Category Archives: Sovereignty and Secession

The right to secede

As the Tom Toles cartoon above illustrates, secession in Crimea, like secession in Scotland or Catalonia, is not an academic issue. Nor is it a trend that only affects people “over there.” In fact, all the overgrown political units bound together by brute force in the 19th and 20th centuries are now confronting populations demanding more autonomy, if not outright secession, from their former conquerors.

Writing in The New York Daily News, Dr. Robert Barro of Harvard notes this rising tide as a natural and benevolent development. The ruling elites of the world make a great deal of noise about their commitment to all sorts of human rights, but somehow overlook the one basic right from which all others flow, and that is the right of self-determination:

The potential switch of Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine to Russia raises the more general issue of the right of secession. Many individual freedoms — for example, of speech, the press and religion — are viewed as central elements of liberal constitutions, but the right to secede is seldom viewed this way. …

If I were able to design a constitution from scratch, I’m sure I would include provisions for peaceful secession. The procedure would have to define the underlying sub-regions, such as U.S. states, designate a voting mechanism for residents of a potentially departing region, and might require a super-majority, such as 75%, of the voters. This structure would provide a useful check on central authority, make country borders align better with underlying population characteristics and minimize conflict.

Barro makes clear that secession is not motivated by some irrational hatred of “others,” as nervous apologists for the old order, such as the online snitches at the Southern Poverty Law Center, would have you believe. Secession is instead “the process of generating the optimal sizes and compositions of countries.” Behind that process, says Barro, is “the desire to have a reasonably homogeneous population within its borders.” Without cultural unity, conflict is inevitable. As conflict between sparring ethnic groups rises, social cohesion and liberties can only degrade, as both history and objective scholarship have proven. The old model of a multicultural population kept in check by an authoritarian government is no longer sustainable.

The dustbin of history has a space reserved for that imperial model.

Crimea Votes to Secede and Join Russia … America and Europe Call it Illegal

The Crimean vote is illegal … but the coup against the duly elected* President in Kiev was legal?

Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions on Russia for it.

*As duly elected as any person in that region can be given rampant corruption and outside meddling.

Hmmm … maybe I was on  to something when I pointed out neocon hypocrisy on this issue here.

The international hypocrite

Vox Day cites that notoriously “neo-Confederate” propaganda mill known as the New York Times on the explosive issue of secession in Crimea. The editorial writers at the Times are having a little difficulty making sense of Obama’s opposition to a popular referendum on Crimea seceding from Ukraine:

Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence.

Chechnya? No.

East Timor? Yes.

Abkhazia? No.

South Sudan? Yes.

Palestine? It’s complicated.

It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia.

To which Vox Day adds:

And the USA murdered hundreds of thousands in order to forcibly “keep the Union together” and deny the sovereign Southern States their right to self-determination. This has not escaped the attention of the world’s second-rate powers, some of whom have indicated support for the Russian position.

What the ruling elite can’t grasp is that the peoples of the world do not share their globalist vision. Crimea has a majority Russian population that does not want to be part of Ukraine. This is just one more problem caused by the anti-human policies of the old Soviet Union. And it wasn’t just the Reds who violated natural borders; the West is largely to blame for the unnatural and unsustainable political lines drawn in Africa during colonial times. As the folks in Sudan recently made clear, those borders are being redefined by history and culture.

The lessons of this worldwide trend apply here, too. As our rulers in DC import a more docile population from the Third World, the actual result is not a flowering of diversity but a loss of identification and loyalty to the old American nation. Already, secession is gaining steam in America, and ethnic and racial divisions are openly recognized as the reason. No people anywhere in the world wants to be governed by others – self-determination is just another term for secession. So as DC continues to reconstruct the old America, look for REAL secession movements to arise here at home.

Tom Woods Calls Out Mark Levin

Mark Levin has been ranting against nullification on his radio program recently. I don’t listen to Levin, but my understanding is that this has been prompted by the attempts of several states to nullify ObamaCare. I don’t know if Levin addresses this directly or not, but I also highly suspect that he is upset with the nullification crowd because a lot of the same people and groups are warning against his Constitutional Convention proposal. (That debate deserves another thread.) Now Tom Woods, one of the people Levin has called names, has challenged Levin to a debate:

This is strong stuff, although I wish Woods had left out the money component. The money gives Levin an excuse to weasel out, not that I think he would have accepted the challenge anyway.

FYI, this is not the first time Woods and Levin have tangled. See here and here.

Mike Church not Happy with Jack Hunter Either

Here is a tweet from Mike Church, a Constitutionalist radio host on Sirius/XM. (I don’t know how to post one of those pictures of a tweet, so this is just cut and pasted.)

Mike Church?@TheKingDude 26 Nov
The subjugation of @jackhunter74 aka The Southern Avenger is complete after Politico apologia & now http://www.southernavenger.com is shuttered

This is enlightening. I knew Mike Church was a strict Constitutionalist and advocated nullification and secession, but I didn’t know that he resists PC. This is good to know.

VDARE Column on Jack Hunter’s Politico Apology

Here is a column by Alexander Hart on Jack Hunter’s recent Politico apology. Unfortunately, most of it is behind a paywall, but based on what you can view for free, he doesn’t think much of Jack’s attempt to re-enter polite mainstream con company. If anyone here is a premium member of VDARE, let us know the details.

Update: An old friend sent me the whole article. The article links to this PC movie review that Jack did prior to the Politico mea culpa.

My Thoughts on Jack Hunter’s Mea Culpa at Politico

Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies.  Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.

I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.

So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.

I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.

When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.

I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.

That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence.  I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.

His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”

My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.

So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.

To Support His Position Michael Cushman Quotes … George W. Bush?

I can’t make this stuff up. Michael Cushman, to prove that America is a proposition nation, quotes George W. Bush.

Since everyone won’t be able to see the link here is the George W. quote he is using. It is from Bush’s 1st inaugural address.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens.

It really don’t know what Cushman is trying to prove. Does he really think citing George W. Bush helps his case?

Michael Cushman Has Engaged Me and CHT at Southern Nationalist Network

For those who don’t follow these matters, there has been an ongoing feud between what I am calling the “New Direction Caucus” in the League of the South and some of us who have been alarmed by some things about this New Direction. I have been planning to address the issue here, but haven’t had the time recently, but I now see that Michael Cushman, who is the clear leader of this New Direction Caucus, has engaged me by name at his website. This is a good thing. These issues need to be debated openly. I will work on a reply. For now I will let the Cushman’s article stand on its own. Please read the article, read my comments, and then read the entire comment section of the post where my comments were taken from to understand the argument.

I don’t want to go into a lot of details about what the debate is about, since I plan a separate post (several really) on the issue, but briefly at issue is whether the US was conceived as a deliberate Enlightenment egalitarian experiment from its inception. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think it is fair to say that Cushman believes it was. I say it wasn’t. (There is more to the problem with the New Direction Caucus than just this. There are a suite of interrelated issues and attitudes, but more on that later.)

I think my position stands on its own if you read the comment section. I don’t have any issue with the way Cushman characterizes my position. In fact, oddly, he doesn’t really attempt to counter my position. He doesn’t attempt to demonstrate that my history is faulty and his is accurate. He simply states his alternative. He seems to be primarily motivated by the fact that he believes that his conceptualization is more useful, not more accurate. He calls it a position of strength. But it’s not a position of strength if it’s wrong.

Please read the links and then give me your thoughts.

Is Red State America Seceding?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to talk about trends the ruling elite wants us to pretend not to notice. But at some point, even they will have to wake up and smell the reality:

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.

Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language — but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

The billionaire globalist elites and hate-filled leftists want to dissolve society and transform mankind into a mass of detached, alienated individuals mindful of nothing but short-term economic interests. Alone and lost, people can then be regimented for maximum exploitation, both economically and politically. In other words, lurking behind all the flowery rhetoric about equality is the lust for money and power.

But stubborn human nature resists their plans. We’re social beings, and must have the connections to the cultures we came from. Look for more secessionist movements as a powerful counter to the doomed schemes of our self-proclaimed superiors.

And know hope.

What Would Lincoln Do?

This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:

Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?

Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.

Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.

Word of the Day: Moby

The SPLC was recently caught planting an agent provocateur:

Damningly, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that there were muttered racial slurs throughout the demonstration.

Now, however, it’s been revealed that the only racial slurs that were muttered came from the author of the $PLC piece—a mole named Keegan Hankes. According to another demonstrator at the rally, Mr. Hankes expressed his fury about “spooks” and “n*****s” and his pleasure that Chief Smith had “taken care of them.” He also consistently brought up race in conversations, trying to bait other members.

What do ethnic/religious slurs accomplish? Nothing positive. Nationalism is a movement of love, not hate. The only slur a nationalist need ever use is Moby (Urban Dictionary):

An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.

The term is derived* from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge

Any who propose violence/vigilante action or use ethnic/religious slurs should be accused of being a Moby, or assumed under the influence of a Moby (e.g. a hate blogger working for the SPLC). If the SPLC needs a hate group to cite for funding drives, it should have to resort to entirely manufacturing its own.

*SSC blog claims Urban Dictionary is wrong, attributing Saul Alinsky as the true originator.

HT: Red wrote on the word Moby a few years ago (first I heard of it), and Rebellion Blog linked to VDARE article.

Conflict in Southern Nationalist Circles

Recently there has been quite a bit of controversy in Southern Nationalist circles, most of it arising from the planned immigration protest in Georgia later this month. The organizers of the protest have instituted a dress code that includes not wearing Confederate symbols and have indicated that they will be displaying the Southern Nationalism flag and not the Confederate Battle Flag. In addition to the flag issue, there is a generalized new ideas and new tactics for modern times vs. “living in the past” issue going on here. It is hard to characterize this dispute briefly, but the no overt Confederate symbols, the new flag and the new ideas issues are interrelated.

For example see this Facebook debate (which you probably won’t be able to see unless you’re friends with the Palmetto Patriot).

And see this post from Hunter Wallace entitled “Cryptkeepers of the Confederacy.” (The title illustrates the division here.)

Below are my thoughts on the new Southern Nationalism flag that I posted on the Hunter Wallace thread. (I made one minor edit.) I’ll comment on the broader new paradigm vs. old paradigm issue when I have more time.

I have some issues with the general sentiment expressed here of moving on vs. focusing on the past, but I’ll leave those for another time. I don’t have a problem with new ideas and new tactics in general, although as a conservative I am probably inherently skeptical of them. But there are new ideas vs. old ideas, and there are good ideas vs. bad ideas. Every new idea is not necessarily a good idea. The Southern Nationalist flag may be a new idea, but, IMO, it is a bad idea, at least as proposed here. As I said in the Facebook thread, I don’t think it would be the best idea for everyone to show up with Confederate Battle Flags to the demonstration, because that would immediately become the focus and would characterize the demonstration in a certain way and distract from the immigration restriction message. (IMO we should take a clue from leftist protestors and have signs with a message such as “Build a Fence,” “Enforcement Only,” etc. with the League’s website displayed at the bottom.) But showing up with a bunch of Southern Nationalist flags is problematic in several ways. First of all, no one outside these circles knows what it is. So it will confuse people and raise questions. Here is how I can see this going:

Media, Bystander, Etc. – “What is that flag?”

Flag Waving Protestor – “It’s the Southern Nationalism flag.”

Media, Bystander Etc. – “Oh really? I’ve never seen that or heard of that before. What’s it’s origin?”

Flag Waving Protestor – “Some of us made it up recently.”

I’m sorry but this looks like amateur hour. It’s looks like play acting, and it invites ridicule. Flags are organic. They have an origin and a history. If you must have a Southern Nationalism flag then it needs to be introduced slowly and preferably designed and decided on by a committee or group of some sort. Maybe the Southern National Congress could design one. Then it would have a legitimate origin and history, but you can’t have a flag that supposedly represents something based on “because a few people said so.”

For the same reasons, I think displaying the Georgia Session Flag* is a good idea. When people ask you what it is you tell them and people automatically understand that it is a historical flag with a historical origin. Plus it differentiates you from a bunch of Tea Partiers or whoever protesting immigration and plants the issue of secession.

I usually save my ammunition for fighting the left and avoid these internecine disputes, but I really think this (the flag and the general sentiment) is wrongheaded, and decided to speak up.

* To clarify, the organizers of the protest have indicated that they want to display the new Southern Nationalism flag and the Georgia Secession flag, but not the Confederate Battle Flag.

League of the South to Protest Mayor who Sued Georgia Over Its Immigration Laws

What: Rally against Southern demographic displacement (and Mayor Paul Bridges who sued with the SPLC to overturn GA’s immigration law)
When: 24 August 2013
Where: Uvalda, Georgia
Who: Dr Hill, Hunter Wallace and yours truly (editor’s note: Michael Cushman) have already confirmed. YOU need to be there too!

More info will be forthcoming but plan to be there! We will protest the anti-Southern mayor, talk to the media about Southern demographic displacement, use our memes and then have a little fun socializing. Join us!

Jack Hunter Resigns from Rand Paul’s Staff

Well, it looks like the PC Thought Police have another scalp. I was just about to make a post on another development in the Jack Hunter saga (that post will follow). In that post I was going to predict that while Hunter might make it through this episode, he wouldn’t be on Rand’s staff by 2016. At that point I didn’t know he had resigned. So I guess he didn’t even make it through this episode.

More proof that the PC Beast can not be appeased so there is no sense in trying. The PC Beast must be resisted.

Hunter continues to backtrack even in his resignation. Not only is he resigning from Rand’s satff, he is also resigning from his Southern Avenger persona. I suspect he is trying to maintain his viability as a pundit.

Hunter told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he wanted to avoid being a distraction for Paul and to clear his own name, which he argues is now unfairly associated with racism.

A senior Paul aide confirmed Hunter’s departure.

“I’ve long been a conservative, and years ago, a much more politically incorrect (and campy) one,” Hunter said in an email. “But there’s a significant difference between being politically incorrect and racist. I’ve also become far more libertarian over the years, a philosophy that encourages a more tolerant worldview, through the lens of which I now look back on some of my older comments with embarrassment.”

Read more…

Rand Paul’s Sell-Out is Absolutely Undeniably Complete: Now Says Lincoln was “One of Our Greatests Presidents”

The Jack Hunter fiasco fall-out continues. Now it has completely finished off Rand Paul as well. Someone please give Rand a Testosterone injection.  He is clearly running low. For those who have argued that Rand Paul was just making rhetorical concessions as part of “playing the game” but was still stealthily one of us, I thought that argument lost credibility when

1) he babbled PC platitudes before a Howard University audience, or

2) spouted PC immigration boosterism before a Hispanic organization, or

3) offered Israel a security guarantee to placate the neocons (You see how well that worked out don’t you?)

but I could see that some still held out hope. Gentlemen, I’m sorry to inform you, but it’s time to give it up. It’s over. Rand Paul is done. (Here is the original HuffPo interview.)

“I’m not a fan of secession,” Paul told Fineman. “I think the things he said about John Wilkes Booth are absolutely stupid. I think Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.”

I actually don’t doubt that Rand Paul still stealtily holds views very similar to his father’s. That is the impression he gave when he stumped for his father in 2008, before he ran for Senate, but what good do those stealth views do for us? Does anyone think that Rand is going to stealthily get himself elected to the White House and then on day one declare “Ha! I fooled you!” and start vetoing all unconstitutional spending (almost all of it), or shutter the Fed, or grant the South a free pass to leave the Union? At best he is going to marginally tax less, marginally spend less, and marginally pull back on our foreign policy adventurism, because he has talked himself into a corner. So we pay slightly less in taxes and the country financially collapses in 2035 instead of 2030. Whoopee!

This is why I have such an aversion to rhetorical concessions. I don’t have a problem with stylistic concessions. I don’t have a problem massaging how you say certain things. I don’t have a problem with “playing the game” (competing in a GOP primary or being active in the party for example) to a degree. I don’t have a problem conceding the political reality as it actually is on the ground. In fact, I have always been very realistic about the sorry state of our present political reality.

It is partially because our reality is so sorry that rhetoric matters so much. Because at this point it’s all we got. Therefore we have to be willing to wage the rhetorical battle and make some headway there before the political battle will matter. When a national politician with Presidential aspirations can say to a HuffPo reporter “Darn right I think Lincoln was a tyrant and secession is a perfectly legal option! If I didn’t I wouldn’t be a propper conservative.” and the “right” doesn’t go into spastic denunciations, then we will have made some progress.

At this point, ours is primarily a rhetorical battle whether everyone wants to accept this fact or not.

Note: For those who say we are overdoing the Hunter story, you’re wrong. Fighting the PC Thought Police is the field of battle right now.