Oath Keepers: When the Teabaggers Just Aren’t Whacked Enough

[lightningBugout]

That is well said AD. Thanks.

The big weakness I see with Conspiracy Theory, as Theory with a Capitol T, is that it tends to obscure institutional forces, in a quest to identify "bad guys".

Good point

This is exactly why I'm here. What sets RI apart from the cartoonish vagaries of Prison Planet et al is that there are a handful of people here who consistently demonstrate they are up to the very difficult challenge of grappling with institutional forces. Or, at very least, black-boxing them with a nod to their existence.

As for the Oath Keepers, I think most of the previous conversation, in which their mission statement is taken at face value should be re-read through this demonstrable (and absurd) paradox:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

vs.

IVAW in particular has direct connections with some radical left collectivist individuals and organizations, who would scrap this Republic in a heartbeat if they could, to replace it with their own collectivist vision.

[lightningBugout]

Flame me if you like, but I am very concerned about the Oath Keepers and attendant phenomena. Can I put forth the possibility that this personal back and forth between you guys is verging on thread hijacking? If you're genuinely trying to dialogue about your differences in good faith, perhaps PM would be a more effective (and less distracting) avenue? Or maybe I'm off-base. Your call.

ON EDIT: I noticed that AD is the OP, so I am probably off-base. But this topic is so large, complicated and important that it would be refreshing to see it explored with more specific attention dedicated to the actual thing itself. Just my 2c.

lbo, I appreciate from what you say that you have found this thread really frustrating and difficult. I have too, perhaps for different reasons. However everything said on this thread by me is in the context of responding to the debate. I think it is an important thread and a wide debate; we probably have more in common on it than might first be apparent.

It isnt just about the issue, but also how we respond to each other when we have very different opinions, viewpoints, values as well.

A factual question - I have not been able to find an official public forum for them - do you have a link?

Oh, no doubt we have alot in common and you're clearly perfectly well-intentioned. No beef or anything. I hope my suggestion above came off as courteous.

They don't seem to have a forum, but each article on their site has an extensive comments section you can dig around in.

[Searcher08]

Thanks for your suggestion re the comments; quite a range of opinion there.A lot of discussion re the IVAW poster who had his testimony removed. He has since posted, and I thought it was worth posting it here:

#

Hello fellow Patriots,

I apologize for any feather-ruffling I had created to Oath Keepers, and I would like to briefly explain my actions. I was not trying to recruit anybody into IVAW or the like, just for the record. I was, however, trying to exemplify how illegal orders are obeyed through the chain of command, and that was all. I am a combat veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division, and I was in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I don’t agree with these unconstitutionally undeclared wars and its my right to express that. I do however acknowledge the mission here at Oath Keepers and I will stay silent on this issue over the false left-right paradigm and any other political issue. I firmly believe in protecting the US Constitution because that is what I served for. Furthermore, I am not only a proud IVAW member, but I also VOLUNTEERED my time for the Ron Paul presidential election primaries in Illinois while I lived there. There are many fine service men and women in every organization and we need to recognize that we all took that oath. I wish everyone a happy veterans day and tank all of you who have served under fire for the man next to you because anyone who has served in combat knows that to be the truth. Lastly, I want everyone to know that I am sincerely apologetic for creating any strife here within this organization. May peace reside in your hearts and minds, and may the republic hold through these dark times for our nation and the world.

Kind regards,
Eric Orseske
OEF/OIF Veteran
Comment by Eric Orseske — November 11, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Interesting response, which has been up for a month

[compared2what?]

Is this thing on?

Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3.

[lightningBugout]

That is interesting but the revelation of Rhodes' portraying the IVAW as an extemist group in a manner that supports the notion of a "far-left" 5th column, which in turn supports the absurdist notion of Obama as a Marxist dictator (which is about as plausible as calling Bush one too), seems to stand. Doesn't it?

[compared2what?]

I mean, what am I doing wrong here? Is it because I'm talking about which political principles I support and to which I object, rather than demonizing and/or valorizing the soi-disant left or the soi-disant right?

Because I guess I could try to do that if it would make me more audible. OR I COULD JUST TRY TALKING LOUDER. HELLO OUT THERE! CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME?

I mean besides stefano. And, btw, thanks for your response, stefano!

They're vowing NOT to do things that are already NOT being done

Well, possibly not right this minute, but these things have been done, cf. José Padilla, New Orleans in 2004, protests at RNC and DNC.

Point well taken. As I said, wrt the ninth oath and could have said about some (maybe all) of the rest, too: Although I don't see any signs of those orders being immanent right now, I sometimes did under the previous administration. Which wasn't all that long ago, for sure. And I can definitely see how it might seem like a mere twenty seconds ago from a career-military institutional-memory perspective.

Nevertheless. They're not objecting to any of that stuff explicitly. Nor do I see any hint, large or small, that suggests it's really the sort of thing they have in mind. I'd feel a lot more confident that they meant what they said if I did, though.

[Searcher08]

That is interesting but the revelation of Rhodes' portraying the IVAW as an extemist group in a manner that supports the notion of a "far-left" 5th column, which in turn supports the absurdist notion of Obama as a Marxist dictator (which is about as plausible as calling Bush one too), seems to stand. Doesn't it?

Well, he was certainly is not a supporter of the IVAW's Board of Directors, about whom I know nada.

I think there is a huge issue around Afghanistan and that this that is not resolved. I do think it is a case of a potential Irresistible force meeting the Immovable Object scenario

If you really believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and are an active serviceman/or woman, then sooner or later, you are going to have to start thinking WTF are nearly 100,000 American's doing in Afghanistan? I saw a Ron Paul speech about the Afghan 'war' which was excellent as it truly showed the difference between WW2 and now. Who the heck are we at war with? Why is Obama still acting as 'The Decider'?

I think more and more independently thinking people on the right are realising the BS behind Afghanistan. I really hope those numbers grow. I think the Military Industrial Complex people are probably much more worried about Oath Keepers than IVAW.

As for a 'far left' 5th column, who knows. I am sure communist groups in the US have been infiltrated to hell and back.

I see much more of a problem with two areas: neo-fascist infiltration as described by Kay Griggs, which I think has links with the group described by Sibel Edmonds / Indira Singh. However I certainly do not regard Oath Keepers as part of this, if anything quite the opposite. The second is with gang and gang related muscle, where the 'Oath' to the gang is more important than the Oath to the country. SM-13 in particular. Seeing the terrible effect of gang culture in Central America, is something to be avoided at all costs in the services IMHO and an important factor in the mix.

[8bitagent]

What's the discussion? This is the same goofy mid 1990's white patriot militia
stuff that's been sold to the progressive left as "we're hip and on your side now" by the Alex Jones and Ron Paul supporters of the world. For awhile, I saw leftists spewing the same memes as the mid 90's militias, just repackaged for a smarter audience.

"The gub'ment gonna take your guns, infringe on Christianity and use the UN troops to impose a one world gunmen right here!" Ron Paul has talked about the "evils" of multiculturalism...ooh, evil multiculturalism!

A paranoid world where the "gay agenda" and "Mexican immigrants" seem to be the only thing scarier than the "Lucerferian Illuminati new world order".

Having said that, I don't doubt the sincerity and good intention of *some* of the militia folks. Some HAVE seen their multi generaltional property seized in bullshit imminent domain land grabs by municipal counties and states. Some have seen how the banking scam can steal your house.

In the "New World Order" IFC documentary this year, I got a good vibe strangely enough from militia/patriot speaker Sgt Jack LaLamb. Yes, some may conflate him with the other "seperatists" living in Idaho, but he seems like he has a good heart.

But man, when I see the Tea Party/9-12 protest people; or the "immigrants are ruining America" types...eeesh...scary stuff.

[8bitagent]

I think that a really key question in changing/improving social relations concerns how we analyze the problems, where we place "the blame".

The big weakness I see with Conspiracy Theory, as Theory with a Capitol T, is that it tends to obscure institutional forces, in a quest to identify "bad guys".

Of course there really are bad guys with names and addresses whose crimes we can list- this is undeniable.

The problem with Right Wing Conspiracy Theory in particular is that it tends to personify social problems by picking on its group of usual suspects. Sometimes this is disenfranchised and/or oppressed people: immigrants, poor people, "blacks", whatever. Other times it is in accordance with the particlar mythos of that Far Right tendency: Rockefellers, Rothschilds, "zionists", communists, British Royals, Mexicans, foreigners etc.

One big problem is that these Right Wingers don't have a very commendable understanding of politics. So they tend to indulge in red-baiting, immigrant-bashing, Nativism, extreme Individualism, Racism, anti-Semitism, and a whole assortment of other "isms", amongst other things.

Nowhere is this more true than with the Oath Keepers. They seem to have a bogus analysis of what's wrong, and an even more bogus analysis of the way to make things right.

I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to indulge in a lot of back and forth, so that will have to do for now.

My view is that gay hating, Mexican xenophobia, anti Semitism, and Christian fundamentalism is a Satanic NWO plot:p

Wait, don't quote me on that.

[lightningBugout]

I mean, what am I doing wrong here? Is it because I'm talking about which political principles I support and to which I object, rather than demonizing and/or valorizing the soi-disant left or the soi-disant right?

Because I guess I could try to do that if it would make me more audible. OR I COULD JUST TRY TALKING LOUDER. HELLO OUT THERE! CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME?

I mean besides stefano. And, btw, thanks for your response, stefano!

They're vowing NOT to do things that are already NOT being done

Well, possibly not right this minute, but these things have been done, cf. José Padilla, New Orleans in 2004, protests at RNC and DNC.

Point well taken. As I said, wrt the ninth oath and could have said about some (maybe all) of the rest, too: Although I don't see any signs of those orders being immanent right now, I sometimes did under the previous administration. Which wasn't all that long ago, for sure. And I can definitely see how it might seem like a mere twenty seconds ago from a career-military institutional-memory perspective.

Nevertheless. They're not objecting to any of that stuff explicitly. Nor do I see any hint, large or small, that suggests it's really the sort of thing they have in mind. I'd feel a lot more confident that they meant what they said if I did, though.

[a rousing YES AND THANK YOU because I tend to agree with each of the points you raised]

[Searcher08]

So is the fundamental issue something like

How this group responds to existing anti-Constitutional acts not just possible future ones? For example Afghanistan , Iraq and the Patriot Act? and also whether they will also see as 'non-Constituitonal' issues around the Obama administration (eg the birthers)as a stalking horse for a far right agenda?

[lightningBugout]

Who the heck are we at war with? Why is Obama still acting as 'The Decider'?

And yet an alternative subset of those criticizing Obama (those we tend to call Left or progressive) disdain him for spinelessly not "deciding" but capitulating to those at the top of the military pyramid.

I think the Military Industrial Complex people are probably much more worried about Oath Keepers than IVAW.

Therein, I think, might lie our differences wrt the Oath Keepers. I am infinitely more prone, in part for personal reasons, to imagine the MIC is quite pleased with the Oath Keepers. For starters they may well be owned by the MIC anywayrs. And as c2w has argued, they are focused on ensuring that certain things never come to pass but that have not yet happened. A revolution against nothing more or less. Against nothing? But what about the systematic infringement on the constitution over the past decade (well more like back to the Omnibus Counterterrorism act of 96 but whatever) - that's not nothing, right? No, not at all, but the point is - that's not even a part of their platform, which is disturbing. Oh and for fucks sake, does anyone seriously imagine the Oath Keepers would refuse to conduct a beatdown on the next round of puppet-bearing anti world bank protesters at a political convention? No way man. They've already deemed the "far left" to be enemies of the state. Which makes me feel very very unsafe.

Mostly, as I've said elsewhere - the Oath Keepers strike me as fetishizing the formal/visual expression of repression. Such that, if the guns aren't taken away, the troops aren't in our streets and noone comes knocking at the door in the middle of the night, well, it's all good. And yet the notion that these are imminent threats, even possibilities, much much less certainties, seems pretty much backwards. Because any such gesture would provoke rebellion from people who are scarcely even politicized and it would deviate entirely from the immanent fascism that we occupy. The one that's based on manafacturing widespread and perpetual submission.

[compared2what?]

[a rousing YES AND THANK YOU because I tend to agree with each of the points you raised]

And I appreciate it, honey. Nevertheless, I wonder why it is that neither Searcher08 nor 23 seems at all able to hear me when I address them unless I'm not talking about the Oath Keepers. It's not like I was calling them vile names or anything like that. Yet they're acting like I'm not even here. It's a little hurtful, to be honest with you.

[compared2what?]

Is it my hair? Because I can wear it another way, if it is.

[lightningBugout]

May I recommend what all the girls who get heard are wearing this season...