Has a Peaceful Protest over Government Over-reach Been Corrupted by Outside Influence in Burns, Oregon?

Questions & Potentially Serious Ramifications

On Saturday, January 2, 2015, a peaceful protest took place in Burns, Oregon. This protest had been planned for some time as an effort to bring attention to an ongoing legal case involving a local ranching family, the Hammonds.  Many people gathered, both from the Burns area, and from around the west, to march in support of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, who have been ordered to return to prison for setting two fires on their own land.  Fires that subsequently spread to neighboring Bureau of Land Management property, leading to Dwight and Steve Hammond being prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.  People came to protest because they believe the Hammonds have already paid the penalty for those fires, and that the Federal government is over-stepping its authority by re-sentencing the men and requiring them to return to prison.  They came to protest the use of the Anti-terrorism law in the Hammond's case.  They came to protest because they fear the federal government is putting far too many restrictions on access to BLM land for ranchers and others who make use of federally held lands for profit.

The protest rally went as planned, peacefully and respectfully. Afterwards, there was a meeting at the county fairgrounds, where the situation had clearly changed.  It was announced that members of outside militia groups had driven to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, and occupied the buildings.  This outside group includes three sons of Cliven Bundy of Nevada, who made national news in April of 2014 for his own stand-off with the BLM over grazing rights in Nevada (1).  They appear to have come to Burns, Oregon, in support of the protests for the Hammond family, but after taking over the Malheur Refuge headquarters and setting up for a prolonged, armed stand-off, they have stated much more extensive reasons for their presence.  According to an Oregon Live article, they have said that they want ranchers “who have been kicked out of the area” to “come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control.”  (2)  Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Cliven Bundy's sons, have stated that “they are not looking to hurt anyone.  But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them.” (3)  Ammon Bundy has also said, “we're planning on staying for years, absolutely.  This is not a decision we've made at the last minute.”  They are calling their group “Citizens For Constitutional Freedom” as of today. (4)

Right from the start, there was confusion and concern over this takeover. Early media reports reflected the wariness of the local population and their lack of support for the militia group.  Questions have been raised as to why this group has taken control of this remote part of Oregon, and just who is actually behind the move.

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said on Sunday, “...these men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States.” (5)

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) has stated that he believes outsiders are responsible for the situation. He said, "What I want to do is make sure that the next step, after that frustration, is not to be, in effect, led over the cliff by some people from outside Oregon who just seem willing to take the law into their own hands."  (6) He has also stated that he doesn't think the group has the support of most locals.

Perhaps even more interesting, and even more telling, are the voices of fellow protesters and local militia-affiliated groups. BJ Soper, a member of Central Oregon Constitutional Guard, has stated that, “not only was the community's trust hijacked by what happened, but mine was.” (7)  He is adamant that he was unaware of Bundy's plans.  And he isn't alone in asserting this.  Brandon Curtiss, a militia leader from Idaho, who assisted in organizing the protest rally held on Saturday, has also stated to the Oregonian that he didn't know of the occupation in advance. (8)  Yet another protester has expressed her own concern at length over what has taken place.  A woman who traveled to Burns to show support for the Hammond family by taking part in the protest has been willing to give her account of the events leading up to the takeover of the Malheur Refuge headquarters to Sibel Edmonds here at Boiling Frogs Post.  She has done so under the condition that her name will not be mentioned.  The following is her accounting, in her own words.

An Independent Perspective from the Rally in Burns

By An Anonymous Activist

“It was a blistering cold day as we arose at 6:30 to head to Burns, Oregon. We had never physically protested before, but this case was different.  It was clear to any lay person reading the information that the Feds (and various agencies involved) were out to take Hammond's property, any way they had to.

As the drive went on, I realized I had never really cared about what it meant to see or understand what a healthy range of land looked like. I was raised a city girl, and while I had some limited exposure to horses, I never really had time, or took the time, to ponder it all.

When we arrived (about an hour early), I was so pleased to see many American (and other) flags in the corner of the parking lot at Safeway in Burns. I glanced up at our car temperature gage, brrr, 9 degrees.  I thought, 'it's gonna be cold!'  My eyes were drawn to the many people already gathered next to those flags.  A sense of long-missed pride filled my heart.

We pulled into the parking lot and saw there was no place to park, already! My Husband dropped me off at the entrance so I could purchase some flowers and water for the walk.

He went off and checked into the motel, parked our car, and walked back to Safeway. He met me inside the store.  We picked out our things and checked out.  Everyone in the store was friendly and helpful.  I stood in the entry way, taking off my coat to add my hoodie.  The walk in was cold, and I had on a tank, a T shirt over that, and two pairs of pants.  I added my hoodie, put on my hat and gloves and we headed outside.

Some background information on the rally...it was always clearly communicated to me, and the residents of Harney County, that this was to be a peaceful rally. We were all doing this to support the Hammond Family, and to protest not only the cruel and unusual sentence they received, but their special designation as terrorists for burning grass, especially where no structures were damaged, nor were any monies or resources expended for putting the fires out.  (For background information, people are encouraged to read more at www.bundyranch.blogspot.com)  I was told no 'militia' insignia, no open carry of long guns (rifles) and that if you were going to carry a weapon, carry concealed, it was a matter of respect.

As I looked around the crowd, I did see some insignia, but most of it was on hats, a few jackets. I saw a couple of long guns (but they were not seen on the walk), some side arms (some that were clearly plain clothes Law Enforcement) and I was pretty impressed.  I thought, really, getting approximately 300 people to all do the same thing was nearly impossible, and maybe some did not get the instructions I did.

Speakers started to rally the crowd. We prayed.  Law enforcement kind of had a look like, 'I drew the easy assignment today.'

Ammon Bundy did speak at the podium, and a short time later passed me on the way up the hill...he seemed distracted, serious. I did not see Blaine Cooper or Jon Ritzheimer yesterday, though from their videos on YouTube they said they were here.  I just figured there were so many people I just did not see them.

Dwight and Susie Hammond's house was on the route the protesters took (their ranch is about 50 miles away, their son Steven and his wife life there) and they came out to greet and thank them. The protesters left their flowers.  The rally was over.  It was great and it was successful because it was peaceful and respectful, from the main group.  No disruption occurred en route.

The 'After Rally Meeting' was set up where the other community meetings were held, at the county Fairgrounds. We arrived, and we could feel things were not right, clear out in the parking lot.  When we got inside, Pete Santilli (a 'YouTuber' with a radio show, who was also at the Bundy Ranch), had the microphone.  I whispered to a friend, 'what's going on?'  They replied, 'Ammon, Jon, Blaine, and some others captured the BLM building out at the Preserve.'

We listened to several speakers, each trying to explain to angry participants what happened. 'We don't know why.'  'No, we did not know they were going to do this.'  'We have no idea why they chose the Preserve as their location, please be patient while we try to find out.'  My husband said, 'I'm uncomfortable.'  We walked out.

It is a shame, really. Several people, inside Harney County and out, had concerns about a different agenda evolving.  Some of the Patriots could see the possibility that there was an “undercurrent” of another agenda at play, but each time it was asked about, to various people, it was denied that it was happening.  One man I give a lot of credit to is BJ Soper.  I do not believe that it would have been as respectable as it was (most did not know about the other plan until well into the 1.2 mile planned route), had he not made a concerted effort to communicate with residents, militia, and participants alike.  There are quite a few others, but I think he was exceptional here.  The problem is, no matter your great, respectful, peaceful intentions, someone always has to be different...this time it is a doozy.

Many Patriots are feeling deceived and manipulated by what happened. Many question the motives or true agenda of those who chose to take the “hard stand” and what will be accomplished with this “hard stand.”  Some believe this was a maneuver to force other Patriots to take a “hard stand” too.  Others believe it is a PSYOP.

What this Patriot knows? Good question...

I know I am embarrassed for the Hammonds. Their name is being dragged through the National Press, not to bring their name and story to the public at large, but as a reason why “other terrorists” have latched onto this case...as if their case and name confirms they must be terrorists because they “attract other terrorists” to them.  What hogwash!

I do believe this much for sure; this president thinks that it is acceptable to write Executive Orders limiting or taking away rights that are codified in our Constitution as Creator-given rights, that no government can take away.  Congress is not doing its job to reign him in.  The Supreme Court thinks it writes law/usurps states' individually enacted laws.  A Formal Redress of Grievance was provided to local and state officials, asking them to investigate the Hammond's case.  They are required by law to reply.  No reply was given by any officials.  We wrote letters, signed petitions.  At what point, as a people, do we acknowledge that our government is irreversibly no longer functioning in a workable manner?  Remember, any law or authority not given specifically in our Constitution is to be considered null and void.  I would recommend people start reading our Founding Documents, to really understand what they say.

As we traveled home, I was again looking at the open range, noticing how there were very few trees. As we drove into Central Oregon, where our trees are allowed to grow, our land is “settled” with lawns and peppered with non-indigenous trees, I noticed something profound.  Our settled, un-razed (a controlled burn is called razing) land did not look nearly as healthy as the land that clearly was “handled” (intentionally or not) by fire.”

This situation is, of course, still ongoing. Dwight and Steve Hammond are reportedly peacefully returning to prison today.  An unknown number of men and women are still occupying the wildlife refuge headquarters.  So far, the response of law enforcement has been limited, although increasing.  Memories of Waco and Ruby Ridge echo, and fears remain that this standoff will end in similar fashion.  And the question remains as to why this group has chosen this location.  Who initiated the idea?  Why are they remaining in place, here, in Oregon, apparently without local invitation or support, rather than in their own home states?  In today's volatile political climate, the ramifications of this action are potentially very serious, and should be considered carefully by everyone involved.  Those of us watching and reporting on this should be evaluating these questions critically.

# # # #

Katie Aguilera is an independent researcher, author, and activist. She resides in Bend, Oregon. You can check out her blog here

Notes

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
  1. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html
  2. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/03/militia-members-occupy-us-building-in-oregon-after-protest/78226600/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories
  3. http://www.ktvz.com/news/refuge-occupiers-settle-in-concerns-mount-in-burns/37249044
  1. http://www.ktvz.com/news/fbi-seeks-peaceful-resolution-to-malheur-refuge-takeover/37245518
  2. http://www.ktvz.com/news/Wyden-on-takeover-Most-locals-don-t-support-outsiders/37247064
  3. http://www.bendbulletin.com/home/3875998-151/central-oregon-activists-in-burns-critical-of-occupation
  4. http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. Great job Katie (and our anon activist)!

  2. Welcome to the site. No doubt Sibel is keeping a pretty close eye on this one, it being basically in her back yard.

    I for one find the whole Clan Bundy phenomenon to be highly suspicious. Cliven parlayed his own armed standoff with Federal agents into becoming this absurdish reality show Duck Dynasty knockoff character and the whole thing just kind of melted away off camera. Now, despite the fact that the Bundys are an obvious a candidate for continued FBI surveillance as one could name, his boys are able to get to Oregon and lead the charge on *another* armed standoff trouble-free. Couple that with the reporting here and you have to wonder if Bundy & Co. haven’t been flipped into FBI assets, with ‘go make more trouble elsewhere’ being essentially their covert plea deal. This sort of thing is, of course, the FBI’s daily bread and butter.

    • Good point, Anacardo. I also find it strange how this story erupted on twitter before any media touched it, allowing the “crazy white homegrown terrorist” image to be the front runner in public minds before the facts were addressed.

  3. Ronald Orovitz says:

    That Pete Santilli is part of this gives me pause… He seems just a little too slick, and a little too provocateurish. Meanwhile just about everyone else who can be counted as basically pro-militia, from Alex Jones to Mike Vanderboegh, are saying draw down, this is not the battle. And, indeed the timing is a little too convenient for the latest Obama gun-grabbiing campaign. Nice fodder for memes from the clueless left.

  4. “prosecuted under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”

    So still further back in time. Under Clinton even. (which would probably prompt many to say “See! It was them liberals”). My god, twenty years ago, way before the post 9/11 onslaught. “The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States.” reads Wiki. What to say…?

    The story now revolves around intrigue and what unsavory persons leeched onto it and what have you,which may or may not be important, I don’t know. My only take away form all remains what hole we, you, them whatever have dug ourselves into here. And how on earth to undo this when so many are caught up in left/right paradigms, still revere the military, have their own pet causes or agenda’s etc. Time is running out and the few that are engaged seemingly can’t even get their act together.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      The name of the law was news to me too… So the Bundys, Santilli and co. did do something worth while with this little dust-up. Otherwise an unarmed peaceful protest would have gone unnoticed. A slightly menacing protest puts the issue into the national media, and even the delusional Obama supporter might pause when they see the name and the date of the law.

      The Bundys & co. should be content with that, but this is still ongoing… http://bundyranch.blogspot.com/2016/01/calling-all-good-men-and-women-to-burns.html

      • Unfortunately, I don’t believe this aspect of the case is getting much attention, it’s buried in the noise about the Bundys being terrorists, white privilege, crazy militia, and so on. This is what I find the most alarming aspect, the use of the anti-terrorism law to prosecute the Hammonds, and the fact that the feds came back in to “re-entered” them to the minimum five years after they were originally sentenced to less. Feels like an important precedence to pay attention to.

        • Sorry, re-sentence, not re-enter. That’s an ironic auto correct. :/

        • Double jeopardy just like habeas corpus is a long-established element of common law. Double jeopardy can be traced back to the Romans and earlier. One can’t be tried or convicted for the same. Indeed, this re-sentencing seems to put that on a slippery slope as well.

          And as for “terrorism”, there is no need for nor does it have any place in criminal law. All ‘acts of terrorism’ are already crimes. Intent or motivation can play a role in criminal law but what is terrorism other than ‘politically motivated crime’? And that was already covered. It’s illogical to make the motivation for crime a crime in itself. One can pick any motivation, say anger, and make it a crime to see how irrational and absurd it really is. Now we start arresting people for anger.
          It’s reminiscent of the label ‘anarchist’ from a century ago. In case of violent acts it would in legal terms be ‘politically motivated crime’. But as the establishment at the time were shaking in their boots for fear of revolution and social uprisings, they latched onto anarchism similar as to terrorism today. “The anarchist” became the boogeyman and it was the authorities obligation to protect the public from this threat and violence. Though back then it was primarily in mere language and rhetoric.
          Today is much worse and goes deeper and further because it’s infected laws and legislation. So very much harder to undo and rectify.

          Like you say, the waters have been muddied to much to salvage this situation and get the heart of the matter back to the forefront. But if at first you don’t succeed..try, try again. Though this time perhaps with a little more planning and safeguards against sabotage.

        • White people get sentenced to five years – militia goes nuts and seizes Indian land.

          Hundreds of brown people get thrown into black holes and tortured – militia praises the military for ‘fighting terrorism’.

          I literally cannot take this story seriously…

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Yes, it’s just this sort of one dimensional cartoon of militias meme as I imagined is swarming the face-borgs and twit-feeds to clear the way for Obama’s violation of all Americans’ 2nd Amendment…
            It is the one Amendment in our Bill of Rights that remains relatively intact, and it remains that by which we can distinguish ourselves (albeit considerably in a weaker sense, given the others that have been violated) as citizens and not as SUBJECTS of some old hag.

          • Don’t be a hack, Secker.

            Just because Team Right Wing has a lot of misguided and racist ideas about ‘terrorism’ doesn’t mean that they’re in the wrong about this case, though as previously stated I’m *highly* skeptical of The Bundy Show. This is left-hivemind virtue signaling by somebody who just can’t be arsed to investigate the facts. It’s the precise mirror image of the tribalism you’re against in your first breath. Your readers expect better than that from you, and you should expect better than that from yourself.

          • I didn’t say they were wrong about this case, I said I could not take it seriously.

            The people’s whose land it is didn’t want the militia there. The people who are being given excessive sentences are distancing themselves from the militia. People in the local community have said they feel intimidated.

            I’m very familiar with the facts. And if an armed gang turned up in my town using something the government did as an excuse, the fact that I’m left wing has nothing to do with my reaction being to tell them to leave.

  5. steven hobbs says:

    Aside from this disgusting, IMHO, ackbassword grandstanding by ‘Militia Men’, I find this aspect of it despicable: “Some of the same armed “militia” involved in the Cliven Bundy affair in Nevada have occupied federal land in Oregon formerly reserved for the Northern Paiute. Ironically, the “legal” basis for starting a fight with the federal government is that sovereignty “really” belongs to Oregon rather than the Paiutes, who have seen their federal trust land shrink from over one and a half million acres to a tiny remnant of 760 acres in Burns, Oregon, where this current armed standoff began.”
    http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34284-bundy-militia-claims-indigenous-paiute-land-as-oregon-land

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      This is all the Bundys have to say about that…

      HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.

      (ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge…..

      -nothing about it being a reservation in 1872, with or without Indians.

  6. steven hobbs says:

    Hi RonO,
    You are correct, reservation status: 1897. The land was appropriated (stolen) by ‘settlers’ from Wadatika Paiutes who occupied (“ownership” was not a concept) 52,500 square miles of the land for 1000 years previously. For these ‘militia men’ to now claim this same territory for Oregon FROM the Fed (extant only 272 years) is laughable. That’s to say nothing of their convoluted interpretation of that Document without authority!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_Paiute_Tribe

    Katie’s point (above) about the militarized term “terrorist(s)” being applied to the Hammonds’ is spot on! Authority of the powerful to empower words, and claim justification to persecute, prosecute and punish is this.

  7. Katie,

    Such a pleasure to see your work in print bless the pages of BFP officially! This is exactly the kind of overview and analysis of the situation I was hoping to see covered somewhere. Many, many thoughts on the matter I have. However, for the moment, this is what I have the time for and greatest desire to express promptly. Keep up the great work and looking forward more from you =]

  8. stevan topping says:
    • Thanks for that link, that’s a good read. I also recommend listening to the clip on there of Walden’s speech, he makes some strong points. It is also the first place I’ve heard anyone in an official capacity affirm Bundy’s claims of the BLM starting fires on private lands, destroying private property and putting lives at risk. I’ve been trying to find sources for those claims.

  9. stevan topping says:

    Thanks Katie. I watched Walden’s clip. There are a few names mentioned in the link below. Also, it highlights the all too common ‘do as we say, not as we do.’ http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

    • Thanks, Stevan. This article was very helpful for me in better understanding the technical nature of the dispute and the ways fires and overlapping property play into the equation. Although I see the sentencing of the Hammonds as grossly unjust and troublesome on numerous levels, particularly the fact that it’s been designated as an act of “terrorism”, I have to admit there are aspects of the ranching culture that I find hard to sympathize with (or at least relate to), even if I believe that the BLM is very legitimately sparking the ire of these communities with the type of abusive bullying tactics being exemplified in the Hammond case. Mainly, I find it almost impossible to suppress a sense of indignation over the hypocrisy of matters pertaining to land ownership when America was essentially founded on stolen land and the westward expansion of the “pioneers” swept away vast tracts of what remained as sovereign territory of the American indians. On this front, the “militia’s” standoff couldn’t have taken place in a more poignant location.

      I found this comment taken from this article (http://usuncut.com/news/oregons-paiute-tribe-just-told-bundy-militia-to-go-home-video/) to be somewhat poignant:

      Though the tribe has their own disputes with federal agencies, Rodrique extended kind words towards the refuge’s keepers. “We feel strongly because we have had a good working relationship with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge… We view them as a protector of our cultural rights in that area.”

      While the Hammonds sound like upstanding citizens within their community and I respect them for rejecting the efforts of the militia, I think some of the less than savory aspects of the militia’s stand and perspective on the situation isn’t without context by way of relative social and ideological relationship. This also ties into a larger concept which I’ve expressed here about the sort of white supremacy where there seems to be a reaction among many within these circles that the tyranny of the government has only really become a point of contention as the gap between the mistreatment and economic disenfranchisement, most notably between blacks and whites in America has become so acute that the tokens of white privilege, be they of significance or merely a smokescreen, have reached a point where they can no longer be hidden from view behind the American flag (even if flag waving jingoism remains a centerpiece of the platform).

      So once again, here we have a situation where people like these “patriot” militiamen (who I have no respect for whatsoever) are coming out and talking about “taking back the land” (as private property, where they, the ranchers, can do as they please), viewing the Federal Government as a tyrannical force of evil (not without reason), when in all likelihood the very ranches which they’ve lived on and tended for generations were probably taken by force either with tacit or direct support from the same Federal Government. I’m not singling out the ranchers here, because this is a national item of shame which stretches from sea to shining sea, it’s just an aspect of American hypocrisy which I find particularly inescapable in these instances.

      I realize what I’ve said is highly critical and probably offensive to many people who are either ranchers or relate to that lifestyle. I’m not trying to tar this group of individuals with the same brush. I appreciated the article (that I’m responding to), because it illustrates what’s going on from the rancher’s perspective and explains the injustice in terms which I can evaluate outside of the hyperbole of the media spin cycle. As I said, I respect the fact that the Hammonds have chosen to distance themselves from the likes of the Bundys and the militia, but I feel that the particulars of this form of “patriotism” has to be accounted for in an assessment of those in association, even if it’s not “direct” if one is to make an educated evaluation of where justice lies what an appropriate response or activism might look like. I think the hostility between ranchers and environmentalists (be the word with or without “quotes”) needs to be addressed as part of an analysis of the ideological split between the left-right paradigm as it exist in real terms, not within the phony political version which panders to the corporate representatives who claim to represent the interests of the people.

      Again though; thank you, Steven for sharing. This article really provided some valuable perspective for me. =]

    • “The story is like an onion, you just keep peeling back the layers,” Maupin said.
      Indeed, I concur! Thanks for that link too, Stevan, that does give the most information I’ve seen yet on the BLM burns. All I had found before the Walden video was the YouTube video mentioned in that article and Ammon Bundy’s video that includes that one. There is so much to the Hammond story, I still haven’t made it through all the onion layers. And I haven’t even really started on the Bundy onion.

      • http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/04/constitutional-crisis-in-the-heart-of-dixie/
        This article seems to peel back a significant portion of that onion, detailing the intersection between the interests and ideology of The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, their long time dispute over issues of sovereignty and a rejection of the Federal Government, as well as the Koch brothers, who share elements of the ideology, most significantly as it pertains to business interests and an opposition to regulation on these grounds. I found it to be an informative read, which puts more of the picture in perspective.

        http://usuncut.com/resistance/dann-sisters-brutalized-by-blm-defending-land/
        Also, I found this article interesting, as it demonstrates the discrepancy between figures like the Bundys and two Native American woman who experienced a similar dispute with the BLM.

        For the record, I previously posted a link to another article from the same website, which I was unfamiliar with before. I’ve yet to peruse the website more thoroughly as I do with any media outlet I’m encountering for the first time to get a feel for where they’re coming from, but I’ve found the analysis from the two stories useful and seeming to stick to the facts and not veering off into some of the type of general slanderous commentary which has been making the rounds. As I said before, I have beef (no pun intended) with the Bundy militia, however I’m not willing to write off the nature of their grievances without taking a more comprehensive look at the origins of the conflict. My skepticism about the behavior of the government and its abusive tactics certainly makes me more receptive to wanting to understand the nature of the grievances involved. As I stated before, the article Stevan linked to was helpful in this regard.

  10. http://stopimperialism.org/is-the-oregon-occupation-being-stage-managed/
    another interesting read, expanding on my questions of whether the protest for the Hammonds has been co-opted.

    • In the US when the Left’s radicals do stupid things they are mocked, but when the Right’s radicals stage an armed takeover of land that has nothing to do with them, on behalf of people who don’t want them there, excuses are made. ‘They’ve been co-opted’ being the most prominent excuse.

      Is it possible that all that happened here was that a judge’s sentencing was reviewed by another judge, the mandatory minimum was enforced, and so a bunch of inbred cretins in expensive two-tone checked outdoors wear used that as an excuse to behave in a threatening, bullying, stupid manner? Why are these people’s actions being trivialised, excused or defended?

      That said, for a bunch of domestic terrorists they are quite pathetic. Their list of demands mostly consists of energy drinks and Funyuns…

      • Tom,
        This was an excellent article. Did you read it, or are you just condescendingly putting what Katie said in air quotes and running your mouth? Trust me, I have major problems with what’s going on and no respect for these so called “patriots”, but I recognize that there’s more to this story than meets the eye. I get your larger point, but Katie’s been leading the charge with this conversation, so in my opinion you’re really barking up the wrong tree here. I doubt this is your intention, but it seems necessary to point out from time to time when you’re coming off sounding like a jerk and this is such an occasion. I trust you have a more articulate and insightful contribution to the conversation, I’ll just wait for you to wipe the slobber off of your jowls now that you got that out of your system. (The last sentence was funny though 😉 )

        • Benny,

          Katie’s article was spot on. Have you read her expanded coverage at her site? A++++++ I’ll second that. Bravo, Katie- I’m proud of you!

          • Thanks. 🙂
            I’ve had limited contact with someone who is there, but haven’t heard anything for a couple of days. Media coverage seems so quiet. Today, driving west I passed a convoy of what looked like National Guard heading east, I sincerely hope they weren’t heading all the way to Burns. Sounds like one, maybe two new groups of militia have shown up, and Bundy may have asked at least one of the groups to leave. But like I said, the media coverage is fairly quiet, and my contact hasn’t had anything to say to me for a couple days, so I can’t confirm anything that’s going on.
            And Tom, I think this is about so much more than these guys at the refuge. I question their legitimacy in many ways, in fact I think they are provocateurs, whether duped into it, coerced into it, whatever. But, as I wrote in my last post on my site, I think what we need to be focusing on here is the way the Hammonds were prosecuted under the anti-terrorism law. I think it is just an example of more to come. And, I know people who know the Hammonds, I’ve heard nothing but good about them from anyone local, the only complaints about them come from outside sources. They shouldn’t be equated with the refuge guys.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Katie,
            “Guard heading east.. new groups of militia up, and Bundy asked groups to leave.. media coverage is quiet. This is more than guys at refuge. I think they are provocateurs, whether duped [or] coerced into it, whatever. Hammonds’ were prosecuted under the anti-terrorism law. I think it is just an example of more to come.” — Yes! Please excuse truncating. There a regular hot mess of circle j… (puppet masters) in process with populist foment. Playing fire may get one burned. Entendre intended. Many thanks. Please continue…

          • Katie,
            I hear what you’re saying. I feel terribly for the Hammonds. They’ve already gotten screwed over with these “terrorism” charges and with this whole Bundy militia scenario they’ve been made to be guilty by association, which I think as you seem to be suggesting, ought to make one suspicious. The militia is legitimizing the concept of terrorism and casting that association on the Hammonds even though they’ve indicated that they want no part in what’s going on.

            I didn’t realize you were continuing to cover the story at your website. I’ll have to check it out. I appreciate the work you’re doing. This is a very significant situation with a lot of implications, so it’s really valuable to have someone on the ground in the area who has both sensibility and sensitivity to not blur the lines between arson and controlled burns, or idiocy and false patriotism over informed activism. Keep up the great work.

          • Also, while I think of it, given the Koch brothers association and the precedent of complicity on the part of the feds in allowing extraction of natural resources, I think it’s worth looking closely at why the BLM seems to be so intent on pushing the Hammonds off the land in question. From the article on the rancher’s website, the impression I got is that the Hammonds are being punished in a way for holding out and not allowing themselves to be driven off the land, as seems to have been the case with other ranchers in the area.

            There are legitimate environmental issues associated with cattle grazing, which are worth a discussion, but that’s a separate item. Aside from that, I have a hard time believing that the feds have any sincere interests in these issues, so one might have to contemplate the idea that there’s a multi tiered co-opting that’s going on which in my opinion includes the Bundy militia stand off spectacle.

            There was mention in that article about building some sort of monument (I forget what), but like I said, I suspect there’s more to it than that. I have no idea whether the natural resource angle has been explored or whether there’s any basis for this hypothesis, but it’s just something that seems like it’s worth throwing out there.

          • Last thought (I’m tired:) –
            The minimum sentencing aspect of the case is a major issue. The judge made it clear that the sentence was grossly disproportionate, yet his hands were tied. “Tough sentences” are a political tool and social engineering mechanism and as far as I’m concerned they have no business in our judicial system and should be called out and fought against on principle.

          • Katie,

            This is where you and I seriously differ: I don’t expect what happened to the Hammonds to keep happening. I don’t see this as a precedent or a watershed moment. Sure, they were prosecuted under a pretty harsh law but let’s not forget – their sentence was reviewed and the second judge gave them the mandatory minimum. Key word ‘minimum’. Do you honestly think if a black or brown skinned Muslim was prosecuted as a domestic terrorists that a) a judge would give them less than the mandatory minimum and b) even the reviewing judge would only give them the mandatory minimum? If the Hammonds were black they’d be getting 30 years to life. We’ve all seen it happen, and often for doing even more trivial things than the Hammonds did.

            Same in this country, same everywhere. I’m guessing that the next phase of the war on terror is racial tensions and a shift to the right. Y’know, like with Gladio. It’s all about preventing any shift away from the security state. The Schengen agreement is falling to pieces. National borders and ‘white pride’ are the biggest growth area in politics.

            As such, it is possible that the armed gang, or some of them, are working for the government in some way. After all, if an armed black gang did this then they’d be shot. Instead it’s all handshakes and smiles and ‘I’ll see you down the rotary club next week’. But if they are then the purpose is not to create fear of right wing terrorists. It’s to provoke racial tension, to make it clear that if you’re black and angry then you’d better not take up arms, but if you’re white, right wing, Christian and angry then you can more or less do what you like.

            The War on Terror was always deeply racist, and it’s now coming home in the form of a strategy of tension based around race more than any other factor. The sort of hypocrisy we see in this absurd situation with the Bundy clan and the Hammonds will embolden white, right wing racists and piss off almost everyone else. The ones who will really suffer will mostly be the black and brown people who are killed with impunity, justified by the ‘white rights’ backlash. I agree that this is about so much more than a bunch of idiots with shotguns and frozen pizzas. But I think it’s about so much more than even you are considering.

            To be clear, I’m not trying to criticise your coverage of this and if I’ve come across like that then I’m sorry. But I can’t stand to see idiots being heroised and perhaps I’ve chosen the wrong place to express that. I think your work on this is good, better than most of what I’ve been reading and listening to. I have no problem at all with it being here on BFP.

          • Thank you for this clarification, Tom.

            One point I’d like to make: As far as mocking goes (by the MSM & alike), they have received tremendous amount (some of them, particular dubious figures, deservedly so). Additionally, I do see it as setting a dangerous precedence- expanding and widening the net. I won’t get into the Bundys (many questions and eye-brow raising issues there), but as far as Hammonds go: I do support their cause.

            Anyhow. One important point to remember (for all of us; always): we take pride in presenting and discussing issues from as many different perspective as possible. So far we have stayed out of this synthetically designed Left-Right Paradigms. And we’ll do everything to keep it this way.

          • “I don’t expect what happened to the Hammonds to keep happening. I don’t see this as a precedent or a watershed moment.”

            I don’t necessarily see this as a “watershed moment”, but I think any prosecution based “terrorism” ought to trouble us significantly. This has been used against various types of protests, notably environmentalist activists (being labelled as “eco-terrorists” etc). What’s happened to the Hammonds has been happening more frequently and it represents a broadening of what “terrorism” encompasses. Typically one would define charges related to starting fires and causing damages to property as “arson”. The Hammonds may have been tried and convicted by their peers in a court of law, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that people felt that the sentence was appropriate. Indeed, the judge expressed that they felt that the sentence wasn’t appropriate, but a minimum sentence (based on the “terrorism” charge) means that their jurisdiction is being overridden at a Federal level.

            Politicians pretend they love free speech and respect peaceful protest, but when the protest is being directed against the government or a corporate interest the government represents, their patriotic zeal fades like the president’s hair color while serving in office. “Terrorism” is a great way to ‘legitimize’ limitations on free speech and peaceful protest while simultaneously upholding the pretension that the government is not violating your 1st amendment rights. Sort of reminds me of the “don’t taze me bro” incident with John Kerry, but perhaps I ought not laugh (even though I will anyway 😉 ).

            I have reservations about the Oath Keepers, but in one of the interviews I listened to with the founder, Stewart Rhodes, he made a good point about the fact that what’s going on in Oregon is much different than what happened at the Bundy ranch. In the case of the latter, there was a clear sense that the feds were actively violating the Bundys by illegal and abusive means in the seizure of their cattle, but more importantly, there was a sense, based on the posturing of the feds that the Bundys themselves were at risk; that there was potentially going to be another Waco Texas. Beyond that, he stated that the Bundys had wanted and asked for the support of the Oath Keepers at the ranch. The Hammonds did the opposite.

            I have issues with a lot of those who identify with the patriot movement and the (imo) obsessively and unreasonably hardcore 2nd amendment crowd. However, I do support the right and see the rationale on the part of individuals who want to preserve the right to bare arms to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The door to door search following the Boston Marathon bombing had a pretty profound effect on helping me appreciate some of the arguments and concerns raised by those concerned about the prospect of having their weapons confiscated and thus being left at the mercy of the government under extreme circumstances.

            That said, I think the situation in Oregon underlines the fact that people’s interpretation of the right to bare arms and what that entails can be taken too far. The militia’s claims to be protecting property on behalf of the county are totally bogus and clearly at odds with the interests of the community. On some levels, I’m actually glad that people have made the point that the militia are essentially behaving like terrorists. They went there looking to start a confrontation and they’re using the threat of force to insulate themselves from the normal response that would take place in the instance of a peaceful protest. Even if the responses to peaceful protests are becoming increasingly draconian, I still see this as the only legitimate means for confronting the system. Unfortunately, this validation of “terrorism” is being cast onto the Hammonds, which as I stated is extremely unfair and dangerous.I may not relate to many of the conservative and religious aspects which (at least to me) seem to be associated with the rancher culture, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to associate the Bundys with the Hammonds for instance. It’s been communicated that the Hammonds are good people and outstanding community members and their reputation is being tarnished by a group of out of towners which they have no control of.

            The same thing happened to the Tzarnaev family (not “Uncle Russland, who I won’t comment on here). The media was allowed a free hand to paint a slanderous story criticizing their background and associating them with “terrorism” in order to sell a narrative. I remember venting at some point here at BFP about how furious one (out of many) articles had made me at the time. I believe that I stated that Americans seemed to fail dramatically at examining the facts and treating those involved with a measure of decency, so long as they were being branded as “Muslim terrorists”.

            I may not relate to some of the conservative aspects of what appears to me to be part of the rancher culture, but I think it’s critical not to let the extremes of that culture (ie. the Bundy militia) bias my opinion of people like the Hammonds, who seem from what I’ve read are good people and outstanding community members. It’s easy to ridicule cultures we don’t necessarily associate with on a personal level, but we fail to do so at our own peril. Maybe the “terrorism” charge being leveled at the Hammonds will have some sort of impact on the ultra anti-Islam attitudes so prevalent and extreme among the religious right in this country. I’m not particularly optimistic at the moment, but I think people need to recognize the divide and conquer elements and the antagonism which is being fanned by the media on all sides All people are being abused and oppressed by the same tiny group of elite, but as long as we stay divided and distracted the powers that shouldn’t be maintain the upper hand.

        • BennyB,

          I was not criticising the article, I was criticising the general trend towards excusing the Right wing’s crazy people.

          Maybe I am coming across as a jerk, but I’m not the one staging an armed seizure of land and calling it a protest. Ever since this story broke I have been unable to take these people (the Bundy clan, not the Hammonds) seriously. I cannot find it in myself to really give a toss about them or their supposed concerns, I genuinely and sincerely think the only thing to do is mock them and oppose the attempts to make them seem like legitimate protestors.

          Just for fun, here’s another one: Not only did son of Bundy borrow half a million dollars from the federal government, but when this lot first turned up they were waving the US flag all over the place – you know, the flag that is a symbol of the federated united states, i.e. the US superstate.

          From this I wonder: given how utterly confused and nonsensical their platform is, why would anyone bother infiltrating or co-opting it? That whole line of argument, when it is pursued without any evidence at all, seems to me to be about making excuses for a bunch of idiots who are at heart deeply unpleasant and entirely self-interested people. Whether that is the intention of the author, I don’t know but I doubt it. Nonetheless, it is having that effect.

          I await the day without holding my breath that the alt media actually criticises the right wing instead of saying ‘there’s no difference between left and right’. Here’s a key difference: the Left’s crazy people don’t turn up with shotguns in response to a sentence being reviewed…

          • Tom, I think the alt media as well as the MSM is mocking them. And, I am not entirely defending them, or attempting to make them into heroes. And I agree that racism is a problem that is used constantly and incredibly effectively to divide us all. But, I don’t think these guys have done this because of racism. I don’t think the local law enforcement has treated them easily thus far because of racism. Would they respond differently to armed black men occupying the building, yes, but I still don’t think they would go in with guns blazing. This is so very different from the inexcusable gunning down of inner city black people, and comparing the two scenarios simply plays into the attempts at stirring the racism pot. And, bear in mind, there is a history of occupations by members of black movements here in the US too. Even Eric Holder admits to occupying an ROTC building when he was in college, and reports suggest that was an armed occupation too. No one went in with guns blazing on that. These are quiet occupations, not emergency situations with active shooters or hostages, etc, and we shouldn’t expect the law enforcement to respond the same. Of course, we should expect law enforcement in emergency situations not to respond by shooting the nearest non-white person. I do think these guys are in the wrong, because if they want to make a stand over land rights, etc, they should be doing it in their own home states, and people around here have, for the most part, asked them to leave and don’t support them or the style of their protest. And at least one of them is well-known as being extremely anti-muslim.
            As for why they might be infiltrated or duped into doing this? Well, as I’ve written about, I do think the use of this law would alarm Americans, if they knew and thought more about it, and this takeover has distracted from that, and in fact generated more rhetoric about terrorism. Also, check this one out and consider what else this could be used to justify…
            http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/politics/homeland-security-looked-past-militia-movement-ex-analyst-says.html?partner=IFTTT&referer=https://t.co/2r2HNCf5eL&_r=0
            I certainly don’t take offense at your points, either. In fact, I enjoy hearing different perspectives, I enjoy the thinking it pushes me into, and I’m glad you’ve added to the conversation.

          • Sibel,

            “So far we have stayed out of this synthetically designed Left-Right Paradigms. And we’ll do everything to keep it this way.”

            And this is one of my problems. It isn’t a ‘synthetically designed paradigm’. There’s an increasingly big difference between Left and Right, not in terms of political parties but in terms of their approach to what’s happening in the world. Like I say, the Left’s crazy people don’t turn up with shotguns because a sentence got reviewed. The mainstream Left do not defend the police when they kill white people. The Right’s crazy people do turn up with shotguns. The Right do defend the police for killing black people with phrases like ‘they’re just doing their job’. There is no Democrat candidate for the Presidency saying that the War on Terror should be massively expanded and that Muslims and Mexicans should be kicked out of the US. So clearly there is a difference between Left and Right. The Left’s crazy people talk nonsense. The Right’s crazy people talk, believe and do dangerous nonsense. There’s a huge difference and it isn’t a ‘false paradigm’. All due respect, but that’s nothing more than a meaningless slogan at this point that denies the reality. I live in Europe, and the rise of the Far Right troubles me enormously. But no one talks about it, because ‘there’s no difference between Left and Right’ gives them an excuse to pretend it isn’t happening.

            The longer this pretence and denial goes on, the closer we’ll get to outright fascism without anyone in the alt media lifting a finger to stop it. I refuse to go along with that in the name of a meaningless slogan.

          • Tom,

            “There is no Democrat candidate for the Presidency saying that the War on Terror should be massively expanded and that Muslims and Mexicans should be kicked out of the US…”- Wow, Tom. The ONLY difference with the Left Candidates: They talk the talk, and then they walk totally different walk. That’s right. Obama the candidate poopooed Guantanamo as ‘unacceptable, disgusting, terrible …’ and promised to be a ‘real’ left president and eliminate it immediately. Aha. And what did he do? The left candidates criticized Right’s war of aggression in Iraq. And what have they done? Expanded it: From daily droning of Pakistan, to Libya, to Syria, to their war of proxy-Yemen. How about PATRIOT ACT and other similar fascistic laws: What has the left done? Nothing, and some expansion.

            I have to say (again): ZERO difference. The Right crazies vocalize and bark, and also do it. The despicable left crazies, serenade and talk-a-good-story, and then go and do same crap. A few crazy Right may show off guns and talk crazily. A few crazy left may loot, steal and wreck in the name of ‘protesting.’

            I have to say, I am surprised, Tom. Very surprised.

          • Two wrongs don’t make it right: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ferguson-protesters-looting-tourism-stealing-smashing-windows-no-peace-justice-mayhem.jpg

            But in this case, I’d say it is worse to say in two wrongs one is right and the other is wrong.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Sibel,
            “I have to say (again): ZERO difference. The Right crazies vocalize and bark, and also do it. The despicable left crazies, serenade and talk-a-good-story, and then go and do same crap…” — No. There are differences. That said, most of those distinctions are not things spoken of much here. To elide those differences, in overgeneralization, confuses important distinctions. Some examples of left (Democrat) and right (Republican) differences are on issues of: race, gender, ecology, freedom of speech, guns, voting, gerrymandering.

            Also, to equate privlaged “protesters” with non-privileged “looters” is not to recognize significant differences between the revolutionary act of “looting” against economic injustice (privileging no one other than who’s there to take), from the “looting” of public lands to privilege a few already privileged land owners.

          • BennyB,

            I don’t know enough to determine whether the Hammonds are the ‘good, God-fearing folk’ some like to say they are, or whether they are poachers and arsonists as others claim. And yes, calling someone a terrorist for committing arson is ridiculous. But nowhere near as ridiculous as calling someone a terrorist for downloading something from the internet, which you’ll notice only happens to brown and black people. I’ve downloaded all kinds of terrorism manuals and documents relating to terrorism cases and all manner of stuff on past terrorist attacks. But I’m white and largely agnostic, so no 10 year prison sentence for me.

            By comparison, arson is dangerous and stupid and criminal. I’ve known people die in fires and it was absolutely horrible. So while I don’t think branding arson as ‘terrorism’ is remotely fair or just, a five year sentence for arson doesn’t strike me as overkill when compared to the sentences people get for (for example) low-level cocaine dealing. But they’re black, so the Oath Keeper Patriot Freedom Brigade are quite happy for them to be thrown in prison for years for trivial ‘crimes’. But how dare the government use mandatory minimums against white, Right wing Christians? It clearly isn’t mandatory minimums they have an issue with, it’s who those mandatory minimums are used against. So this isn’t about government overreach, it’s about racial and religious and political identity.

            As to Waco – it’s another example of the inherent racism in the coverage of this story that tons of people keep mentioning Waco (in relation to Meet the Bundys Part 1 or this recent sequel) but never, ever mention MOVE. While both are examples of state terrorism, no doubt about it, Waco saw the destruction of a messianic pedophile cult, whereas MOVE were radicals but they weren’t raping children and claiming they were Jesus. But which one gets all the alt media attention and is used as THE example of state terror? Waco. Because they were white, right wing Christians, not black Left wing radicals. So even if they were pedophiles, they must have been good, God-fearing Americans, right?

            As to being divided – don’t kid yourself, we’re already divided. It isn’t my fault for calling a racist a racist that there are racial divisions. In fact, the abject avoidance of calling a racist a racist (to whit: Donald Trump) is what is causing a lot of the racial tension. I see no reason to ally myself with someone who claimed that God told him to stage an armed occupation of Indian land. And given that the basis of the US as a country was the armed occupation of Indian land, I don’t really see how these people are threatening the establishment. If anything, they are the establishment. Blaming this all on ‘the elite’ exonerates racist retards and religious fanatics of responsibility for their actions.

            Like you, I am not optimistic. But I find no hope in the notion of us all putting aside our differences and coming together to… do whatever. Why? Because even if I stop calling racist retards by their proper name they will still be racist retards. They will refuse to put aside their differences with black people or Muslims or whoever else and continue to be bigoted cretins. So why should I bite my tongue? Why not be honest about what’s happening in the world? Why not oppose the Right wing which is getting more extreme by the day? Why mealy mouth and make excuses for them? Why pretend they are no different to me when they are massively different to me?

            To my mind, the only thing that has any hope of success is people being brutally honest, not self-censoring their opinions in the name of ‘getting along’ with some of the worst people in our society. You talk of restrictions on free speech – how about the notion that ‘we’re all in this together’ being used to shut down criticism of people who have totally got it coming to them? Because I see a lot of that, and I’ve never been interested in being part of a vague consensus just so I can be in the biggest crowd possible. I don’t believe it will be effective, I don’t believe it encourages personal honesty and integrity, I don’t think it encourages individualism. Mass movements only work when there are principles and achievable aims for people to unite behind. Simply looking for unity without any overriding aim is a recipe not just for failure, but for disaster.

            Those are my opinions, anyway.

          • Katie,

            “I agree that racism is a problem that is used constantly and incredibly effectively to divide us all.”

            Especially by racists, like Cliven Bundy.

            “But, I don’t think these guys have done this because of racism.”

            A bunch of white Christians use any old excuse to stage an armed occupation of Indian land and claim God told them to do it (manifest destiny) and you don’t think racism is part of their motivation?

            Likewise, Cliven Bundy refuses to pay taxes because of all the ‘blacks on welfare who were better off when they were slaves because at least they had a job’ and you don’t think racism is a factor in all this?

            “I don’t think the local law enforcement has treated them easily thus far because of racism. Would they respond differently to armed black men occupying the building, yes, but I still don’t think they would go in with guns blazing. This is so very different from the inexcusable gunning down of inner city black people, and comparing the two scenarios simply plays into the attempts at stirring the racism pot.”

            In what way is it different? I’ll answer this question: the key way in which it is different is that these are white people who have guns. Black people with toys guns – the police shoot them. White people with real guns – it’s all handshakes and friendliness. That’s the difference. And if referring to the obvious institutional racism of the US police and justice system ‘plays into the attempts at stirring the racism pot’ then so be it – I’d rather be guilty of that than of excusing or pretending not to see racist cops murdering people. The answer to racism is not to pretend it doesn’t exist. The answer to racism is not to excuse racists by implying they are only racist because of the government.

  11. stevan topping says:

    Has exploring the Oregon events brought in to focus the global planning
    and management aims of all resources via the UN and it’s Agenda 21/2030
    mechanism?
    If a book based on the above question was penned, i could take an
    educated guess that the conclusion may highlight a system and it’s
    apparatus geared toward control. Of everything.(Obviously there would
    be room for improvement with regards my analytical skills).
    Benny, your thought provoking diagnosis on BFP is one i always look
    forward to. May you always encourage readers with your broad perspective
    and the manner in which you articulate your thoughts. Cheers Sibel for
    pointing out Katie’s website. Katie you are an inspiration and an example
    of real action. I enjoyed the last two articles on your seekingredress
    website and look forward to reading the previous articles. I don’t mean
    for this to come across as some sort of love in. I wan’t to express my
    gratitude. As everyone i have come across on BFP has expressed their
    gratitude to me in one way or another. I enjoy reading all points of view.

    • Thanks Stevan =] I sincerely appreciate your kind and thoughtful words on my behalf (as well as others). I honestly struggle with the fact that it’s difficult for me to figure out how to find a balance between staying involved in the discussion without eating away too much of the time I need to get things done, since I don’t write quickly when I’m trying to express what I want to say here and, at this point, I’ve basically given up any hope on brevity 😉 So the positive feedback is nice.

      BFP has remained an area where I feel critical thinking and exploration of ideas, not just superficial gossip, is at a high value and I really appreciate the overall quality of the contributions different members make here, including yours =]

      Cheers,
      ~B

    • Thank you Stevan, I appreciate that. 🙂

  12. To Tom:

    Property rights have been under attack for a while. They have been running greenies off their land for not using the utility companies for a while for example.

    And the police state is against all people. Just look at the instances of shooting white people for being homless, or, now that the police are growing ever more bold, for telling cops their headlights are too bright.

    It would he nice if you could at least find eome breakaway element within the afflicted white, black, brown, and etc populations that could realize thwt they are all under siege and work together to help each other. Perhaps they could set a positive example for others to follow.

    • “…find eome breakaway element within the afflicted white, black, brown, and etc populations that could realize thwt they are all under siege and work together to help each other. Perhaps they could set a positive example for others to follow.”
      Yes, good point.

  13. And to make it clear, that police brutality is about righteous psychopathy, and fitopathy, not race. Race was just the element that allowed police to get away with it. But now they are emholdened and are striking out at any tuey can get their hands on. Juet look at Whitehead’s or PCR’s articles on the american prison schools.

    A fitopath is a sub species of psychopath who does not desire exotic things, but things seen as wholesome and good, but which usually arent, at any cost. They desire to fit in and be looked highly upon at any cost.

    My current societal model stands at:

    Psychopath
    Fitopath
    Fool (or other appropriate word)
    Awakening
    Awake

  14. Tom says, “In what way is it different? I’ll answer this question: the key way in which it is different is that these are white people who have guns. Black people with toys guns – the police shoot them. White people with real guns – it’s all handshakes and friendliness. That’s the difference. ”
    Here is the difference, as I see it. The situation with Tamir Rice and the toy gun occurred in a place where racial tension is a major problem. This stand off has happened in a place where racial tension is not the issue, tension between the BLM and the federal government is the issue, its a major problem. That, to me, is a very significant difference, and comparing the two situations serves only to add fuel to the fire of racial tensions, dividing us even more.
    My concern with the minimum sentence isn’t the minimum sentence, and it is two-fold. Labeling these crimes as acts of terror is concerning. If we want to look at Tamir Rice, let’s ask this question, at what point does the government decide that carrying a toy gun in public, or a real one, is an act of terrorism? And that is my concern, that we are gradually allowing them more and more leeway on what they label acts of terror. We don’t seem far off from the point where wearing a burqa (sp?) is considered an act of terrorism. In many minds, it is. At what point does that make us exactly like Germany in the 30’s, quietly assuming the government must be right and that these people are indeed all terrorists and the enemy? (Because they are white, brown, black, muslim, Christian, Jewish…) My other concern is the treatment of every type of crime as the same, mandatory minimum sentences do not allow any consideration for the circumstances of each individual crime. See the examples I cited in my blog.
    Those are the points I am making. Tom, I think you do make valid points about the problem of racism, I just see that this situation should not be allowed to be made into a racial thing, it shouldn’t be used to add to the divisions. And considering how hard the MSM is pushing that on us, it seems obvious to me that TPTSB are gleefully using it as just such a divisive tactic.

    • Also, I will admit that I am optimistic, and I don’t think optimism is hopeless. And, admittedly, I grew up in rural, white, Christian America and saw what is ‘racism’ for most people in these areas not as hatred of other races but as a fear through misunderstanding of other races, or even a fear of interacting with people of other races because we don’t know how. (Might say the wrong thing and offend them and make them think I’m racist, don’t know what’s PC, and all that.) Right or wrong, that is the sort of ‘racism’ that is usually easily remedied by simply getting to know people of other races. Therefore, keeping us divided through perceived (and highlighting very real) racism works awfully well.

      • steven hobbs says:

        Hi Katie,
        “The situation with Tamir Rice and the toy gun occurred in a place where racial tension is a major problem. This stand off has happened in a place where racial tension is not the issue, tension between the BLM and the federal government is the issue..”
        In response let me quote: “JACQUELINE KEELER: Yes. Well, I’d like to start off saying that today, in January, this is the 137th anniversary of when 500 Paiutes were loaded onto wagons and walked, under heavy armed guard, from their—from the lands where the Bundys are right now holding it and to the Yakama Reservation in Washington state, some 300 miles, knee-deep in snow. And they were forced to march, shackled two by two. And so, that’s some of the background there.” — Race is an underlying issue nearly everything having to do with your criminal injustice system.

        Katie, you say, “Right or wrong, that is the sort of ‘racism’ that is usually easily remedied by simply getting to know people of other races.” — This is like saying, “Some of my best friends are _____.” — As much as I fully agree with other points you make regarding charges of “terrorism”, in the above statements white privilege is showing, you don’t seem to be aware of unconscious, ingrained, bias.

        • I am aware of unconscious bias, and that is what I was pointing out. It is often unconscious, and getting to know people of other races takes away, for most people, in my opinion, the fear generated by those unconscious biases. Understanding, interaction, diversity, these generate empathy and bring people together, these help to do away with biases created through isolation.
          I do not condone what my ancestors have done to native americans, african americans, vietnamese, mexicans, any race or religion, here and overseas. At some point though, we have to stop blaming current and future generations for those things, or we can never end racism. We will just continue to repeat those crimes, just as we continue to allow authorities to do so now. I apologize if you take my comments as “white privilege showing.” I’m just tired of all the division, and divisive slogans as well. I believe in trying to see through that, to the individual level, to find ways to end those unconscious biases that occur in everyone. And I see getting to know one another as a powerful way to break down those unconscious biases. Unfortunately, it seems leaders with the loudest voices are extremely adept at preventing us from doing so.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Katie,
            You, I and the rest of us “white privileged” folk must strip naked and self-flagellate and then take every injustice coming to us in compensation for every injustice that has been committed against non-white folk since time immemorial. Until then, Shut Up! (just kidding)

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi RonO,
            “…self-flagellate and then take every injustice coming to us in compensation for every injustice that has been committed against non-white folk since time immemorial. Until then, Shut Up! (just kidding).” — Overgeneralization, black / white thinking, and prescriptive commands turning yourself into a [white] victim (in this instance) is not appealing, or persuasive. Only seems emotionally reactive. It is not funny. Critical thinking is preferred and more persuasive than rhetoric.

            “..that was then, this is now. Let’s concentrate on the injustices in our own time..” — Perhaps you didn’t mean this as dismissive. Or, maybe a bit of “white guilt” referred to by the phrase above? History is the ontological ground of our consciousness providing us an epistimic calculus to triangulate our situation. Yes, it’s still happening. What’s it called when it’s not seen?

            There is no reason to be shamed by the term “white privilege”. As a (genetically identified) white person, it’s my responsibility to point it out. It’s a matter of contestation and (to quote a Marxist term) self-criticism to move our body forward. If it’s not there, so be it. However, it’s responsible to consider. I did not, and do not, intend or wish an apology at any point. I don’t make personal attacks, and don’t wish to affront. This is not personal.

            This Burns ‘standoff” (BS) has provoked important conversations. I give thanks to BFP and party for the opportunity.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            But seriously, this is coming from one who was once brutally beaten for the crime of WWW (walking while white) in the wrong neighborhood, which is part of the reason why I have little patience for the white guilt afflicted.

            Plus, atavistically, the distant voice coming from the Indian blood in me says – in spite of my distant Cherokee relatives taking the small-pox blanket march generations ago – that was then, this is now. Let’s concentrate on the injustices in our own time, as they present themselves to us.

          • Thank you for maintaining sense of humor, people. This helps. Because it just occurred to me, we own our house (the one we worked hard for), thus the land it is built on. That makes us (my family) private landowners, and I just found out here it’s okay for it to be torched down- since it is categorized as ‘private.’ Meanwhile, while waiting for it to be torched, I’m ridden by guilt: from my medium olive skin, to my Muslin ancestors (two generations back), my Tatar grand parents (who may have a seven-degree connections to Genghis Khan), my SE Asian daughter (who may have some ancestors who may link, in some ways, to imperial ancestors) …

        • To hobbes:

          “Katie, you say, “Right or wrong, that is the sort of ‘racism’ that is usually easily remedied by simply getting to know people of other races.” — This is like saying, “Some of my best friends are _____.” — As much as I fully agree with other points you make regarding charges of “terrorism”, in the above statements white privilege is showing, you don’t seem to be aware of unconscious, ingrained, bias.”

          Actually, it is not, and that it one of the crappiest analogies I have ever seen. She’s trying to remedy division in a way she knows how, and in which in some cases would probably work to get rid of the whole racist problem that leads to “mah frend iz blak!”-ism.

          She is proposing a solution for certain cases, a solution for the very thing you say you abhor, and you are going to make that out as a problem? WTF? It is crap like yours that makes people stop caring about racism, and which in many cases serves to support and grow racism by ingraining that very apathy. It is interesting that you wish to end racism by such a method. Please explain. She has proposed a solution. You have proposed no solution and have contributed to racism apathy. Your racism fueling white guilt is showing.

          • And also, how hell is it good to distract from an injustice by using self criticism to draw attention from the injustice?

            It is like a thief see a murderer and saying “well, I shouldn’t have stolen them jewels so I’ll just ingore Dahmer over here.”

            You know, if you want to draw attention to racism, do it. But don’t come in here telling people to ignore wrongs against the Hammonds cuz they all white and sh@#. That is the dumbest most f-ed up thing you can do. It causes people to stop caring about racism, and it stops people from paying attention to the injusticw against the Hammonds. It is the most coubter productive thing you could do. WTF!?

            I mean, it is the exact same logical pattern used to say “well, that black dude gettin beat was wrong, but lets ignore that cuz blacks iz in gangs and gangz shootz copz!”

            Guilt by association. F-ed up.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Right on, bro…. See how the whole issue gets detoured by “the race card”.

            But since we’re here…. One observation I’ve to make -it seems to me that the ‘white guilt afflicted’ as I call them are really ‘meta-racists’. In as much as they lament white supremacy, they in turn assume a position of moral supremacy. There is a bit – perhaps more than a bit – of condescension in that attitude. In the voice of devil’s advocate: Because of the wrongs that we have inflicted upon people of color, we will make allowances. People of color may do what people people of color do (criminal behavior) and we won’t condemn, because these actions are simply the consequence of white supremacy….

            You see what you’ve done there, by making these allowances -in attributing everything to white supremacy- you deprive individuals (of color) of responsibility for their own actions… You are basically putting them at the level of animals.

            Apologies if I am oversimplifying some of you here, Steven, TomS…. Yes, people are damned complex. But, I sometimes wonder if the ‘white guilt afflicted’ aren’t the biggest racists around.

            I have a friend who was raised by a Grand Dragon of the KKK, so yes he has inherited some of those racist attitudes. Yet, I have known him to make a serious effort to go beyond that, and to treat individuals (who are black) as individuals. One time he defended a black guy (I forget over what), and what did his skinhead friends do? They beat up his girlfriend! (What does that tell you about skinheads?) Nowadays he’s in a relationship with a girl who is mixed race and has a mixed race kid. But he still talks like a racist, so go figure.

            All in all, though, Id say he’s less of a racist than someone like, say, Tim Wise – the white privilege guru, with all of the allowances given to people who he seems to regard as mere receptacles of the evils of white supremacy. Tim Wise pretty much gives the game away when he tells the story about the time he boarded an airplane and saw a black pilot and black co-pilot in the cock-pit. His first thought was ‘oh how nice,’ his second thought was ‘OMG we’re all gonna die!!!’ -Yeah, racist.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi RonO,
            “…People of color may do what people people of color do (criminal behavior)..” — As suggested to A Name, please examine “attribution error”. This one is racist of the sort that occurs with white privlige. Additionally, as much as you are correct to point to the complexity of multiple factors in social analysis. Declaring ‘meta-racists’ to support a mind reading assumption, i.e. an intention to derail, proves nothing. Your building a straw man and painting my (misspelled) name on it.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi RonO,
            A little more on this topic. You are equating “white privilege” with “white guilt”. Equivalence between these has not been demonstrated. Filling your arguments with declarative statements doesn’t prove anything. Implying my meaning doesn’t make it so. Coining a phrase, “meta-racist”, may be fun, but seems a useless distraction without logical scaffolding. The vignette told by Wise, you report, was his attempt to show how ingrained and under the surface blindness to white privilege can be — even for those who’ve worked very hard to eliminate it. Lets remember unconscious neurological bias against blacks has been demonstrated in blacks too, just less so than whites. If you ask a fish the most important thing in it’s world it’s not going to say, “Water.”

            I’ve been fairly surprised and disappointed by some responses here to a couple of rather mild comments by me in the beginning of the dialogue. I never intended for it to go on like this. It seems people get so fired up over “race” they twist and misrepresent what I’ve written, then proceed to argue against that misrepresentation. It is understandable for this to happen occasionally. It seems it’s rather been a bit of an avalanche. Well that’s slightly exaggerated. In any case, I’ll relieve you of any further comments to distort.

          • Regardless of you and Secker’s intents, that was still the effect. I mean what would happen if we had a story of a black family under siege and I said “Well, those negroids have a propencity for crime, so I don’t know. Here’s statistics, balh blah blah.”. I mean really?

          • A good point, A Name. It’s this tendency to put an entire segment of population in one small/tight bucket- categorized. I am enraged when people take a few rogue black persons’ deed, and stereotype (with racism) the entire race. I equally get enraged when the opposite happens. Are there some ridiculous skinhead racists among militia groups? You bet. Do they define every single militia activist? Definitely not. I’ve met many good ones, and I’ve watched (in horror) some who were ready to roast me (The Middle Eastern Olive Woman) in a bonfire (luau style!).

          • And how is meta racist any more an attribution error than white priviledge.

            And can we have en exact definition of meta racist?

            In truth I think this white privilege crap has the same source as that crap where some downtrodden non-white person looks at white people like they’re all rich cus they’re white. It is called ignorance and stupidity, not racism. Although racism can be built upon such ignorance and stupidity.

            And to be frank, we dont really allow the to do what they do. They do what they do because of a general depression, anxiety, and insecurity that permeates their communites, and impoverishment thanks to losses of jobs, illegality of stuff that shouldn’t be illegal, and thanks to the predatory culture mongers that shovel them the feeling of power in the form of self destruction and division. Racial guilt being part of that divisive wedge that keeps them and the downtrodden of other races from coming together.

            White priviledge is in fact the white side of a larger multicultural phenomena in which people of all races look upon each other with suspicion and ignorance which they use to stereotype each other. And blathering on and on about it does nothing to solve the problem.

            What would solve the problem is to go after the real enemy, and that enemy is built on pride, ignorance, stupidity, them evil folks over there ism, greed, selfishness, I art better than thought art materialism, and so on down the line with every sin related to pride and envy, both of which are two sides of the same coin. That enemy is supported by these things and thrust into high places and finely adorned with position and power by them. That is where attention must be focused. And the best way to deal with that is to call out these wrongs of power when they happen, and to not detract from them simply because some ancestor did evil or because they’s racist! Or because they’s black or muslim or whatever. The race card silences all with ridicule, whether it is played against a white with “white privilege”, or a black with “that ni@@er”, or a mexican with “that wetback”, or a muslim with “that damn muslim” or etc…. on and on and on.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Steven, (did I misspell by capitalizing?) The line you said was “attribution error” was in the voice of devil’s advocate, as I prefaced it. And I did apologize in advance if I was putting you in a box that you are not in. However, you did say, earlier on….

            Also, to equate privlaged “protesters” with non-privileged “looters” is not to recognize significant differences between the revolutionary act of “looting” against economic injustice (privileging no one other than who’s there to take), from the “looting” of public lands to privilege a few already privileged land owners.

            Not sure if that qualifies as ‘making allowances’ but it might.

            As for the white privilege/white guilt equation. Well, I think it is safe to say that s/he who has white guilt has it over their white privilege. One can however as a white person acknowledge that there are disadvantages in being of color – an increased likelihood of being shot dead by hair-trigger cops for instance – but without assuming guilt over it. You may call that white privilege – though I would say its only a privilege in the sense of degree. White people are bearing the brunt of an oppressive police force to less of a degree than are black people – this is true. But we are bearing it too – I happened to know a white guy who, yes he was drunk, and on mushrooms, but was posing no threat and was shot dead, and the pig who shot him suffered no serious consequences for his crime. Guilt falls (or should fall) upon the individual who commits the crime or act of discrimination. That is how our legal system ought to work. Individuals are (or should be) charged, not collectives. As an aside, however, to the degree that corporations – a collective of investors – are counted as legal persons, they should be charged and punished as such, including the death penalty… But groups of people defined by their race, gender, etc? hell no. Sorry, I refuse to be sucked into a collective guilt.

            A definition of meta-racism? I’m working on it. One of the prerequisites is that the meta-racist identifies oneself and others as of a race first, and not as individuals. Race as the prism through which all light projects. That of course is the root of racism, but in going “meta” the person says not ‘”me good, they bad” but “me bad, they good”. However the “they good” is “good” no matter what what they may do. And that, my friend, is racist – meta-racist.

          • steven hobbs says:

            Hi Ron0,

            The name is a joke I appreciate, “hobbes”. You merely (sp) pasted.

            Don’t know about this phrase you quote above ‘making allowances’ (with inverted quotations). Did I write that?

            Anyway, it seems a few words have great p;ower here. Interestingly. I was curious that none addressed the quotation you grabbed. Don’t have a lot to say at the moment. I can agree not to talk about “white privilege”, “race”, “ecology”, etc., not.

            Anywho, would like to leave a few quotes from a revolutionary. One word in the next sentence is not meant personally, unless the shoe fits. You can guess.

            “Repudiating the virtues of your world, criminals hopelessly agree to organize a forbidden universe. They agree to live in it. The air there is nauseating: they can breathe it.”

            “Power may be at the end of a gun, but sometimes it’s also at the end of the shadow or the image of a gun.”

            “Crimes of which a people is ashamed constitute its real history. The same is true of man.”
            Jean Genet
            Be well.

  15. You know what would be nice, is if it could be agreed that wrongful persecution is unnacceptable now matter who it is. And really, no matter the color, one race is racist as another. Try being white in a black or brown neighborhood sometime, especially a poor one. People in general are idiotic crap. Do not let that take your eye off the real issue here which is unreasonable use of the law to persecute.

    To paraphrase a conversation from a game I once played… It was this king’s or that king’s at one point, and at one point it was the animal’s and the worm’s before them. Who gives a sh;;? They’re all crap.

    • “…wrongful persecution is unacceptable, no matter who it is.”
      I like that, A Name. Like the conversation I just had with my four year old two minutes ago.
      “Mommy, are Knights good guys?”
      “Well, I guess that depends on which side of the battle you are on.”

  16. I havent looked into this or read much other than comments, but to me it looks like they were charged with terrorism so that the feds could have jurisdiction? If this was really even arson, why were they not charged locally? Did they get a permit/permission to do the burn from local authorities?

    • To date, my understanding is that they did have “an agreement” of some sort to burn on their own land as well as on the lands they had grazing rights to, but I’m not sure this was any sort of written agreement. I also believe that they did notify the BLM the day of the first (2001) fire, but it sounds like they did not for the second fire. My understanding is it was a rapidly made decision to try and prevent the wild fire burning close to them from getting into their winter feed and other property. Of course, there is allegations they started at least one fire to scare away other hunters, and they started at least one fire to cover evidence of their own illegal hunting activity. They were initially accused of and indicted for more than the two fires.
      As for the involvement of the feds, that is because the fires spread to federal land, not state land. That gives the feds jurisdiction (incidentally the same is true for dealing with the stand off, its the feds’ jurisdiction because the refuge is federal land). The thing is, as far as my understanding of the law goes, arson as a federal crime comes with a five year mandatory minimum with or without the terrorism part. So why invoke the anti-terrorism act on this case?

  17. I think it’s safe to say you know how to make an entrance, Katie! Just wanted to say welcome and congrats on getting a lively conversation going.

  18. ALWAYS record thing. ALWAYS get it in writing

  19. Steven Hobbs says, “it’s responsible to consider. I did not, and do not, intend or wish an apology at any point. I don’t make personal attacks, and don’t wish to affront. This is not personal.” –
    Yes! Yes! Yes! Agreed, its responsible to consider. “White privilege” exists, and we should consider why that is. And we should work to find ways to extend the same privileges to everyone of every race/religion/gender/etc, rather than simply using the existence of white privilege as an excuse to further the divide.
    Ronald O says, “You, I and the rest of us “white privileged” folk must strip naked and self-flagellate and then take every injustice coming to us in compensation for every injustice that has been committed against non-white folk since time immemorial. Until then, Shut Up! (just kidding)”
    Here’s the thing, (which I think you are also getting at) white people shouldn’t have to apologize for being white, black people shouldn’t have to apologize for being black, brown people shouldn’t have to apologize for being brown…if we want to end racism, lets stop apologizing for being different and accept, and welcome, our differences.
    Sibel says, Meanwhile, while waiting for it to be torched, I’m ridden by guilt: from my medium olive skin, to my Muslin ancestors (two generations back), my Tatar grand parents (who may have a seven-degree connections to Genghis Khan), my SE Asian daughter (who may have some ancestors who may link, in some ways, to imperial ancestors) …” Point well made!
    I will only add that I learn something every time I check in here. From all of you. And I really, truly appreciate it. So thanks to all of you. 🙂

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Katie,
      “.. extend the same privileges to everyone of every race/religion/gender/etc.. lets stop apologizing for being different and accept, and welcome, our differences..” — Yes, let’s do away with privilege and celebrate difference. Media on Bundy’s racism is distracts from the”terrorism” charges issue, yet is entirely appropriate.

      Hi Montague,
      “..The whole concept of right / left is irrelevant.. The last truly “free thinking” President that America had was JFK..” — Let’s make a distinction between MSM framing of “left/right” and actual on the ground surveys and polling of people with a sense of identity. There is a difference. MSM conflates and confuses issues to provide a confused framing platform for psyops (abbreviation). We do well not to confuse distinctions, in order to better understand the operations of media. It’s important (imo) we recognize the ruses presented by that binomial language on TV. JFK was (white) privileged. Therefore, he was not as freely thinking or out of the box as the mythology suggests. It does seem his commupence commenced via a coup.

      • Montague Thielen says:

        I sincerely hope that you are not inferring that I have a bias to MSM with respect to these or any other issues. ( have literally not taken them seriously for more years than I can remember ). Yes I am fully cognizant of the philosophical differences at “ground level” between the right and left, both in the US and similarly in Canada.
        My intention was to reinforce Sibel’s point that at the end of the day, ( electorally speaking ), the philosophical ideologies of the parties are absorbed by the power mongers. Just is what it is.
        As for Kennedy, I truly believe that he and his brother were attempting to rescue your country from the insidious evil which has now so completely absorbed both your government and industry. ( in spite of their privileged white heritage ) They simply underestimated the powers with which they were engaging. And that is what cost them their lives. IMHO

        • steven hobbs says:

          Hi Montague,
          Not inferring. Not sure it is as you assume, “..at the end of the day, ( electorally speaking ), the philosophical ideologies of the parties are absorbed by the power mongers.” Shifting from abstract to concrete language within a political ideological context is fraught.

  20. Montague Thielen says:

    A couple of observations from north of the border.
    Firstly, one would have to have been raised in a rural farming / ranching community to fully appreciate the absurd charges of terrorism levied against these folks. Just INSANE! Controlled burns are done all the time on grazing lands. And sometimes they get a little out of hand. Up here in western Canada it falls under the “shit happens” category, and life goes on.
    With regard to the comments on the left / right political philosophical discussions, again, as a “northerner”, I will offer this observation. I read a book titled “Vodka Cola” back in 1979/80 written by Charles Levinson. It opened my eyes to the world of the military industrial complex, and their blatant abuse of political connections. It has been an old boys club for a very long time my friends. In more recent years I have come to realize how these two entities are both nestled so comfortably under the umbrella of the even more sinister and truly evil empire of the Zionist bankers.
    The fact of the matter is that federal politicians, most importantly your President, are for the most part not elected unless the bankers can be relatively certain that they can be controlled. ( something which Sibel is all too well aware of I’m sure ) The whole concept of right / left is irrelevant. The last truly “free thinking” President that America had was JFK. “They” simply will not tolerate anyone threatening their empire, as JFK did when he attempted to take back control of the money supply. ( many of the other “theories” surrounding JFK are interesting, as the book “Best Evidence” by David Lifton suggests, but I have learned a long time ago that if you sincerely desire to journey to the essence of truth in any matter of politics, industry or finance, there is but one path. Follow the money. It’s that simple. )

    Good night to all from the frozen north. 🙂

  21. I would like to know one thing. Is there a race that has not done evil? I mean, white folks are top dawg for now, but seriously, I do not see it being that way for all of history. Also keep in mind the evil other races have done many times to their own, just as whites have done. Some of the slaves were actually sold by blacks. Whites themselves have been slaves to their own. Especially in all the imperial wars they’ve fought for yheir white massas, brainwashed with great dreams of servitude and silly badges and awards… trinkets… bits of nothing. The race isnt the issue. This system where pride, stupidity, thought terminating cliches, bigotry in so many forms it boggles the mind, thought terminating cliches being being one of these forms, worldly wealth instead of soulful wealth, and all the FOUL organizational properties of all this, are paraded about as virtuous, this is what is to be fought. This white guilt, or racial guilt of any type, this innability to appreciate the fact that racial guilt itself is a racist institution designed to distract, as it is here, from the real issue, is just another part of it. One should have neither pride nor guilt for their skin color. It is skin, not a badge of honor or shame or any other thing. Racism comes in many forms. It is an extension of the general stupidty of the human race.

    That organizational stupidity is the foundation of the system which makes this earth an obscenity. The pride that let’s one group hold itself above another is the lynch pin for this whole rotten thing.

    I am not christian, and look upon that god as the devil, who made the devil, but I was listening to a sermon a while back where the preacher was preaching about the sin of pride, and it is a sin. Where people say, hey, I did this great thing. It always bothers me when people say “I” did this, “I” am so great, how wonderful art “I”. They alwqy fail to realize what they become as a person is very dependent on the resources to which they have access. There are many people who never become what they could have been because they did and do not have the resources they need to express who they are. Just because will and baseline potential are there does not mean that a great person will result. A genius could waste his life as a soldier fighting for a lie. Someone with great potential could have it limited due to an accident or medical issue. In the end it really is up to that great evil god as to whether or not people can reach their potential. I will let him have credit for the poor taste he has.

    I want to use that to introduce this:

    1) This pride in who people are is used to divide and enslave. If you take pride in turning your nose up at your own race or another race you serve this same crooked system. We see it here where we are to ignore a wrong because they have whitey issues.

    2) This pride not only enslaves the bottom slave race, but also the slavish classes above them. Hundreds of thousands of white men died so that some stupid f-ed slave owners could keep their stupid slaves, or have their stupid hegemony, or whatever it was that whatever particular fancy pants groups wanted to have. The slaves got it bad, especially in the latin american countries. But then again the white immigrants got it bad too being mashed up in machinery, poisoned to death, worked to death (a 24 hour shift to have a day off. Seriously.). Regardless of the color, bigotry on every level enslaves in some degree or another. You can even see this with doctors for example. They take pride in their medical training and hold onto it like a blankey while they shovel out the lies of medical companies like their were facts from god, specially noticable with vacines now that we know the data showing causation between MMR and autism was shredded.

    3) This pride is a diseaese and enslaves us all. No race is innocent. It is good to remember and speak of past attrocities. It is not good when you use past attrocities to distract from current ones.

    Seriously. Some of you remind me of Donald trump or some other “right wing” candidate bitching about how evil the muslim immigrants are and using it to distract from the fact that they’re only here because we keep letting “our” goverments terrorize them with dictators and air rairs. I do have to wonder how the Brits would have reacted if Hitler had said “Gee whiz, it is awful that that crazy old luftwaffe blew your country to hell, why don’t you come here and live in nice safe Germany. Bring some bits and pieces of your friends and family that mean old luftwaffe blew up with and it will feel just like home!”. I mean seriously. The Brits would be even worse han the Muslims, even supposing the rape stories are true.

    It is the same tactic, except you are bitching about your own race instead, and using the pride of the holier than thou attitude to get that distraction job done. Self ridicule can be a tool of pride too.

    If you want to bitch about injustice against blacks, muslims, and whoever else, go ahead. That is great. But do not let it distract from wrong against others including whites. And do not be fooled into thinking they are any better. They’re simply not in the greatest position of power at the moment.

    Man, think of all the ways people serve pride. And look at the pride we have as we have war with Russia. That preacher was right about pride. Establishing that the greatness of god is why a person is able to produce great things would certainly have a positive organizing effect on society. Instead of being the chattel of great people, we would simply be served by them. And maybe the hard on so many people have for their lies that lead to war, or autism, or whatever, would finally die down.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi A Name,
      “.. keep in mind the evil other races have done.. ” — Please be concise. It’s not necessary to co-vetch about, “Pride is the currency of division, and the sources of impoverishment. I wish I didnt have to fight this sorry phone keyboard. It would make getting my thoughts out easier.” It’s not of interest.
      Explore “attribution error”. Don’t stop.

      • Fine. I’ll start making a list. This will take years.

        Also, keep in mind that some do not have recorded histories. Also, keep in mind racism in your demand. You are effectively saying white folks are the most racist and evil people evorz by your challenge, seemingly unaware of the racism you exude.

      • After looking up attribution error, i do wonder. If I am wrong…..

        1) Why are we talking about racism? And why is this being used to detract from the situation ofnthe Hammonds?

        2) To hobbes:

        “Katie, you say, “Right or wrong, that is the sort of ‘racism’ that is usually easily remedied by simply getting to know people of other races.” — This is like saying, “Some of my best friends are _____.” — As much as I fully agree with other points you make regarding charges of “terrorism”, in the above statements white privilege is showing, you don’t seem to be aware of unconscious, ingrained, bias.”

        Actually, it is not, and that it one of the crappiest analogies I have ever seen. She’s trying to remedy division in a way she knows how, and in which in some cases would probably work to get rid of the whole racist problem that leads to “mah frend iz blak!”-ism.

        She is proposing a solution for certain cases, a solution for the very thing you say you abhor, and you are going to make that out as a problem? WTF? It is crap like yours that makes people stop caring about racism, and which in many cases serves to support and grow racism by ingraining that very apathy. It is interesting that you wish to end racism by such a method. Please explain. She has proposed a solution. You have proposed no solution and have contributed to racism apathy. Your racism fueling white guilt is showing

        3) You know the only way to combat nonsene like yours it to do one thing. Ignore it and move on with the real issues. When I see a story about Hammond type situations, I will concentrate on the Hammond type situation. When I see a story about a black dude being framed, I will focus on the injustice of that. And from now on I will no longer cobflate the issues with white guilt or black guilt or any other distracting nonsense.

        Hobbes and Secker types shall no longer reel me in with distraction. I shall remain focused in the future and only deal with division issues when the smartwr people here decide to make a badly needed series on it.

        Although I will be posting additions to that list of non white evils specificitew you demand from time to time as I come across.

        It is time to get back in track and make this about the Hammonds, minimum sentencing, and malicious prosecution. These are the things that comprise the real story.

  22. Pride is the currency of division, and the sources of impoverishment. I wish I didnt have to fight this sorry phone keyboard. It would make getting my thoughts out easier.

    THERE ARE TWO THINGS THIS SITE COULD USE TO MAKE A GREAT DIFFERENCE:

    1) A series on pride and other tools of division

    2) Consolidatiin pages for big issues like 9-11, or dictator instillation, and whatever other big pins there are.

    This site always bitches about the wrong, but has not paid enough attention to dealing with organizational aspect of holding a movement together and focusing it. This is a big vaccuum that will either be filles with failure, or be adressed and filled with success.

    And that preacher was that irish dude on the radio if you want to hear his views on the issue.

  23. stevan topping says:

    To be honest with you, Oregon raises so many questions. Scroll up and down and Investigate.
    Rightly so, it’s called life (or an expression of it). Is there really ‘the most important
    aspect of Oregon is … dot dot dot?’ Life is the broad tapestry, infinite on one level
    and impermanent on another. Doesn’t shared experience encourage us to look in the mirror
    and question our own experience?

    Unity can be the expression of diversity coupled with tolerance. The expression of
    diversity (Unity) greater than the sum of it’s parts. With regards this article and all
    the other information presented, i’d say it illustrates unity through diversity in action.

    I was at a play park recently. Really just an all in one dome (a dragons head) with a slide
    and a cave. There were around twenty children ranging from say 12years to 1yr. The air
    was full of their energy and you could feel how alive they felt. What struck me was the kids
    managing to interact with one another, reaching an equilibrium with one another, their
    tolerance of one another palpable. They were confined in such a small area and yet it was
    beautiful to witness and a valuable lesson for me and the other adults viewing it from a
    distance.

    In Australia the distinction for me between the ‘political’ left/right is so minimal it
    renders these concepts meaningless. A distraction that unempowers and encourages a sense
    of hopelessness. The cross party political response regarding the downing of MH370 via MSM
    was similar to the UK’s all day charity telethon Red Nose Day. Broadcast every minute of
    every hour that day with one message. Instead of the ‘will you pledge money for our charity?’
    Canberra went for the ‘Russia did it angle. Russia done it. It was the Russkies. I’ve been
    involved in discussions where many Australians go for the. “Yeah mate, all Pollies are
    corrupt, let’s not get to deep cobber, we know, fetch us a beer, the Test Crickets on.”

    Being Scottish, many of my friends see a distinction between left/right. There is a long
    history in the UK. They would consider standing on the left to mean valuing fairness,
    equality and altruistic endeavour. More than valuable character traits/aims/wishes.
    However, the left/right concept is meaningless in the modern day UK on so many levels.
    Especially it’s use as an abused social tool for control purposes. The left/right culdesac
    or diversion can be used for exactly that.

    We see the MSM investing in stories that will go somewhere, with issues to debate and
    where to avoid debate, one of the reasons we need BFP and the upcoming media venture. If
    you have the temerity to consider something like the media idea you probably have balls of
    steel. I like that.

    What is failure? Do you look on it as, wow i learned a lot about myself and others, dusting
    yourself down and carrying on? From that perspective it sounds a lot like success. Give
    it a go or you’ll never know.

    I did mean for this to be a response to surrounding comments. I never had the time
    to apply comment quotes, pull yer socks up. I have to go camping for a few days
    or i’ll get my legs broken.

    To quote Neil Kramer from a small article in New Dawn magazine regarding 2016, “We made
    Empire and we must unmake it. As a thing is bound, so it’s unbound. Deeds not words.
    Learn the art of deploarisation and nothing can stop you.

  24. The MSM,Government Provocateurs , and Trolls are all promoting the racist story line to divert attention from real issues ! I was reading as my wife linked to story on the FB Ghetto and listened as 2 Minute of current news then seamlessly rolled into 2 hour program discussing Bundy’s alleged racist comments 18 mo. ago on the view or some other gossip news show.
    I was young but involved in some of protest and occupations ( sit in’s) on university campuses in 60,70’s and remember how provocateurs had money, looks, and the hot chicks and hijacked events with these resources.
    I later found out sources of the income and their motivation was not meant to improve and reform the Government but to destroy our Government and implement a new system .
    Currently as a Farmer,Rancher I am well aware of the mission creep of our government and how the property rights are being systematically being taken from State and County by Federal and International Corporate entities; but I am not sure if protesting is safe or effective in the current environment !
    I will however work locally to affect change as best as I am able and am thankful for the people who protest peacefully like yourself . The day is young and task may so Good Day my friends.

  25. “White priviledge is in fact the white side of a larger multicultural phenomena in which people of all races look upon each other with suspicion and ignorance which they use to stereotype each other. And blathering on and on about it does nothing to solve the problem.”
    “The race card silences all with ridicule, whether it is played against a white with “white privilege”, or a black with “that ni@@er”, or a mexican with “that wetback”, or a muslim with “that damn muslim” or etc…. on and on and on.”
    A Name, you have said what I feel about this better than I could’ve. Thank you!

  26. Ronald Orovitz says:

    Well, you’ve all heard by now that bullets have flown, with one casualty. Is it happenstance that this occurred just as the following was making the internet rounds?…. https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/the-clintons-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

  27. Aaaah! Just when I think I’m done with every possible angle, lol. I too have seen things about uranium, among other things of value, in (under) these lands, but have not looked into it. One of the (many) big questions I have in all of this is the motive behind the so-called land-grabs of the federal govt. So many people are throwing that around, but the only reason they offer is agenda 21 stuff, and here and there the occasional mention of valuable minerals underneath.
    Thanks for the link, Ronald, I gave it a quick scan but will look into it more.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      Thanks Katie, it is much appreciated that you are keeping the focus on the issues that are at the heart of the matter. The loudest voices however are the ones that divert the issue, and have ended up provoking bloodshed. You noted that Pete Santilli was the pied piper of this diversion. Many questions are now being raised as to who he is really working for…. https://auribusarrectis.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/civil-war-simulacrum/

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Correction, that was from the anon. part of the article… When we got inside, Pete Santilli (a ‘YouTuber’ with a radio show, who was also at the Bundy Ranch), had the microphone….

      • Thanks, and thanks for that new link. I’ve questioned Santilli from the beginning, he was constantly stirring the pot instead of talking to/interviewing locals. I’ll read that one with interest.
        You are so right about the loudest voices, and I’m worried those voices will only provoke more bloodshed
        There’s been a call to action in the pacific patriot network and a request for more peaceful protests in Burns and other areas. I am hoping that they will keep the true issues in play, the land use issues and the government corruption, and I’m hoping they do so peacefully.
        Spiro was in Portland and has video of Bundy’s lawyer’s press briefings yesterday and today here..
        http://www.ustream.tv/channel/o-rips?utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=ustre.am%2F1jtNv&utm_medium=social&utm_content=20160128144249

      • That’s a good read! Along with the article “Who is This Pete Santilli” that is linked in that one. BTW, in case no one has bothered to go to Santilli’s website, the first thing that caught my attention about him back on the 2nd was that on his site he’s advertising Judy Wood’s “where did the towers go” stuff. Later, I noticed, that for me at least, if I click on any of the headings on his site, I just get error messages.
        It will be very interesting to watch and see how the legal cases unfold.

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          It’s been updated… Check especially the L.A.Times quotes towards the bottom: Santilli was basically acting -wiitingly or not- as the evidence gatherer for the DoJ case against Bundy et al. Yes it will be interesting to see how things turn out for him in the end.

  28. Eyewitness, first hand account of shooting on Hwy:

  29. The ‘black box’ news story of the shooting of Lavoy Finicum continues. Here’s a quote from The Oregonian writer, Les Zaitz,

    “But sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that Finicum and Ryan Bundy disobeyed orders to surrender and resisted arrest. No other details were available.”

    I say ‘black box’ as the pattern continues of an official narrative attributed to “sources” with an utter lack of primary, first hand evidence. I linked an interview with Victoria Sharp who was apparently in one of the cars where the shooting occurred, but that youtube link is still awaiting ‘moderation’. I don’t know the full context of that interview and how genuine it is, but it was linked to by The Oregonian, and would be enlightening either as a first hand account or as possible disinformation. Interesting how what might well be considered a ‘climax’ of this ordeal is getting very muted coverage in the corporate MSM today.

  30. steven hobbs says:

    Hi PeterM,
    “‘..black box’ as the pattern continues of an official narrative attributed to “sources” with an utter lack of primary, first hand evidence. I linked an interview with Victoria Sharp who was apparently in one of the cars where the shooting occurred..”

    Great vid posting! First person narrative witnesses are primary on investigative journey. No?

    Previous to “black box” : “deus ex machina” (ghost in machine). Well, we know THAT media aint telling.

    Thank you.
    Check expanding conversation:
    http://www.submedia.tv/stimulator/2016/01/25/sink-rich/

Speak Your Mind