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

[stefano]

Oh, hello. This thread certainly had a big weekend... Thanks all.

AD, c2w and lbo - I've looked over some other parts of the Oath Keepers' site and you're right, the outfit does smell of far-right militia. Perhaps that wasn't Rhodes's plan when he started it (I don't think it was), but he very clearly doesn't mind the nuts joining his little posse. So it's plainly not the best real-life case to use to argue my position, and I'll leave it at that. Fingers crossed that a real Constitutionalist movement pops up and gets furiously shot down by the left-authoritarians so we can have this chat again.

Re the Constitution, my point was that the Oath Keepers (the Platonic-ideal ones, the ones I had in my head on Friday) had vowed to defend the Constitution, and it seemed unfair to hold them to a progressive interpretation of it instead of just what it actually says. Good point about the unconstitutional war that they're not making a big noise about, though. I hadn't seen the photo of the soldier with his "Oath Keepers" tab, or the fawning comments on the page below that.

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.

[American Dream]

stefano, it's good- and very refreshing- to see real signs of life inside someone's brain with regards to all this...

[Searcher08]

stefano, it's good- and very refreshing- to see real signs of life inside someone's brain with regards to all this...

A_D TRANSLATION SERVICE
I like what you have said because it fits my views!!

[American Dream]

Searcher, it is refreshing to see someone who actually does exhibit critical thinking skills, and- very, very importantly- does seem to have a politically coherent point of view. You could learn a lot from him...

Instead you are showing us all the truth to Malcolm X's observation, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"...

[23]

Searcher, it is refreshing to see someone who actually does exhibit critical thinking skills, and- very, very importantly- does seem to have a politically coherent point of view. You could learn a lot from him...

Instead you are showing us all the truth to Malcolm X's observation, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything"...

AD's Back-up Translation Service
"If your views align with mine, then I will conclude that you are thinking critically and coherently."

I love that quote of Malcolm's too. And note that he didn't say lean, but stand.

I'm not sure that a left- or right-leaning stand qualifies as a firm and sure-footed one. But if leaning is what you've been accustomed to, and is the only way that you know how to stand (at the moment), then so be it.

Things appear the way that they do now. Until they don't. And then you might decide to stand differently.

Happy leans, as long as you are leaning!

[American Dream]

23, neither Searcher nor yourself have evidenced much in the way of strong critical thinking skills nor of a coherent political analysis.

Sorry, but this is how I see it. I don't imagine I'm the only one either.

[Searcher08]

23, neither Searcher nor yourself have evidenced much in the way of strong critical thinking skills nor of a coherent political analysis.

Sorry, but this is how I see it. I don't imagine I'm the only one either.

In your world, do the pieces you posted constitute a 'coherent political analysis'? Because for reasons I have already written, they set the bar limbo-dancingly low.

I'm curious how you can follow the assertion in the first paragraph
(concerning my/23's lack of critical thinking skills)

with the statement in the second paragraph
I don't imagine I'm the only one either

which seeks to give weight to your argument by the numbers of people agreeing with it.

while keeping a straight face.

I found it a hoot and

I'm ABSOLUTELY sure almost EVERYONE HERE WITH A BRAIN HERE does too!!!

[lightningBugout]

I'm not going to link to Ken Adachi, who I don't take seriously, but the following does come from his site:

Stewart Rhodes on why he removed a comment by an Iraq Vet from poster that is associated with Iraq Veterans Against the War (whose predecessor was Vietnam Veterans Against the War

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.

Collectivist? This man believes he and his organization are fighting a Marxist take-over of the United States. This is what he believes they are defending the constitution against.

Or not. That is, this man may well be a spook.

Consider.

The group was founded in March 2009.

In April of 2009, as I stated above, Steve Quayle interviewed Steve Piczenik, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Psychological Operations specialist who claimed therein that the US Military should immediately stop following Obama's orders because they were unconsitutional and claimed that Obama was "probably" not a US citizen. I've been very interested in this guy ever since, particularly given that Stormfront and the Ron Paul movement ate it up.

What has happened over the past year between Glenn Beck, the 9-12 "movement," the birthers, the Oath Keepers, etc. suggests such a strong and clear pattern that I find it increasingly difficult to believe it is not being coordinated very carefully.

[American Dream]

Searcher08 wrote:

In your world, do the pieces you posted constitute a 'coherent political analysis'?

Searcher, I post a great number of articles here. It would be a literal impossibility for me to believe uncritically all the ideas that are contained therein, as often the ideas are contradictory.

Unless I explicitly say so, you should never assume that a given author's arguments represent exactly my thoughts, nor that I would present my ideas exactly as they have done so.

On the other hand, ideas and feelings expressed "in my own voice" are from me, and I do take responsibility for those.

Isn't this rather basic?

[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.

[American Dream]

I am very happy to keep this thread focused on the Oath Keepers.

I think that Jeff's guideline about keeping things issue-based instead of overly personal is a wise one.

If there are personal exchanges that really need to happen, I would be happy to participate in them on a separate thread.


Thank you lBo, for sharing your perspective.


Now:

[Searcher08]

Searcher08 wrote:

In your world, do the pieces you posted constitute a 'coherent political analysis'?

Searcher, I post a great number of articles here. It would be a literal impossibility for me to believe uncritically all the ideas that are contained therein, as often the ideas are contradictory.

Unless I explicitly say so, you should never assume that a given author's arguments represent exactly my thoughts, nor that I would present my ideas exactly as they have done so.

On the other hand, ideas and feelings expressed "in my own voice" are from me, and I do take responsibility for those.

Isn't this rather basic?

"To assume makes an Ass of u and me"

So this then comes back to what your take on the Oath Keepers is, which I look forward to reading.

The notion I find most useful here is POSIWID - which is pretty much my position

The Purpose Of a System Is What It Does

Stafford Beer coined the term POSIWID and used it many times in public addresses.
"According to the cybernetician the purpose of a system is what it does. This is a basic dictum. It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, moral judgment or sheer ignorance of circumstances."

[American Dream]

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.



Anyway:

[Sounder]

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, and what instuitional forces need to be exposed, The Fed maybe? Or, how will it be exposed without connection it to one conspiricy or another?

[Searcher08]

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?