Analysis, Research and Development Unit. Criminologist Jack Levin of Northeastern University—billed as an expert on “radical right” movements—elaborated, “These are frightening groups whose members deserve to be investigated and infiltrated … My concern is that Turner’s methods actually are more dangerous and destructive than the evil they are seeking to cure. His threatening messages may actually inspire neo-Nazis to up the ante, to engage in even more destructive behavior.”
A final note: Hal Turner once made a YouTube video in which he held up what he said was a bona fide amero—the proposed currency of the North American Union. He was using this as evidence of how far along the behind-the-scenes movement to unite the three nations of North America was. The trouble is: he was flat out lying. The coin had been minted not by any governmental entity, secret or otherwise, but by a guy in Colorado in the business of making such collectables. You can buy ‘ameros’ on eBay!
There is one huge lesson to be drawn from this saga for those of us promoting liberty, decentralization, and Constitutional government. It is this: federal agencies—be they the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security—are not above enlisting agent provocateurs and having them infiltrate groups considered threatening to what the power elite wants. Violent anarchists were employed in Seattle back in December 1999 at what had been a peaceful protest of the World Trade Organization meeting by ordinary, middle-class citizens worried about the continued mass exodus of good-paying jobs overseas. The anarchists began breaking windows and overturning vehicles. The mass media did not distinguish between the peaceful protesters and the anarchists. Agents provocateurs have also turned up at protests of SPP meetings, where they were found out and exposed.
Not long ago, Homeland Security tarred us all as “right wing extremists.” The earlier MIAC report named names, including a sitting Congressman (Ron Paul) and last year’s Constitution Party candidate for the Presidency (Chuck Baldwin).
It would not surprise me any to learn that the groups surrounding Ron Paul and the Constitution Party have been infiltrated by people that shouldn’t be trusted. This, admittedly, is a recipe for paranoia and inertia. How can we get anything done if we aren’t sure who we can trust? By identifying and outing the agent provocateurs! They might not necessarily be trying to incite violence, but you’ll eventually catch them lying about something crucial. Or, they will advocate ignoring or even breaking laws, as opposed to working to get laws changed.
It might be a very good idea for all of us who continue to support Ron Paul’s efforts, e.g., to audit the Federal Reserve (and eventually shut it down) to be careful not to violate any laws—including what those in the federal government believe to be the law. And we must be careful to criticize policies, and not threaten groups of people. (I may not agree with our government’s refusal to secure our border with Mexico; but I cannot find it in me to want illegal immigrants “shot down,” to paraphrase Turner. I don’t see how any humane, Christian person could think this!!
And above all: we must never, ever allow ourselves to be provoked into threatening any public officials, be they elected politicians or appointed judges. Disagree with their decisions? Yes, if you think those decisions are wrong. Say or do anything a public official can interpret as a threat, and you’ve crossed the line and done the cause of liberty and Constitutional government more harm than good.
--------------------------------------------
Steven Yates teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and is on the board of the South Carolina chapter of Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA. The views expressed in his columns are his own, and do not reflect official views of any of these institutions or organizations. His latest book World-views: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism, was published last year by The Worldviews Project (for more information call 864-288-0043). He is at work on a new book tentatively entitled The Real Matrix.
His email address is:
