US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[Wise Fool]

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link? Keep in mind the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology. They may have wacky theories to explain this stuff, and their solutions may be ill-advised, but it seems to me that they are responding to a very real problem: the growth of the security/surveillance state and militarization of law enforcement/federal bureaucracies. If they are guilty of paranoia, the Feds are even more so

More so? I don't see how. Seems to me both are in a general response to the idea of Islamic terrorism after 9/11. Militia units to resist the Muslim (and now Communist/Socialist/Marxist) invasion, federal units to do the same but also with the constant understanding that the second amendment is there so people can always violently revolt against the government. You paint it as the militia are responding to federal incursion (which is always, and always has been, their story, quite before there a Railroad Retirement SWAT unit) when it may just as easily be the other way around. Particularly since domestic terrorism *is* a thing.

[all swedes are racist]

I've been wanting to read Brian Doherty's "Rise of the Warrior Cop" for some time, it's apparently one of the best sources on this issue. But yes it's very frightening, it almost seems like they're preparing for something :uhoh:

On the other hand, general trends can usually explain these things better than deliberate conspiracies. In hindsight it almost seems inevitable that decades of the military-industrial complex, paranoia about drugs/terrorism, and constant post-9/11 warfare would eventually come home to roost in the form of armed Railroad Retirement Agents

Hey man, awesome. I think this is a great post.

I really have to agree with you on the second thought there. I was thinking, while frightening, the militarization of law enforcement (and... Other shit?) is not entirely surprising. Between the overall, if gradual/long-term, trend towards polarization )"it's us or them!"), violent, "swift, decisive" action; and the very real fact of the vast amount of money and resources directed towards the military, defense, and other "security" type shit, various agencies and organizations would eventually be scrambling over each other for a bite of that pie.

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link? Keep in mind the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology. They may have wacky theories to explain this stuff, and their solutions may be ill-advised, but it seems to me that they are responding to a very real problem: the growth of the security/surveillance state and militarization of law enforcement/federal bureaucracies. If they are guilty of paranoia, the Feds are even more so

Unfortunately, I just can't sympathize too much. While I have serious doubts as to the lack of violent and/or racial/tribal/whatever goals of most of these groups, I don't have any kind of data to disprove your claim, and you could totally be right. To me, they are, at the very least, just as wrong as the government agencies that are increasingly "strapping up". Despite our right the bear arms, or to defend oneself against aggression, I feel the use of violence, including the explicit or implicit threat of violence, is totally undesirable, at best an extraordinary last resort. An even then, if violence is the only practical solution, it's still not ducking right, simply the lesser of two evils.

Basically, I think the root of the problem comes down a case of self-fulfilling prophecy (if there is a more appropriate or intelligent term in this case, seo e let me know. Something in Latin would sound way better...) when you have a group of people, whether it be a citizen militia or enforcement arm of government agency, arming and preparing to fight or defend against some "other", sent threat or enemy, they will eventually find that enemy, maybe legitimate, maybe not, but dollars to donuts some degree of conflict will come from it.

[Prosesskrift]

I think parts of the whole rancher issue is blown somewhat out of proportion. I have a great deal of sympathy for the rancher himself, and to be honest I feel a person would have to be rather callous not to feel sympathy here. The rancher's entire livelihood, his act of life and his family history, one could say his core identity, is coming to an end. He's fought it and failed. Legally he has no leg to stand on but it's hard to give up when the choice is to leave behind everything that makes you you. So he refuses. Had I been in his situation I might have done the same. Knowing it's wrong, even illegal, it would still be hard not to.

The people showing up in support though. They are the ones turning this from the understandable reaction of one man to a completely unacceptable situation. One would have to be entirely blinded by partisan politics to cheer them on I think. Unless one is an honest to god anarchist I suppose.

[Lightysnake88]

I think parts of the whole rancher issue is blown somewhat out of proportion. I have a great deal of sympathy for the rancher himself, and to be honest I feel a person would have to be rather callous not to feel sympathy here. The rancher's entire livelihood, his act of life and his family history, one could say his core identity, is coming to an end. He's fought it and failed. Legally he has no leg to stand on but it's hard to give up when the choice is to leave behind everything that makes you you. So he refuses. Had I been in his situation I might have done the same. Knowing it's wrong, even illegal, it would still be hard not to.

The people showing up in support though. They are the ones turning this from the understandable reaction of one man to a completely unacceptable situation. One would have to be entirely blinded by partisan politics to cheer them on I think. Unless one is an honest to god anarchist I suppose.

How is his reaction worthy of sympathy or support? Here's all it comes down to: he is illegally using land that he has never owned. His ancestors never owned it. To use it, he would have to pay a grazing fee. He isn't failing to do that because it's too much, it's because he doesn't recognize the federal government's authority. He tried to pay the county and the state who informed him flat out he's paying the wrong people and he doesn't care.

So inform me precisely how he's in such danger? He's simply an over-priviliged asshole and black folks get called freeloaders and welfare queens if they pull one tenth of the crap Bundy's pulled in this.

[Prosesskrift]

In danger? Support? I think you might have quoted the wrong post.

[ThinkerX]

But the timing is kind of weird with this Bundy guy. For all of what I just said, this guy seems like he really was just off in utter lunatic territory. He really was fucking with the law in all kind of ways. That's not analagous to an armed gov't unit just rolling into someone's home because their family member is maybe in debt or something.

Talabi pointed out something relevant here in his most recent book (Divide). Violent crime, and most other sorts of crime are going down. Yet the prison system is packed completely full and then some...because being poor, or different, is now considered to be a crime.

This does not apply to the rich - by and large those deliberately creating this poor = criminal mentality.

Those making the laws these days are making said laws to serve themselves. Further, they are demonstrably highly corrupt.

Therefor, at some point, law breaking might become the morally right thing to do, because obeying the law is either immoral or self destructive.

[grumdin]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/18/harry-reid-defends-domestic-terrorists-comments/

In a blunt exchange that hit on a major American divide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, stood by his comments that militia groups involved in a ranch standoff are“domestic terrorists,” while the state’s Republican senator, Dean Heller, replied that he considers them “patriots.”

The two men appeared Friday afternoon on KSNV’s “What’s Your Point?” question-and-answer show.

The first question went to Reid, about his comments that a few hundred people protesting and blocking federal action against rancher Cliven Bundy are “domestic terrorists.”

“What did you mean by that?” co-host Amy Tarkanian asked.

“Just what I said,” Reid responded.

Cliven Bundy, for failure to pay fees to the Feds: DOMESTIC TERRORIST

Nadil Malik Hassan, for shooting dead 13 people whilst screaming Allah u Akbar: DISGRUNTLED CO-WORKER

[Inigima]

You want to make, and support, an actual argument, or would you rather invent elaborate conspiracy theories in your head?

[grumdin]

How is his reaction worthy of sympathy or support? Here's all it comes down to: he is illegally using land that he has never owned. His ancestors never owned it. To use it, he would have to pay a grazing fee. He isn't failing to do that because it's too much, it's because he doesn't recognize the federal government's authority. He tried to pay the county and the state who informed him flat out he's paying the wrong people and he doesn't care.

So inform me precisely how he's in such danger? He's simply an over-priviliged asshole and black folks get called freeloaders and welfare queens if they pull one tenth of the crap Bundy's pulled in this.

His beef was not that he had to pay fees to the Feds, his beef was that the Feds refused to use the fees for the purpose THEY had promised him, and other ranchers, it would be used for, to maintain and improve the land.

[Rorshach]

"Trolling" in this case meaning posts from people who aren't on the left end of the spectrum?

No, trolling in this case means anti-semitic (among other things) rambling.

[sologdin]

heh. most of the interlocutors in the thread aren't on the left end.

[Rorshach]

heh. most of the interlocutors in the thread aren't on the left end.

I guess you play wide left?

But, yeah, compared to Norway (where I happen to belong), this thread is generally right and righter..

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link? Keep in mind the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology. They may have wacky theories to explain this stuff, and their solutions may be ill-advised, but it seems to me that they are responding to a very real problem: the growth of the security/surveillance state and militarization of law enforcement/federal bureaucracies. If they are guilty of paranoia, the Feds are even more so

Absolutely not. You can say the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology, but it's bullshit. The militia movement is tied to white supremacy and the hysterical mentality that white people are under siege in this country, and this is the strain of thinking that gave us McVeigh and Oklahoma City. It's a bunch of crazy people getting together with guns and, if they do anything, it's going to be to hurt people.

That National Review article is a joke. The Department of Education has a "SWAT Team"? Support the militias! Obama withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan? Immoral!

Law enforcement, the military, and the overall national security apparatus of this country has gotten way out of control- but it gets the attention of the National Review when the FDA gets involved. I'm going to go ahead and say there are far bigger issues than the DoE or FDA having law enforcement branches, which are just absurd symptoms of national security bloat, and not the actual problem. But what do the rightwing scare mongers peddle to rile up batshit militia men? Some jackass who refused to recognize the Federal government and pay some fees and, hey, did you hear that the FDA has a SWAT team? Give me a break. The right wing and the militia gets outraged over police and national security abuses only when it affects a very specific type of person, they're perfectly content for state power to be used against the less worthy types.

[Horza]

I guess you play wide left?

But, yeah, compared to Norway (where I happen to belong), this thread is generally right and righter..

solo is a classic no.11, has classy touches to nutmeg dogged rightbacks but it's all touchline hugging and pinpoint crosses, none of that inverted-winger fancy-dannery.

[sologdin]

is that cricket talk, or something?

[grumdin]

Absolutely not. You can say the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology, but it's bullshit. The militia movement is tied to white supremacy and the hysterical mentality that white people are under siege in this country, and this is the strain of thinking that gave us McVeigh and Oklahoma City. It's a bunch of crazy people getting together with guns and, if they do anything, it's going to be to hurt people.

That National Review article is a joke. The Department of Education has a "SWAT Team"? Support the militias! Obama withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan? Immoral!

Law enforcement, the military, and the overall national security apparatus of this country has gotten way out of control- but it gets the attention of the National Review when the FDA gets involved. I'm going to go ahead and say there are far bigger issues than the DoE or FDA having law enforcement branches, which are just absurd symptoms of national security bloat, and not the actual problem. But what do the rightwing scare mongers peddle to rile up batshit militia men? Some jackass who refused to recognize the Federal government and pay some fees and, hey, did you hear that the FDA has a SWAT team? Give me a break. The right wing and the militia gets outraged over police and national security abuses only when it affects a very specific type of person, they're perfectly content for state power to be used against the less worthy types.

McVeigh was not a white supremacist. His stated reason for his appalling act was the Federal government burning to death 76 men, women and children in Waco Texas in 1993. The militia movements range from libertarians, constitutionalists, sovereign Christians and states rights advocates. Race is decidedly not a big issue for them. You should stop reading garbage pumped out by left wing hate groups and maybe go do some research for yourself.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

McVeigh was not a white supremacist. His stated reason for his appalling act was the Federal government burning to death 76 men, women and children in Waco Texas in 1993. The militia movements range from libertarians, constitutionalists, sovereign Christians and states rights advocates. Race is decidedly not a big issue for them. You should stop reading garbage pumped out by left wing hate groups and maybe go do some research for yourself.

You're seriously defending Timothy McVeigh? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Rorshach]

is that cricket talk, or something?

Nah, that was poetry.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Can you guys maybe, just maybe, find some sympathy for the fears of the dreaded Militia Movement now, after reading Commodore's link? Keep in mind the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology. They may have wacky theories to explain this stuff, and their solutions may be ill-advised, but it seems to me that they are responding to a very real problem: the growth of the security/surveillance state and militarization of law enforcement/federal bureaucracies. If they are guilty of paranoia, the Feds are even more so

To some small degree, yes. The list of agencies that was posted upthread that have inhouse SWAT teams is scary, no doubt. That being said, this seems to be a bit of a symbiotic relationship. You could make the argument that many of these agencies are requesting their own SWAT units in response to the kind of nonsense that just occurred in Bunkerville.

Non-violent doesn't really fly for me when you're describing a group of people who are amassing firearms and ammunition. If you are truly non-violent, you wouldn't have the desire or need to join or form an armed militia.

[DreamSongs]

To some small degree, yes. The list of agencies that was posted upthread that have inhouse SWAT teams is scary, no doubt. That being said, this seems to be a bit of a symbiotic relationship. You could make the argument that many of these agencies are requesting their own SWAT units in response to the kind of nonsense that just occurred in Bunkerville.

Non-violent doesn't really fly for me when you're describing a group of people who are amassing firearms and ammunition. If you are truly non-violent, you wouldn't have the desire or need to join or form an armed militia.

I agree.

If the agencies involved don't have a plan in place, then they are held responsible when a situation goes horribly wrong. Guns and a mob mentality don't go well together.