rigorousintuition.ca

So Searcher, you think the Oath Keepers are just fine?

If not, where do you differ, and how strongly?

"What’s especially interesting about this bunch is that they were founded just this past March, not even two months after Barack “Timberlake” Obama took office. Now, mind you — during the eight goddamn’ years in which the Bush Regime was instigating illegal wars of aggression, censoring the news, arbitrarily declaring people “enemy combatants” and detaining them without charges or a trial, criminalizing Muslims and the Left, suppressing dissent, allowing torture, and otherwise generally pissing on the Constitution at every opportunity, the people comprising the Oath Keepers were nowhere to be found. In fact, when US service personnel were refusing to comply with illegal or unconstitutional orders under Bush, you could hear the future Oath Keepers howling for courts martial and trials for treason. "

That says it all. They did nothing under Bush and his crimes. Nothing. Then they form after Obama gets elected. Tells you what they are about. Thanks for posting this. Confirms what I suspected.

That schoolmarm thing you got going AD is so very special.
By the by, my first impression of the oathkeeper stuff is that it is a honeytrap. Any con requires confidence after all.

LBO wrote…

PS. Being critical of a group of consenting adults joined together based on their political ideology is not analogous to racism or prejudice.

I totally agree, and liberal and conservative ideologies can be criticized without discrediting either one by declaring that that ideology is represented by its most extremist manifestations.

LBO wrote…

With all due friendliness, I consider the following notion a proto-fascist one:
Quote

I am pro-authority. My issue is with false authority, which is not really ‘authority’, is it? False authority manifests and maintains itself by imposing an initial false premise on its surroundings.

No frendlness is due if you think I am proto-facist, so thanks for seeming friendly anyway.

I can see how you might. There are some semantics issues here, in that proper ‘authority’ (the voice of nature or reality) will not be recognized as long as we maintain a split between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘physical. Until then there will be one counterfeit authority looking to the ‘spiritual’ for order and another counterfeit authority looking to the physical as a sole source of causation. And they will bitch at each other until they realize that the source of their mutual distain is a common acceptance of the false premise that reality is split.

When I was in college I saw a speaker who remarked upon a piece of graffiiti she had seen that made a lasting impression on her. It said "unity is fascism." And, in her recounting, it similarly made a lasting impression on me. Because authority is never and will never be "true." It comes into being via submission and the consolidation of power. It is always manufactured and it always erases difference.

One of the wisest and most enduring pieces of advice I ever received was this (and I've posted it on RI once before): in any situation look at all sides but always look over the shoulder of the most powerless (most vulnerable).

There will always be those who are more vulnerable to authority than others and it will always be more just to look over their shoulders before submitting to authority than to deem any source of authority to be just before looking over the shoulder of those most vulnerable.

I like these sentiments although it might be suggested that we have no choice but to submit to the authority I’m talking about, because I’m talking about the authority of nature/reality/God, -rather than the authority of some posers that think they can control and design reality and act like gods.

stefano wrote:

lightningBugout wrote:The notion that the "oath keepers" are true constitutionalists simply because they say so and decorate their promotional materials with revolutionary war iconography is absurd.

Right, so what would you rather base your opinion of them on? Your gut feeling? An amusing cartoon of a pig with a bottle of booze? What about the oath keepers makes you associate them with supremacists? The founder of the movement, for instance, wrote a thesis in 2004 calling for 'Enemy Combatants' to be handed to civilian courts for trial, not a likely position for a violent racist. One of the directors is a Robert Gomez, presumably not white.

Actually, Stefano, nowhere in this thread have I even remotely associated the oath keepers with "supremacists." Though, for that matter, the notion that an affiliate with a latino-sounding name is evidence against racist tendencies is not historically sound.

lightningBugout wrote:Sarah Palin calls herself a constitutionalist too. Are you going to attack the next reporter who calls her an idiot?

Erm, no, because she obviously isn't one (cf. illegal attempts to get that trooper guy fired, blatant misuse of her office etc). As for people who claim to be constitutionalists and have never done anything contrary to that claim, what's your reason for doubting them?

It's pretty simple actually. 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. Unless you include the Black Panthers, I suppose.

lightningBugout wrote:Because, Stefano, that "we're cleverer than those rednecks" vibe you ascertain and describe sounds 100% exactly like the vibe Palin fans intuit in any and all media that is critical of her.

Yes, I know that. And part of the criticism is based on that. Just as part of the criticism of Barack Obama is based on his being black, a vibe that you were 'intuiting' less than two weeks ago on this forum. To you it's obvious that criticism of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her class, it's all about the issues, etc. Just take a moment to consider the parallels with RW criticism of Obama. In both cases, when there are critics using insulting language and refusing to address the things their opponents actually say and do, it's fair to suspect that this kind of reflexive tribal politics is chiefly if not wholly based on attitudes and self-identification.

You think I don't think criticism of Palin has to do with class? 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.

The Palin phenomena has everything to do with class. But not "her" class - she is educated and wealthy. The criticism of her is because she's a complete clown who is totally and completely not qualified for the presidency. Oh and cause she lacks any sense of grace. And because she's a liar. That last part is demonstrable - check out the APs cataloging of the copious untruths in her book. As I said, she's also rich - her assets total over a million bucks. But yes, I think the Palin phenomena was basically concocted as a strategy for playing off of class identity and its attendant anxieties. The notion that she is being criticized because of her class was created in a PR office somewhere and was probably run through a number of focus groups before being deemed a likely success. Like many pseudo-prole, populist conservative politicians, its a total ruse. She is no more one of the volk because she hunts and speaks colloquially than Obama is a
champagne socialist simply because he knows what arugula is.

And actually you apparently missed my point about Obama in that previous thread and apparently skipped the rest of the thread in which it got fleshed out. As if I were some sort of ass-clown who would charge that criticism of Obama were generally based on his race. I made as much clear in that OP but you seem to have ignored it. My point became quite clear in that thread and was this: valid criticism (of which I often partake) does not stand a chance of becoming a part of his popular persona if it does not clearly distinguish itself from the overwhelming volume of puerile racist bullshit surrounding his mystique. Like, for example, that comment I posted from Politico in which his family are called "zoo animals." That was not "intuiting" anything - that was objective observation, in my book.

My concern about this is, in part, and perhaps surprisingly, based in my own take on how the Left blew it in their collective caricature of Bush. All that Huff-Po, late night joking, novelty item crap about how Bush was an "idiot" basically placated Progressives for 8 long year. Apparently the accompanying superiority complex and.or belly laugh comforted them through the demolition of civil liberties and the transition into permanent war. So, the stakes are incredibly high wrt what public caricature of Obama becomes the dominant one. I'm voting for: a brilliant guy looks exactly like the old boss which really drives the point home that the executive is not running the show while others are voting for "Nigger."

All this shit is manufactured. We just saw it in that "I guess I'm a racist" video, in which people feign that they are responding to a fundamentally fascist charge against them that has never been made. Generally speaking, in popular discourse, it would be incredibly (preposterously, really) unusual to suggest that opposing Obamacare was based in "racism." Yet that video promotes such a false phenomena as though it were common and as though its stars are victims. Same goes for Palin. Her handlers, I am certain, entirely understand that she's a fucking idiot (or may be acting the part very flamboyantly) and she's roundly acknowledged as such and, as expected, that criticism stirs the ire of those who feel she represents them. Duh. So simple.

It's actually fucking amazing how elegantly this works, like there's a market research firm somewhere picking issues, faces and soundbites to get a 50/50 split in the population, with variance of no more than 1.5% in any given election year. It must be in the tender document.

Yep. Exactly.

lightningBugout wrote:PS. Being critical of a group of consenting adults joined together based on their political ideology is not analogous to racism or prejudice.

Quite. My problem with the first two articles AD posted is that they blatantly ignored the oath keepers' ideology.

Fair enough. But the validity of one's own stated ideology is fairly meaningless in this day and age. Obama just won the Nobel peace prize, and Glenn Beck loves America, you know?

So, Sounder, do you have any more of a critique of the Oath Keepers than what you wrote immediately above? Like say for example concerning their ideology or strategy for change?

Sounder wrote:No friendlness is due if you think I am proto-facist, so thanks for seeming friendly anyway.

My friendliness is entirely genuine. I am only arguing that the social practice of authority (regardless of one's metaphysical convictions and opinion of the validity of said authority) always erases difference and that humans have an inalienable right to the protection of their spiritual truth as it pertains to their own person, no matter how roundly I may disagree with it.

AD wrote...

So, Sounder, do you have any more of a critique of the Oath Keepers than what you wrote immediately above? Like say for example concerning their ideology or strategy for change?

Not really, except that like with pretty much any group, there are both good and bad people and if it’s a honey trap, then the article writer (and endorser) types will be trying to put some good people in prison for having concern for our constitution.

I do not endorse any ideology, unless having the aspiration to balance order and liberty within consciousness can be considered an ideology.

Now quit asking me questions. Thanks.

LBO wrote…

My friendliness is entirely genuine.

I know it is, because I can feel those vibe thingys. Although I did slip when I wrote seeming instead of being. I also like what you argue for in the second sentence, and will try to cogitate a bit and see how that may mesh or conflict in regard to what I said about authority.

TheArgonaut wrote:"What’s especially interesting about this bunch is that they were founded just this past March, not even two months after Barack “Timberlake” Obama took office. Now, mind you — during the eight goddamn’ years in which the Bush Regime was instigating illegal wars of aggression, censoring the news, arbitrarily declaring people “enemy combatants” and detaining them without charges or a trial, criminalizing Muslims and the Left, suppressing dissent, allowing torture, and otherwise generally pissing on the Constitution at every opportunity, the people comprising the Oath Keepers were nowhere to be found. In fact, when US service personnel were refusing to comply with illegal or unconstitutional orders under Bush, you could hear the future Oath Keepers howling for courts martial and trials for treason. "

That says it all. They did nothing under Bush and his crimes. Nothing. Then they form after Obama gets elected. Tells you what they are about. Thanks for posting this.

Confirms what I suspected.

Given the Oath Keepers didnt exist then, I am unsure how they could have done anything unless they had been time travelling.

Maybe they formed at that time when they saw that Obama was 'business as usual'.

I am also sure that many of the Oath Keepers are libertarians who would have been aligned with Ron Paul's stance against the Iraq war, against the Afghanistan war and against an Iran war.

Split the revolution without me.

Searcher08 wrote:I am also sure that many of the Oath Keepers are libertarians who would have been aligned with Ron Paul's stance against the Iraq war, against the Afghanistan war and against an Iran war.

Right again, Searcher08. You're on a roll today.

Keeping in mind, of course, that there isn't only one flavor of libertarianism.

I'm rather partial to the flavor of left libertarianism, and know several left libertarians who have aligned themselves with RP on some key issues. The ones that you cited are included, of course.

So sounds like we've got a number of people here who do support the Oath Keepers, but don't?

American Dream wrote:So sounds like we've got a number of people here who do support the Oath Keepers, but don't?

OK, I'll bite.

They do and they don't?

So waddaya mean by that?

Searcher08 wrote:

TheArgonaut wrote:"What’s especially interesting about this bunch is that they were founded just this past March, not even two months after Barack “Timberlake” Obama took office. Now, mind you — during the eight goddamn’ years in which the Bush Regime was instigating illegal wars of aggression, censoring the news, arbitrarily declaring people “enemy combatants” and detaining them without charges or a trial, criminalizing Muslims and the Left, suppressing dissent, allowing torture, and otherwise generally pissing on the Constitution at every opportunity, the people comprising the Oath Keepers were nowhere to be found. In fact, when US service personnel were refusing to comply with illegal or unconstitutional orders under Bush, you could hear the future Oath Keepers howling for courts martial and trials for treason. "

That says it all. They did nothing under Bush and his crimes. Nothing. Then they form after Obama gets elected. Tells you what they are about. Thanks for posting this.

Confirms what I suspected.

Given the Oath Keepers didnt exist then, I am unsure how they could have done anything unless they had been time travelling.

Maybe they formed at that time when they saw that Obama was 'business as usual'.

I am also sure that many of the Oath Keepers are libertarians who would have been aligned with Ron Paul's stance against the Iraq war, against the Afghanistan war and against an Iran war.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty swallowing this. If the constitution was the Tokyo skyline, Bush was Godzilla. Obama doesn't have a Marshall Plan to swiftly rebuild it and may well be allowing the ruins to fester. But there was a protracted 8 year crisis in which aspects of the constitution were functionally decimated.

If the Oath Keepers are at all concerned with the Constitution, it makes no sense that it took them this long to announce themselves Where were they last year when Northcom took control over the 3rd infantry div? Palin rallies?

The idea that they organized when they realized that Obama was "business as usual" cracks me up given that I'm pretty confident these guys didn't vote for hope and change.

Sounder wrote:Thanks stefano

The folk here that promote divisiveness are just as wacked as the White Power types.

But I will admit to an exchange with a white power type many years ago. He started talking his shit and I responded that he and his buddies should all move to Idaho and declare war on the rest of us, then he could see for himself how well fags, niggers and ninnies could fight. Anyway I like the guy and he respected me, maybe cause I said it to his face.

OMH posted an article awhile back where it was suggested that the left may do better trying to understand the right rather than antagonizing them.

People that employ divisiveness as a tactic are not to be trusted.

That's you AD, transparent as glass. I saw this from the first week I was here three years ago, and you never do a thing to change my mind.

I could just imagine my conversations with a neo Nazi.

me: "So, you hate all these foreigners coming in?"

nazi: "Damn straight."

me: "Well at least we can trust the Bush government. Sure, they let the Mexicans come in unfettered, but thank goodness they went after the Muslims like they did with Afghanistan, Iraq and massive deportation"

nazi: "Yep. Them Muslims are trying to take over like the Mexicans"

me: "Yep...I mean, we can't trust em!"(I say sarcastically)
"Look what the Muslims did to us on 9/11"

nazi: "Well, that was really the Jews...probably Israel"

me: "Wait a second, I thought it was evil Muslims scoundrels?"

nazi: "Well...ya can't trust the Muslims"

me: "So wait, arent you for the Bush government blowing up those mud races"

nazi: "Um....yeah..."

me: "Now aren't you anti government? So really, you should be against the Bush administration"

nazi: "Well uh...yeah...I mean they're a bunch of Jews in the pocket of Israel and the Zionist Occupational Government running the white house"

me: "Sure, but least they're helping to wipe out the Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and those wretched Palestinians"

nazi: "I can kind of see myself support the Palestinians"

me: "But they're mud races, right?"

nazi: "Have you seen what Israel's done to them?"

me: "Man, what are you, Noam Chomsky?"

heh

Searcher08 wrote: Given the Oath Keepers didnt exist then, I am unsure how they could have done anything unless they had been time travelling.

Maybe they formed at that time when they saw that Obama was 'business as usual'.

I am also sure that many of the Oath Keepers are libertarians who would have been aligned with Ron Paul's stance against the Iraq war, against the Afghanistan war and against an Iran war.

lightningBugout wrote:I'm having a great deal of difficulty swallowing this.

I am reading this as you saying that because the organisation was not created earlier, this proves the organisation is bogus.

To me, things have got much worse in the last year, not better

If the constitution was the Tokyo skyline, Bush was Godzilla.

I agree! Obama is Megalon!

Obama doesn't have a Marshall Plan to swiftly rebuild it and may well be allowing the ruins to fester. But there was a protracted 8 year crisis in which aspects of the constitution were functionally decimated.

Err Patriot Act renewal <cough>

If the Oath Keepers are at all concerned with the Constitution, it makes no sense that it took them this long to announce themselves Where were they last year when Northcom took control over the 3rd infantry div? Palin rallies?

You yourself are doing this retrospective timetravelling thing. From the look of the website, the look as if they were set up yesterday. Where were YOU "when Northcom took control over the 3rd infantry div"?

I was going to ask what members were doing last year, but to do that I'd have to join a State group. That is hard to do in London.

The idea that they organized when they realized that Obama was "business as usual" cracks me up given that I'm pretty confident these guys didn't vote for hope and change.

Who they voted for seems to matter to you a great deal and you are speculating they were Palin supporters.
I would say probably Ron Paul / Dennis Kucinich supporters. I think whether they follow through on their oath is much more important than who they voted for.