Militants in Oregon take over federal building

Well, there's a bit of agression for no reason. Very rood. Your tone sounds weirdly familiar, but maybe I'm just bonkers.

 

There's been over a thousand BLM protests as far as I know, and most of them were totally peaceful.

In the other thread you say the examples of cops doing dirt is the exception to the rule, but somehow those examples you're giving are what BLM is about? Really?

And these guys in Oregon are threatening gun violence to anyone that opposes them. They aren't acting in a way that should be admired. We just have yet to see the results of their actions

 

Eric Holder occupied a ROTC when he was in college, forcing Columbia to change the name of a lounge to "Malcolm X." Some say he was armed, some say he wasn't.

Maybe Trump will appoint a Bundy to Attorney General.

More on topic, the Federal Building they're occupying has been abandoned / vacant from an article I read. Feds are shutting off power and access roads.

 

They've already been punished for the fires.

I leave you with a golden quote from Murray Rothbard: ...simply to dismiss a concept as "barbaric" can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the "barbarians" hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.

 

I wasn't voicing much of an opinion on this case. I don't know the details except (if that article Hombre posted is accurate), they've been punished for the previous crime. The state has had its say on that matter, so I don't see the relevance to this case. That's all I was saying.

 

A fantastically written piece in a Facebook post, that better explaining the situation, and why it correlates to BLM.

It's long, but please take the time to read it:

"
Julian Long
January 3 at 4:13pm ·


‪#‎BlackCloudsForMyWhiteFriends‬

I do not much care for Blaxplaining the way the world works. I get emotionally exhausted trying to answer “why” questions that have no answer just to show empathy with you showing empathy with me. Blaxplaining makes my intestines itch.

I point out obvious things. Signs in the sky that indicate changing weather.

But I don't often explain why the weather has changed.

I'm making an exception today, because there's a darkening in the skies and, in the present context of 150 white men overtaking a federal building, I'm going to try and Blaxplain how this unrest sits with us with hope that some of you, who often read my words but don’t comment, don’t share and don’t "like" them (literally or figuratively) can explain to me what you think comes next.

In August of 2014, in a small suburb of St. Louis called ‪#‎Ferguson‬ , our nation sent The National Guard along with militarized police to squelch the protests of a few scores (that later grew to be hundreds) of citizens who were appalled at the grizzly murder of ‪#‎MikeBrown‬. These protesters were largely Black, unarmed civilians. There was some property damage. The media continually called it rioting.

Dozens were arrested. Beaten. Pepper Sprayed. Shot with rubber bullets.

Some months later we pointed out how in a town in ––New Hampshire, I believe –– I dunno, someplace that just sounded really white, large groups of white unarmed civilians overturned cars, burned property, took to the streets over...pumpkins. The media called them revelers. The police were called but they didn't bring their tanks.

It was whitesplained to us that this was different –– because it wasn't a hot-button issue and likelihood of severe damage or loss of life was minimal. The Ferguson protests went on for DAYS, we were told – THATS why it had to come to the boiling point that it did.

We didn't accept that. But we knew it would become the company line. Drawn in the blood on the pavement. Never to be crossed.

So then...Baltimore. ‪#‎FreddieGray‬ was given a "rough ride" that severed his spine. And the city went nuts. Students were beaten, corralled into a mall. The police leaked a false rumor about a "Purge" that they were supposedly defending against and so militarized police were called in. Again too, the National Guard. We saw images. Stark, powerful images –– of a man thrown by his dreadlocks to the ground, pepper sprayed in the face for literally doing NOTHING. We saw a gleeful cop flash a Kool-Aid smile to the camera as he tackled this Black man,like a big game hunter after he'd just sniped a lion with a scope on a high-powered rifle from 300 yards away. But no. Can't be that. We cry for lions. We mourn fallen lions. (‪#‎RIPCecil‬)

There were other images too.

The news machine showed us all a burned out, gutted CVS –– quick to point out the property damage that must be prevented and how the situation had become so unmanageable. The less popular flipside was the group of Black people cleaning up the wreckage. Rebuilding their neighborhood. Guess it didn't have the same sense of urgency. I can’t put it all on the media though. We learned from Ferguson that when faced with having their agenda exposed, cops had no qualms with illegally arresting journalists who were showing things they didn't want people to see and taking down the camera equipment of some journalists when they were videotaping their questionable actions. It’s possible that the same happened here and that journalist had learned to B-More careful. But still some powerful images got through.

There was a sister. The prototypical definition of SISTA with her wrapped locks and white frock. She was all things that "everything" means – burning sage as she walked past what she recognized as evil spirits. She was awesome. She was light. But she was not shown in the broad media.

The media instead chose to turn its lens and mic to the mother who humiliated her child and squashed his spirit of righteous outrage. Slapping his head and condemning his presence in the protest. She became an urban hero. It was a complex scene to watch unfold because for us –– because we got it –– she feared for his life. All of us fear for our young people's lives when it comes to encounters with law enforcement. This has been the status quo for literally CENTURIES. It's only becoming a norm to you now. So, yes that fear makes you want to snatch up your kid and protect them and admonish them at the same time ––just as if they'd run out into the street without checking for the car that was barring straight toward them. Or if they'd played with a loaded gun--or a toy that looked like one. We understood HER reaction. What made many of us mad was YOURS.

You took a certain pride in watching him get shut down. In gleefully cheering her on for setting him straight. Without knowing a thing about her or him or the circumstances of the conversation between them you declared that there needed to be more mothers like this! Good for her! Some of you reached back into your knapsack of 90's relevance and said, "You go girl!” and otherwise liberal-minded, good people who don't approve of hitting children were quick to make an exception. It was as if she was doing what you all wished you could do – knock some sense into that boy and tell him to sit down when authority was talking.

And f***...the media lens and the national spotlight is a helluva drug. So Lioness became Tiger Mom and followed the narrative. It was a juicy story. Much more so than the frighteningly efficient disappearing of ‪#‎JosephKent‬. So, that was the image we saw. Juicy and benign and reinforcing the narrative that makes rebellion look silly and condemnable.

Many of you justified your defense of the Ferguson and Baltimore military occupations (let's dispense with the niceties shall we? –– we know what this is) with the same tired tropes about, property damage, respect for authority and the ever ironic "respect for life". We were told that this is the system. This is how it works. These people were breaking the law.

"When you break the law these things happen."

Ok. Hold that thought.

I'm gonna need it in a minute.

Because when a pool party in Texas went south and a cop rubbed his groin on a 15 year old girl before shoving his knee in her back in a supine position we were to understand that this was the law at work and that dag-nab-it we just had to realize there are certain things you don't do to the cops...

...those "things" apparently don't include marauding around on motorcycles and KILLING people (with real live guns) because the biker gang in Texas that did that was told to quietly sit on the curb with their cell phones while it was all sorted out.

Our 12 year old boys are given 2 seconds before 4 rounds are fired into their bellies because the fake gun was perceived as a threat. Your 21 year old men are given two cheeseburgers to fill their bellies after they kill 9 people at Bible study. But let's be honest. Dylan Roof DID NOT pose a threat to those police. He ONLY hated Black people. Those white officers felt safe as can be because he was a just 'disturbed kid'. But Tamir could not be distinguished from a man.

But “when you break the law, these things happen," right?

So last night an armed militia took over an Oregon Federal building.

ABC called it a "protest" and then an “action”–– which isn't saying much (and is misrepresenting what little it says) ––but it says a HELLUVA lot more than anyone else is saying. Images are powerful stimulants. They wake up the senses and stir the nerves. They are absent here. And the present narrative seems to skew toward understanding the intent and not condemning the action. Coverage is sparse yet oddly sympathetic.

But...as of this typing no militarized force has been called...

..to a FEDERAL building...

...Occupied by 150 ARMED men...

...Who don't recognize the government.

History has explained to us that we probably won't hear words like "Domestic Terrorists” here, though The Black Lives Matter movement has. We probably won't see a bloodbath, a tear-gassing or even a knee in a back.

History tells us that they’ll probably be negotiated with. They’ll be extracted peacefully. They’ll be painted as something other than lawless trouble makers. The effort will be on understanding WHY they took action not condemning the action they took.

And this. All of this –– this stark and glaring contrast is why we keep “making it so difficult” for us all to get along.

It’s why we keep "focusing on what makes us different instead of what makes us the same.” Because our difference aren't about our skin. It's about how our skin is valued.

It’s why we seek spaces of our own and demand sanctuary from your constant observation. Because your observation of us is intense and critical while the reflexive observation is loose and forgiving

It’s why we keep demanding “special treatment" because you're all Charlie but there are no overlay flags for any of the nations Isis has touched in Africa.

We point out the differences and eschew fallacies of "equality" because the current model of “equal treatment” means our unarmed protests are met with tanks while yours are met with negotiators, our “kids being kids” are shown their lives have no value while yours are treated to a value meal, our social justice warriors are made “terrorists” while your terrorists are simply labeled misunderstood. And we keep being told to that this is how the system works. What makes us different is that when "the system works" on us –– it works us over. It beats us, bloodies us, and kills us. What makes us different is that our signs of peace are met with the same or more brutal responses as your acts of war. What makes us different is we keep blogging and tweeting about how we want change and we keep seeing you blog about wishing things would go back to normal –– when "normal" includes our kids having the police called on them when they are walking home from school or being shot by a madman with a neighborhood-watch-issued license to kill. Much like 70 degree Christmases, this aberration in the climate has somehow become "normal" and we're trying to tell you –– something is dreadfully wrong. The sky is falling.

I don’t like to Blaxplain things, but this is why the weather has changed. The ongoing warm front of hot air from above has collied with the socio-economic pressure system from below and is creating a volatile storm system that is likely to break at any moment.

You are now experiencing what we have lived with for a long time. The forbidding formations in the in the sky that indicate that it’s not safe out here.

We keep being shown that violent, outrageous protests lead to decidedly delicate treatment from the authorities. We keep being shown that armed might is and must be respected – that secret wars and personal vendettas and organized forces with weapons and agendas get the benefit of being treated like humans while people with placards and megaphones are taken down like dogs. And we keep being told that this is how the system works. We keep being told to trust the system. Follow the system. Be aligned to the system.

So what comes next? What happens when this cloud finally bursts?

Explain that to me.

Please.

Share If You Care.
"

 

@Barnstable, I don't agree that it's a well written article. It's dripping in emotionalism and so heavily slanted that it tempted me to dismiss some of the good points he was attempting to make. It strikes me as racist as those he is apparently targeting.

 

Lost me at "New Hampshire, I believe –– I dunno, someplace that just sounded really white."

 

It's not an article, it's just a post on Facebook.

I felt it better described what I was trying to say with more examples

 

IMHO there are some government decisions that were race motivated. There are some police officers and even departments that have been / are racially motivated. There have certainly been racial injustices throughout the nation's history and today.

That said, not everything is racist. (Not saying that you are claiming that)

Here is an article on the Oregon thing from the LA TImes. The Times is no bastion of conservatism. The gist of the article is that the decision to not clamp down on this group is motivated more by PR blowback from earlier hard responses in Waco and Ruby Ridge.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-ruby-ridge-waco-oregon-20160106-story.html

 

Also isn't the building they're occupying just some back woods cabin basically? I think the government figures just wait it out and they'll all just leave eventually when they realize no one cares.

 

No doubt everything isn't racist (and I know you're not thinking I think everything is racist), however, you can't ignore patterns. In every instance of any protest or civil disobedience the government has a choice of how to handle the situation. The gripe is that you never see the extreme reactions such as the equivalent of calling in the national guard or breaking out the tanks and riot gear when they could do something comparable with white protesters with guns such as these in Oregon, or even crank up the force in cases where a white guy killed people where no one would blink an eye if the authorities had killed them or beat them.

There have been so many BLM protests where the participants, and even passers by have attested to it being peaceful, but the authorities descend on them with full force. So far, last time I heard, the reaction against these Oregon guys was to cut the power to the building and block roads (I can't read the times article right now at work). I'm sure, these guys are in a government facility far away from the general public, and not presenting an immediate danger to anyone. At the same time, they have taken a government facility with guns. The reaction has not been equivalent in aggression shown towards BLM peacefully protesting with no guns.

 

That's the point of referencing Waco and Ruby Ridge. Those were white folks. Tanks are what killed the Waco people.

 

http://nstarzone.com/WACO1.html

The continuity between the Clinton and Bush and Obama presidencies on issues of civil liberties demonstrate something that many people don't want to wrap their minds around. America's police state is utterly bipartisan. It is designed to persist and indeed extend its reach with each administration, no matter the party in charge. In fact, the political party illusion serves to distract people from the real issues, the state's trampling of our liberties, and instead devote their hopeful attention and energy to getting one dictatorial gang elected rather than the other.


Both Clinton and Bush, and now Obama have gotten away with massive prosecutorial abuses, federal police brutality and dramatic attacks on due process for the accused, all while the people have argued over which side is the worse liar and central manager and not how best to restore liberty in America. So Bush's Patriot Act was condemned by the left while he was in office, but Obama's and Clinton's assaults on privacy are ignored or encouraged. The right called Clinton's seizure of Elian Gonzalez tyrannical, but thought Bush had the "inherent authority" to detain and abuse people without trial or due process. The left lamented how loyally the mainstream media toed Bush's line on WMD in Iraq, but wasn't nearly as critical when the media parroted Clinton's Kosovo war propaganda.
Obama's and Clinton's gun grabbing are decried as totalitarian by the right, whereas the Bush federal government got away with door-to-door gun confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina. The federal response to Katrina alone should have lost Bush all of his support among those who found Waco unacceptable.

The worst of this problem of the bipartisan police state is seen in the "they did it, so why can't we?" form of argument. How many times did we hear Bush's defenders cite something horrifying that Clinton did or said as evidence that Bush's actions weren't as beyond the pale as his critics claimed, after all? This is a disingenuous line of argument coming from those who lambast Obama or Clinton. But it is effective so long as Americans care more about their team winning the electoral championship every four years than about the fact that the whole game is fixed. If Clinton's officials conducted a large civilian massacre on American soil, should Bush have been allowed to as well?



Just an excerpt from a great article on Waco and I felt this portion was really accurate today.

 

In 1993... 22 years ago

Since that time white protesters have protested unarmed and armed, but nothing ever happens to them. Not saying something should happen to them mind you, just that nothing should be happening to most of these BLM protesters either, but something often does.

 

The date has no bearing on the point. It's not like I'm referencing the Boston Tea Party

Waco happened under a liberal Democratic President who was once described as the first black President.

My point is not to invalidate your concern, but to say each circumstance must be evaluated on its own merits. You may not be intending to do so, but you are at least implying that there is currently a vast Federal & State racist conspiracy to apply different standards of response to the BLM movement than any white dominated protest or resistance. I just don't see it.