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

[8bitagent]

After a decade out of the spotlight, the militant rightwing “Patriot” movement — which was responsible for such murderous terrorist acts as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that claimed 168 lives and injured 500 — is on the rise.

LOL. Is that why Mcveigh and Nichols were constantly spotted with Islamic terrorists all over Oklahoma?

OKC 1995 was the middle in the American terror trilogy, and most likely all carried out by the same hidden agenda.

Now I realize many others and myself may say things that sound awfully like the "NWO gunna take out guns" militia folks...but I'm much more comfortable siding with a leftist point of view than a far right point of views.

[8bitagent]

For starters, as Malcolm X said about the JFK assassination, the bombing in Oklahoma City was a case of the chickens coming home to roost. No government can perpetrate as much violence around the world as the US has, especially since World War II, without expecting to reap violence at home. Most obviously, Oklahoma City was the chickens coming home to roost for the FBI/ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, TX, which left scores dead, including many of the children the raid was ostensibly aimed at saving. It was after Waco that the Militia movement exploded across the country, with many in middle America coming to see the federal government as the enemy of their cherished gun and property rights. Less obviously, Oklahoma City was chickens coming home to roost for Operation Desert Storm and the reign of terror instrumented by the Pentagon and CIA in Central America throughout the 1980s. Accused Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh is a veteran of Desert Storm. He participated in the incident in which Iraqi troops in Kuwait were buried alive en masse by US military vehicles. McVeigh was also trained at the US Army's School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA, notorious in Latin America for training such masterminds of massacre and torture as El Salvador's late death squad boss Roberto D'Aubisson, Guatemala's General Hector Gramajo, and Haiti's Emmanuel Constant. If McVeigh is guilty, we owe his monstrous insensitivity to human life to none other than Uncle Sam. McVeigh reportedly aspired to join Special Forces, the Army's elite "Green Beret" troops who work most closely with the CIA and death squad regimes such as those in Guatemala and El Salvador. He was reportedly bitterly disappointed when he failed to make Green Beret.

Oh no....not more "blowback" propaganda...

Koernke, wanted for questioning, disappeared into the woods of Michigan. A federal manhunt and possible crackdown on the Michigan Militia loomed. Also quickly forgotten were initial media reports that Oklahoma state seismologists had detected not one, but two blasts at the Federal Building_the first at four seconds past 9.02, then another of "equal magnitude" at 14 seconds after 9.02. Federal investigators now deny that there was a second explosion. The North Point Tactical Team, a North Carolina Militia group, has produced propaganda seizing upon the "two_blast" theory as evidence that McViegh is an "Oswald" (that is, a fall guy), and that the blast was an "inside job"_a government trick to justify martial law, a crackdown on the Militias and disarming the populace. The March edition of Taking Aim, the newsletter of the Militia of Montana, issued a call to arms for April 19, the day of the Oklahoma blast:

*whew* Ok. I think people forget there's a lot of evidence OKC 1995 was a total coverup with preplanted explosives, covert operatives, etc

In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, before McVeigh was arrested, right_wing media pundits almost uniformly assumed that the explosion was the work of Arab terrorists.

That's because Arab terrorists were involved, mere patsies like Mcveigh and Nichols(who even admits the whole thing was a setup)

[8bitagent]

After reading these comments, I feel reluctant to even continue to participate in this conversation and wonder if I can do so in good conscience. Keep in mind, while reading those comments, that the Oath Keepers removed postings by an IVAW vet because it might be inflammatory, so there is precedent for close moderation and editing of their boards content. Which is to say, there is tacit support for the sentiments of the page linked above much of which is literally worse than much of what I have read on StXrmfrXnt. I won't even try to summarize. Just go to the page, search for "Jews" or "NWO" or "New World Order" and use Firefox's "Highlight All" command.

Here's the magazine in which Mr. Rhodes has a column:

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!

This is why I now want to vomit everytime I hear Alex Jones voice, or get bulletins urging me to check out the latest PrisonPlanet disinfo piece.

"Click here to get free guns! Free gun lessons for your kids! Youre not a real parent unless your whole family has guns, and not a true defender of freedom unless you own a whole cache of weapons!

GUNS GUNS GUNS! Even Jesus has a semi automatic to fight the NWO! "

[82_28]

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!

This is why I now want to vomit everytime I hear Alex Jones voice, or get bulletins urging me to check out the latest PrisonPlanet disinfo piece.

"Click here to get free guns! Free gun lessons for your kids! Youre not a real parent unless your whole family has guns, and not a true defender of freedom unless you own a whole cache of weapons!

GUNS GUNS GUNS! Even Jesus has a semi automatic to fight the NWO! "

I don't know if there is anything to this meager observation I happened to make last night. But I have been noticing that there have been a lot of newer shows and such and news stories of embedded "reporters" covering "war" and stuff, that keep mentioning "running out of ammo"` or "running low on ammo". I noted I had never seen that before. I grew up after all, in the era of A-Team, Rambo and perpetual Bruce Willis pistol clips. This theme seems to exist in both fiction and "fact".

You know? Anybody else notice this?

[8bitagent]

GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS!

This is why I now want to vomit everytime I hear Alex Jones voice, or get bulletins urging me to check out the latest PrisonPlanet disinfo piece.

"Click here to get free guns! Free gun lessons for your kids! Youre not a real parent unless your whole family has guns, and not a true defender of freedom unless you own a whole cache of weapons!

GUNS GUNS GUNS! Even Jesus has a semi automatic to fight the NWO! "

I don't know if there is anything to this meager observation I happened to make last night. But I have been noticing that there have been a lot of newer shows and such and news stories of embedded "reporters" covering "war" and stuff, that keep mentioning "running out of ammo"` or "running low on ammo". I noted I had never seen that before. I grew up after all, in the era of A-Team, Rambo and perpetual Bruce Willis pistol clips. This theme seems to exist in both fiction and "fact".

You know? Anybody else notice this?

Ammo shortages and gun sales at insane levels in the wake of Obama becoming president:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/04/ammo.s ... index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =102851807

I think it's funny how half the right wing nuts hate the other over the 9/11 truth and anti war issue, as with the rift within the liberal side.

When in truth it seems everyone(including myself) are high off the fumes
of their own bs.

These are two images I saw online that hit home just what a sad sad sunken ship the Alex Jones/Ron Paul/"Patriot Constitutionalist" bridge to nowhere seems to be:





*insert another one about Obama faking his birth certificate*

[Searcher08]

A_D, you have not said what you think of the article and why it is relevant to the Oath Keepers discussion?

Searcher I can't help but notice that you didn't respond to AD's question about what the "orthodoxy" you claim to be challenging is. Can I ask you to elaborate?

I couldn't help but notice that A_D didn't respond to my very long post nor to metalgongfu's multiple requests... nevermind.

But orthodoxy, I would mean conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines in particular in science, business, politics, religion, art. I am not doing this because I think it is necessarily wrong, but rather because it is worthwhile to challenge ideas as a thing in itself, to explore the limits of a person's 'model of the world', if you will.

[American Dream]

So, Searcher, what do you see as the "usual beliefs or established doctrines" which you have been dissenting from and/or questioning with regards to the Oath Keepers?

[Searcher08]

So, Searcher, what do you see as the "usual beliefs or established doctrines" which you have been dissenting from and/or questioning with regards to the Oath Keepers?

I have already covered this in detail; it is the portrayal of Oath Keepers 'as the same as' then fill in the gap - Aryan Nations, Stormfr0nt, Militias or cartoon pigs.

SO, American Dream, still waiting for an answer to these questions from last week from metalgongfu.

I have covered my position very clearly in a number of long posts in this thread, but am unclear of your, as you seem to equate them with Militias then dont then do and when I ask for clarification the relevancy of new articles you post inside the thread (regarding whether you yourself said support articles or not or what your position on them is) you dont reply either.

So for (I believe the fourth time)

American Dream, I hereby invite you to present, in your own words, a clear and principled critique of the Oath Keepers.

Could you please explain in detail your own opinions regarding this group? (Since you ignored the questions in my prior post)

That would make this thread much more educational, from my perspective.


lbo,
I briefly checked the comments on the page and found it deserves further investigation - that the offensive ones were made by two people, making many many long posts.

[American Dream]

Searcher, I feel that you are being evasive here. I am going to disengage from this now, but simply want to point out that you are defending the Oath Keepers under the banner of fighting "orthodoxy" but you have not supported or defended your statement in a credible way.

Your position does not seem credible to me, at all.

I'd say there's much more evidence here on this thread to suggest that there is a problem with "orthodoxy" on your part and the part of those you defend, than there is evidence to suggest that it is primarily "orthodoxy" which guides the efforts of the people here who have been questioning the righteousness of the Oath Keeper cause.

[Searcher08]

Searcher, I feel that you are being evasive here. I am going to disengage from this now, but simply want to point out that you are defending the Oath Keepers under the banner of fighting "orthodoxy" but you have not supported or defended your statement in a credible way.

Your position does not seem credible to me, at all.

There is much more evidence that the people you are defending have misguided dogmas than that there are analogous doctrines informing the people here who are questioning the righteousness of their cause.

Curious response, A_D. I am happy to answer your question about orthodoxy, it is... the set of beliefs and points of view behind the pig cartoon you posted. It is the idea there must be a lot of money and MIC backing behind the group. It is the idea they want to start a civil war and are the same set of people as Aryan Nations and other violent white supremacist groups and that they hate jews and mexicans.

I would ask that you answer the points I raised above, after all you did specifically tell me not to assume that you supported the position of an article you posted. I am merely asking what your views are on the articles you posted here.

I dont even know what your own position is, so I cannot make any assessment of credibility -
because you have not answered metalgongfu's question again - which appears to indicate you want and expect other people to answer these questions but are unwilling to do so yourself.

I disagreed with the articles you posted, as not providing a case at all, but am even unsure if you intended them to. I dont see where is the factual objective evidence supporting what you say, just assertions.

You have not provided any form of rebuttal to my reply to c2w -
lbo is engaging , providing a factual process but you have not engaged. I am clear what I (respectfully, I hope) disagree with lbo about.

There is much more evidence that the people you are defending have misguided dogmas than that there are analogous doctrines informing the people here who are questioning the righteousness of their cause.

A lot of people here do not seem to be objecting to either taking oaths or keeping them, but to underlying motive, organisational behaviour, communications on the website.

These, to me are not yet clear.
at present , subject to a lot of interpretation

I think many of the oath keepers have a very different worldview from many people here; certainly my own Allende/Beer influenced politics is quite divergent from many of them - the libertarian side IS a common intersection.

That divergence in worldview makes it all the more important to communicate, especially when one doesn't want to.

Certainly, it does beg the question, where does the function these people say they will provide (non-compliance of non-Constitutional orders) if the left dont like them?

What space is there for left leaning service people / police etc to take a stand - because what ever is going down in the US government right now sure doesnt look like a direction of individual liberty and freedom from corruption


So for (I believe the fifth time)

American Dream, I hereby invite you to present, in your own words, a clear and principled critique of the Oath Keepers.

Could you please explain in detail your own opinions regarding this group? (Since you ignored the questions in my prior post)

That would make this thread much more educational, from my perspective.

[American Dream]

Searcher- as I have been saying, I am not interested in engaging with you about this any more.

While I didn't author the OP, and am not sure what I think of such intense portrayals, I don't really agree with the Oath Keepers, or the larger milieu of militias in which they exist.

I don't like their reactionary politics and I do not consider them to be a trustworthy bulwark against Authoritarianism- quite the opposite.

For the rest Searcher, you're on your own. Or maybe you can find other people on here this thread who will be able to communicate with you more fruitfully.



A.D.

[nathan28]

The "ammo shortage" story was showing up pre-Obama. George Ure has had a "shortage" theme going for a year or three, or did, until I finally got sick of reading his garbage in 2006 or so. I tend to think there might actually have been some validity to the ammo shortage stories, but it sounded like a vanilla supply/distribution disruption--after all, civilians are the very last market for ammo, so any large demand by bigger fish will keep the shelves bare--not OMG TEH NWO!!!11!

The "gun shortage" thing, though--that really struck me as a scam. The prices on ARs and AKs tripled in a really short time frame--if you look on the internet, you could see one major seller (you have a local dealer order through them) selling AK-47s for >$400. ARs were three times as much. I looked into this because I thought it was strange.

Well, what's wrong with that? Easy: it's the chosen weapon of the Third World. And in East Memphis, according to one source, AKs go for about $80. I.e., there's a huge disconnect between actual supply, actual demand, and the prices that most middle class Americans (as opposed to lower class Americans) pay What that says to me is that other $300 is the value-added "lifestyle" premium. And having a "lifestyle" says to me that you're pretty damn well-off, so STFU.

[23]

A lot of people here do not seem to be objecting to either taking oaths or keeping them, but to underlying motive, organisational behaviour, communications on the website.

It may be a cultural attribute, S08.

We like to mouth the words "innocent until proven guilty", but our actions sometimes reflect "guilty until proven innocent."

Which often stems from a presumption that we know someone else's true motives better than they do.

It may be a cultural thing. I see evidence of that presumption a lot these days. In conversations that folks have between themselves on a daily basis.

If you look for it, it won't be hard to spot.

[lightningBugout]

lbo is engaging , providing a factual process but you have not engaged. I am clear what I (respectfully, I hope) disagree with lbo about.

I'm actually not clear on specifically what we disagree about and would appreciate your take on this as clarification.

A lot of people here do not seem to be objecting to either taking oaths or keeping them, but to underlying motive, organisational behaviour, communications on the website.

Again, respectfully, I have the sense that almost nothing I post here, be it dedicated and sensible or knee-jerk and impetuous, will penetrate a set of assumptions you' seem to be expressing both about the OK's relationship to the landscape of nascent millenial American fascism (its expression in deep political structures and "institutions" as well as those possible disconnected organizations who baldly champion white nationalism et al) and about myself and others here who see the OK as best understood through the lens of 1) historical precedent, 2) critical analysis that extends far and wide beyond their mission statement, 3) what diaogue their website engenders.

I genuinely feel as though you are being willfully obtuse. If you feel the same about anything I've posted, please address me so I can try to grapple with what you think I'm evading. But I am also certain you are acting in good faith. So I am frustrated.

I gave the specific example of an ideological decision to censor the views of one commenter on their site, purportedly to maintain order and organizational coherence that frames other (lunatic fringe racist fucker) comments there as acceptable. How blunt can I possibly be: the Ok puts up with the ideological stunts of those who speak in the white nationalist dialect (which we can all agree is not ok) but not of a poster speaking on behalf of an organization they have deemed "extremist" that is opposed to a war that many, if not all, of us here have demonstrated (often over several years) we believe to be tyrannical.

If you oppose US tyranny overseas and ally yourself with those that Stewart Rhodes deems "far-left," you're an enemy of the state.

Searcher, what does not compute? Do you feel the OK represents a potential ally in a movement that you envision extending far beyond their cultural confines, which might be built around the spirit of these "oaths" but not be marred by their affiliations?

I think many of the oath keepers have a very different worldview from many people here;

You seem to think that those differences can be bridged by shared common purpose which implies that all the parasitic racist and fascist ideology which attaches itself, in practice, to the OK network can be isolated and rendered mute. I don't.

What space is there for left leaning service people / police etc to take a stand - because what ever is going down in the US government right now sure doesnt look like a direction of individual liberty and freedom from corruption

I don't see the same structures of tyranny that the OK do. Thus the stand I would like to take is entirely different. Unfortunately, the structures I perceive are infinitely more complicated than the one that the OK seems to (based as much on the words and deeds of their membership as their mission statement) and do not so easily lend themselves to clear steps of action. Which is much of my problem with the Oath Keepers. Because this is where Fascism often originates - the socio-political landscape becomes very ideologically complicated at the same time as its expression on the life on an individual becomes deeply taxing. At the same moment as an individual's agency' and her sense that she is able to legitimately participate and shape meaningful outcomes wanes, the effects of that system are expressed physiologically in her body through stress and anger, or anxiety and depression. The organism then, to survive, demands agency. The complexity of the system must be reduced and deeply abstracted in order to provide that agency. It is distilled until it becomes a fetish. In which entirely abstracted appearances or forms, once symbolic, become the system itself. And, like clockwork, the Other is abstracted as well.

In sum, true desperation leads to mis-attribution of the etiology of the larger condition. I'm painfully sympathetic to that desperation - that is what I share with every member of the OK and probably every member of Stormfront of the Aryan Nations. Not the etiology.

As for the Left, I'd propose the following as starting points: 1) War/Spook Tax Resistance and 2) Conscientious Objection.

[lightningBugout]

A lot of people here do not seem to be objecting to either taking oaths or keeping them, but to underlying motive, organisational behaviour, communications on the website.

It may be a cultural attribute, S08.

Might also be that good critical thinking about almost anything includes being curious and trying to incorporate understanding of 1) motive, 2) behavior and 3) expression (intra-group communications).

We like to mouth the words "innocent until proven guilty", but our actions sometimes reflect "guilty until proven innocent." ... Which often stems from a presumption that we know someone else's true motives better than they do.

I find it ironic that you use the term "we" when you speak critically of an apparent tendency to make presumptions.