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

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby 23 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:00 pm

Sounder wrote:23 wrote…
Search any recent literature regarding parenting styles, and you'll probably come across these two: authoritative and authoritarian.


Hold those thoughts 23 and start a thread on parenting or/and in the meantime consider posting on authority on the Where is Credibility thread.

I have been intending to start a parenting thread for awhile, so I’ll go get to work on it.


Actually, Sounder, another thread, which spoke to "learned helplessness", would've been an effective segue to the subject matter.

Since learned helplessness is a common by-product of authoritarian (versus authoritative) parenting. As is a codependency on external authority figures (church, government, etc.).
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:02 pm

http://blacksungazette.com/?p=1113

Fascism Watch: Oath Keepers and the BNP


Image

There are more troubling signs of a growing fascist movement not only domestically, but internationally. It seems that the problem is far more advanced than I would have originally thought. Once again, the sum total of recent history (Clinton impeachment, Bush v. Gore, the 2004 election), current social conditions, rising street level right wing movements, disaffected soldiers coming back from Iraq, the history of fascist movements, and the piss poor track record of declining powers, paints a very grim picture of a growing fascist movement both at home and abroad. The Democrats will not protect you. The only way to stop them is through militant action in the streets.


I had recently reported on a particularly disgusting group called The Oath Keepers. I have yet to see a group quite as dangerous as I consider the Oath Keepers. Groups like the 9-12 Project and the Tea Party movement certainly have all the right moves- nationalist imagery, rhetoric about returning to a non-existent Golden Age, racist code words, inflammatory propaganda, and open calls for street fighting. Further, based on both my personal encounters and media reports their base of support seems to be from the Golden Triangle of Fascism- infuriated members of the middle class, lumpenized proles, and stepped on non-commissioned officers.

Image

However, the Oath Keepers are even more troubling than the aforementioned groups who in comparison could easily be laughed off. The Oath Keepers are particularly troublesome because of their strong base among active and inactive military, as well as law enforcement, always fertile ground for fascist recruitment. Also troubling is the especially shrill pitch of their rhetoric. Again, their list of orders they won’t obey isn’t troubling… if you think that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim communist preparing to confiscate guns, force people in gay marriage, and have United Nations troops penning all resistance into internment camps. For my own part, I’m far more concerned about my liberties being taken away at gunpoint by people like the Oath Keepers, or a naked military coup d’etat.

Klintron made a really interesting point over at Mutate that these people were (un)surprisingly silent as George W. Bush continued the gutting of the Constitution that began under Clinton. It’s also worth noting that they make no comment on not arresting people for the non-violent drug offenses that make up most of the prison population, disproportionately effecting Blacks and the poor. For my own part, I wonder precisely what the response to groups like the Oath Keepers would be to a right-wing military coup that ousted the President.

Image

An excellent analysis of why the Oath Keepers are troubling can be found here. I also find this article sent to me by BSG ally Tate to be worth a read. It seems that there are active duty soldiers in Iraq wearing tabs showing support for the Oath Keepers. What will become of these soldiers when they return to a place where they can’t shoot people with relative impunity? How would the military brass react if soldiers began wearing tabs reading “Workers of the World, Unite!”? What are we to make of the “three percenters” referred to in one of the tabs? The Oath Keepers website tells us that a “three percenter” is:

“The narrowest definition is that three percenters are hard-line gun owners who are done backing up and will not comply with more infringements of their right to bear arms. A broader definition would be that they are hard-line Americans who are done backing up and will not comply with further infringement of any of their rights. It also alludes to the three percent of the colonists who took to the field against the King during the Revolution, and the estimation that at least three percent of modern Americans will actively fight, if it comes to it, to preserve liberty.”

Image

Keeping in mind the laundry list of things considered “infringement of rights” by the broader fascist and proto-fascist right- gay marriage, integrated public schools, teaching of science in public schools- this should give anyone concerned with civil liberties concern. Further, What the “three percenters” are saying is that three percent of the American population has no problem with imposing its will, at gunpoint, on the rest of us. These aren’t loons meeting in a basement, discussing radical ideas among themselves. These are highly trained men and women with the means to do to me and you precisely what they accuse the government of secretly plotting to do to them. And by all accounts the military is riddled with them.

Again, if nothing were happening in the real world, this would still be cause for concern. But there are things happening out here in the real world. Repeated provocations and threats against civilian government, a military brass which increasingly forgets that it is subject to civilian overview, and a number of street level movements which have no qualms about resorting to violence against workers and open discussion are things which cannot be ignored.

Image

Nor can we ignore the role of the media in emboldening these political vermin. As a final note, I would like to draw your attention to the head of the racist, fascist, anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying British National Party and his recent appearance on the BBC. To give some context, this would be like inviting the head of the KKK to speak on 60 Minutes as if he were the leader of a legitimate political movement and not a terrorist group directed at Blacks, homosexuals, and foreigners. For his own part, Nick Griffin seems to have a better understanding of the PR coup he has pulled off than do the people at the BBC. It doesn’t really matter if he is savaged with questions. The BBC has effectively said that fascism is as legitimate a point of view as liberalism or conservatism- both of which anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I abhor. But at least the Brits have some clue how to deal with it.

Fasten your seat belts, kids. The 2010s are going to be a bumpy ride, indeed.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 23 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:17 pm

*cue in "The Caisons Go Rolling Along"*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3EV9wzROws

Get the folks on the fringes of the Duopoly to view each other as fascists and socialists...

and the Duopoly goes rolling along.

What a dupe job.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:44 pm

Yes- but it's very important what your principles actually are.

As Malcolm X said:

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.




...
Last edited by American Dream on Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sounder » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:07 pm

The comments at AD’s link are fairly decent and balanced. I do not want to dignify this slander with any further participation, or the sure to come imputations that I sympathize with Oath Keeper ‘nutjobs’, and therefore do not deserve consideration from this community. I do think it’s a bit sad that this guilt by association routine gets such great mileage, given that it’s coming from an intolerant place that masks itself as being tolerant.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:10 pm

Sounder, if you had ever wanted to articulate a critique of the Oath Keepers you could have done so at any time.

I honestly don't feel that your thinking is so clear here.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sounder » Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:21 pm

I do critiques of the general structure of the human psyche and its changing relation to reality.

You critique Oath Keepers, fine, for my part, I not going to eat the bait thrown out by some fisherman with a surplus of hooks.

Now, suck on that, these are my last word here.
(Said with love and compassion.)
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:21 pm

But Sounder, you spent page after page essentially defending the Oath Keepers.

Nobody made you do that.


Maybe a critique "of the general structure of the human psyche and its changing relation to reality" is not enough, all by itself...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby DoYouEverWonder » Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:53 pm

23 wrote:*cue in "The Caisons Go Rolling Along"*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3EV9wzROws

Get the folks on the fringes of the Duopoly to view each other as fascists and socialists...

and the Duopoly goes rolling along.

What a dupe job.
We shouldn't ignore what people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are doing to feed the fascist mentality. If someone of these idiots didn't have such easy access to weapons and explosives, I'd just laugh at them.
Image
User avatar
DoYouEverWonder
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:24 am
Location: Within you and without you
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:01 pm

American Dream wrote:Yes- but it's very important what your principles actually are.

As Malcolm X said:

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

...


Ones principles are illustrated by what one does, rather than what one says or writes or posts. Talk is cheap, Ctrl-C Ctrl-V cheaper.

I read that article thinking there was going to actually be something about the BNP and Oath Keepers. There wasnt.

The best way for dealing with the BNP is expose their policies clearly and address their sources of political advantage systematically. Making the twit who leads them into a martyr (and really appealing to the part of the British character that dislikes bullying and goes for the underdog) - by turning the programme he was on into a 'bear pit' - was really stupid. Loads of the interviews conducted by the BBC afterwards indicated people being pissed at how he was treated. The guy himself is not very bright and travels around with a group of 'heavies' as protection all the time.

I find the tenor of most of these anti-Oath Keepers articles hysterical, poorly researched, narcissistic nonsense of the worst sort, as bad as Cockburn on 9/11.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:06 pm

Yes, but it sounds like you're pretty supportive of the Oath Keepers.

Don't you have concerns about them?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby lightningBugout » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:13 pm

stefano wrote:
lightningBugout wrote:To be a true constitutionalist necessitates paying attention not just to sexy fantasies that the feds are going to take away rural people's guns, but also acknowledging that things like institutional racism are about as unconstitutional as you can get. I have never, ever, not once seen a patriot / constitutionalist / militia group incorporate combating the constitutional violations inherent to social inequity / racism / sexism / homophobia into their platform.


I think you're reaching a bit there wrt what the Constitution says. It definitely doesn't contain a snappy line like "The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth". The only mention of equal rights for all races is an amendment giving equal voting rights. So the only race issue that's strictly speaking constitutional is the disenfranchisement of black voters. You're definitely reaching with sexism and homophobia: the Constitution doesn't say anything about homosexuality and had to be amended in 1920 to give women the vote. It's basically a set of procedures (including how to count Indians and how to claim runaway slaves), but some of those procedures are pretty good checks on a too-powerful executive.


I am definitely not reaching. The spirit of the Declaration and Constitution both is the sanctity of natural rights. Given the gross abuse of liberty expressed in social inequity in this country, the dearth of its recognition among those groups claiming to be motivated by the spirit of our foundational principles is very meaningful. These groups fetishize formal manifestations of state oppression. If the government doesn't literally impose martial law, or seize handguns, and the cops don't start carrying assault rifles en masse, then their mission is largely accomplished. Because it is so utterly surface.

lightningBugout wrote:You apparently have no clue where I am coming from. It feels like your responses to me are directed at some generic "liberal' on whom you've projected a bunch of assumptions.

Possibly. In fact, after reading that longer post of yours, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. But I wouldn't have had that idea of you if your first post in this thread had been clearer, or if you hadn't posted that "be careful, you're starting to sound racist" crap in the other thread (you're right, I didn't read any more of it). In this thread, I'm criticising bloggers who attack a group that publicly declares its refusal to obey unconstitutional orders, because the bloggers lump them (without even looking for real evidence) in a category with militias, neo-Nazis, the KKK, etc. I think that's bullshit and said so, that's all. What's a lot more pernicious is that this liberal snobbery is used as a driver to paint a defence of the Bill of Rights as extremist behaviour. Have another look at that cartoon: "constitution" is as much blah blah as "birth certificate" and "detention camps". Funny, hey?


White Nationalists also frequently frame their agenda by reference to the Constitution and the Declaration. Same with the militia and patriot sets. In fact, the Michigan Militia, for instance, constantly claims a biased media is neglecting to portray them in their true light as, a group dedicated to defending the constitution. Which of course means wearing camo and doing target practice while talking about Obama's socialism. Are you even familiar with the militia movement? The Oath Keeper's stated principles are basically identical. I suppose I find it difficult to respond effectively to this because you seem to be willfully ignoring the real historical context in which the Oath Keepers emerged.

Regardless.

Six months ago, Steve Quayle interviewed a republican provocateur who was a psychological operations specialist that worked in several white houses just beneath Kissinger, including the first Bush senior administration. The purpose of his interview? Literally telling the troops to stop obeying Obama as he was in violation of the constitution. I posted about it here around that time and when I first heard about the Oath Keepers, that was my first thought. That they represented the first manifestation of a response to what, I'm guessing, is a fairly well fleshed-out Psy-Op. Among other things, what the fuck is someone with this guy's pedigree doing on Steve Quayle? When I looked him up, he had previously been on AJ in 2002-3. Huh? A former psy-ops specialist with an impeccable pedigree is making a habit of appearing on the less-grounded and more inflammatory CT radio shows? Particularly interesting given that on AJ he spent the entire time talking about 9/11 being a false flag operation and one that involved "MK Ultra sleeper agents."

And, as I pointed out previously when posting about him, Stormfronters, for example, simply loved it:

A Storm-Fuck wrote:]The [interview] is about the destruction of the constitution and mostly American politics and former presidents and things they did and how the Obama administration is very corrupt and made up 90 percent of the same people who were in the Clinton Administation and he's a jew or Italian by the sound of his voice and the way he choses his words, but I will not say more because he could be a 'good' one..


So maybe a psy-ops specialist who has a PHD in psychiatry but has also worked in espionage, by his own admission, that served under Kissinger is really some sort of patriot whistleblower. And, following that, maybe the Stormfronters, despite being Nazi shits, are right about the decimation of the constitution part.

Or, call me paranoid, but maybe, just maybe, the Oath Keepers are pawns in the incredibly predicable historical drama very slowly unfolding as I type this.
"What's robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?" Bertolt Brecht
User avatar
lightningBugout
 
Posts: 2515
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 3:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:26 pm

American Dream wrote:Yes, but it sounds like you're pretty supportive of the Oath Keepers.

Don't you have concerns about them?


I have concerns about everything. Seriously.

If I was to express my concern 'pie', so you have a clearer understanding


50% Lifehacking RAK Making better music. Writing. DO-ing my best to realise my potential so I make better use of all the resources available to me in terms of time, money, opportunities, attention, focus.

25% How Palestinians are treated and the effects of global zionism / metagroup / secret societies which includes all 9/11 related Peter Dale Scott scenarios and elites

20% Friends and family concerns

10% The march towards fascism by the US government, more Afghanistan, police state corruption.
Anti extreme Right clocks in at about 3%. If you havent placed yourself in public between a terrified Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and three BNP supporters about to kick his head in and seen the fuckers off, dont fucking berate me on where I fucking stand on the fucking far right, do you fucking underfucking stand? Take the fucking log out of your own fucking eyefuckingball. (Just being 'frank')
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:30 pm

So have you ever expressed much concern about the Oath Keepers?

How do they look through your personal lens?


I've noticed you mostly defending them.


Is there something more to your perspective on these people?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:48 pm

American Dream wrote:So have you ever expressed much concern about the Oath Keepers?

How do they look through your personal lens?


I've noticed you mostly defending them.


Is there something more to your perspective on these people?


Nah, Im not really defending, more acting as a meme filter, I'm mostly pointing out that generally what you are posting about Oath Keepers is flabby sub Cockburn 9/11 nonsense.

ANYWAY, I hope you will answer this V V

I have noticed that you employ language which seeks to divide. Can you tell me where you get these conversational devices from? I imagine that you are a Marxist. If so, would you tell me what flavour? Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Old fashioned Union/ Blue Collar Dem Left? 60s Gramsci theorist? Is there a source of how you 'engage' that you would be willing to reveal?.

Most of my questioning tends to be informed by

Landmark related approaches, which derive from areas like Gordon Pask's work on 'Conversation'.

NLP using tools like the MetaModel and Milton model.

You use a similar structure of questions with me on most occasions regardless of the subject matter.

I am really curious about that, because I am interested in different epistemologies (we have a shared affinity for Rosenberg's NVC though both of us use it probably less than we ought to)
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests