White Supremacy and the Continued Fight

[Andol]

Andol, that comment makes me question if you read the links.

As for wanting full details, I'm afraid that could take quite a while, and I'm not going to refuse to offer my thoughts on the matter until then. It is not spreading misinformation to offer your thoughts on an article.

Oh wait... the word Link was... yeah I didn't read it, but it was mostly I just didn't realize it for what it was until you pointed that out. I was curious why the word 'link' was up there. Ah that is what you get for reading over stuff so late Sorry about that...

[Fox Lokison]

There were several links, all of which contained the information required.

I'd ask that you read through articles linked before accusing me of spreading dangerous misinformation. It's more than a little detrimental to a conversation when a person offers opinions on material they didn't read, especially opinions on what is dangerous misinformation.

[Fox Lokison]

I really hate having my suspicions proven right.

9 Oath Keepers indicted for conspiracy, including 7 members of the tactical "stack" seen entering Capitol in combat gear

The Oath Keepers are a loosely-organized collection of militia, prosecutors say, which focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement and first-responders. The group believes the federal government has been "co-opted by a shadowy conspiracy that is trying to strip American citizens of their rights," prosecutors say, and the group's name comes from the oath of members of the military and law enforcement to defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The complaint details an email sent January 4 from oathkeepers.org, with a subject line, "Call to Action: Oath Keepers Deploying to DC to Protect Events, Speakers & Attendees on Jan 5-6: Time to Stand!" The email noted that the group would have "well armed and equipped QRF teams on standby," referring to the military acronym for "quick reaction force," in case of a scenario "where the President calls us up as part of the militia to to [sic] assist him inside DC."

The group drew attention for their tactical "stack" formation, which experts quickly identified as a military-style strategy, and have been a top priority for the U.S. Attorney's sedition task force.

[Missy]

yeah the oath keepers are terrorists, prettymuch.

[Kurogane]

If they are former military and police, do you think they will get leniency in sentencing--assuming they are found guilty?
These are trump-appointed judges, after all.

[Fox Lokison]

If they are former military and police, do you think they will get leniency in sentencing--assuming they are found guilty?
These are trump-appointed judges, after all.

The way I see it, could go both ways. America has a BIG issue with seditionists. We don't like them, never have, throw them in the Bay or shut them up. The military and what it does is sacred, you don't fuck with it. You shut up and stay in line, and for god's sake, don't make them look bad.

On the other hand, like you said, Trump appointed judges, and former/current military and police.

I think a bit of this depends on society's reaction as a whole. Will there be more outcry to letting fascist insurrectionists off, or more cry to giving military and cops heavy prison sentences? I lean towards the former. The US having such a big issue with the idea of sedition and insurrectionists in the ranks really makes me think they're gonna lean into that. And, if it's not a public show, I would reckon there'd be behind the scenes things going on with these folks. It's a major security leak - and punch to the nose - that a bunch of former/current military and cops used their training to attack the capital. Like. That's just such a leak, and bad PR on top of that.

[Missy]

Stupid is as Stupid does.

[Haibane]

I think a bit of this depends on society's reaction as a whole. Will there be more outcry to letting fascist insurrectionists off, or more cry to giving military and cops heavy prison sentences? I lean towards the former. The US having such a big issue with the idea of sedition and insurrectionists in the ranks really makes me think they're gonna lean into that. And, if it's not a public show, I would reckon there'd be behind the scenes things going on with these folks. It's a major security leak - and punch to the nose - that a bunch of former/current military and cops used their training to attack the capital. Like. That's just such a leak, and bad PR on top of that.

Good points. I think after George Floyd and Jan 6th there is a definite groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo as regards law enforcement, both from voters and some politicians. The millenial vote is now significant and with that come new issues - eco-friendliness, police violence, racism - these are issues that will only grow in strength and public awareness and I see the politician of the future being obliged, whether they wish to or not, in paying more attention to these issues. They will ignore them at their peril.

The presence and role of the far right militias has been tolerated for a long time, but 2020 saw them explode into factions that seriously impact politics. Jan 6th may be the turning point, especially as ex- and even serving law enforcement and armed forces personnel were in that crowd. I feel that America is on the cusp of declaring that "enough is enough" and with the military and veterans in the USA being held in such high esteem, corruption among vets and even serving service personnel that damages that high regard and brings the services into disrepute could be the straw that is finally too much on the camel's back.

For these reasons I can sense the law coming down fully and harshly on all these individuals. Investigations, as we already know, are being made into right-wing affiliations of serving police and armed forces members.

[gaggedLouise]

If one would take this famous quote by Thomas Jefferson at face value, as a revealed truth (and many people do) then it is the advice of a moron. Read as it stands, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Jefferson would have seen Timothy McVeigh, the Real IRA or the Waco crowd as patriots ready to stand their ground, and their acts as excusable, only pushed a bit too far by insensitive bureaucrats and tyrants. In his own mind, McVeigh was a patriot fighting big government lies, so who are we to judge?

If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

http://libertytree.ca/quotes/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC#DF5E1B982F7F04138525868800530C8B

Jefferson is explicitly talking about people who may be misguided here, fooled by lies and ignorance, but he thinks it's better and more noble in the long run to let those people rebel and kill other people, especially government people, to fight it out, than to correct their misunderstandings first (or "educate the people") which would be tyranny, or force them to stay within the realm of the law.  Honestly this quote belongs in a pre-civil war age of history, and it's long past it's sell-by date in the modern world (it also relies heavily on a feeling of American exceptionalism, but I figure that's understandable in a nation that's just fought its way to independence and liberty).

[Fox Lokison]

Just a few scattered thoughts...

I think a thing to consider about Jefferson's quote is that he's right. When he says "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure," he's accurately summing up thousands of years of history. Conflict is inevitable, and to stop conflict, you need total control... which inevitably, leads right back into conflict, because attempts to get total control always fail horribly. From a historical perspective, it is better to allow these conflicts to happen, and societies to go through these growing pains. If they don't, inevitably, those pains come back much bigger, and with much more force. The death tolls skyrocket, and the damage to nations and humanity as a whole rapidly multiplies. Whether or not his ideas of what to do with this inevitable conflict are correct, he's definitely highlighted a significant issue we have as humans.

We're dealing with the same kinds of issues our ancestors had. Just with new tools, and new weapons, and new battlegrounds. As well as much larger populations. As much as this sucks for individual humans, history has shown that these kind of conflicts represent a growing pain of history, where governments and leaders learn what their citizens will not tolerate, and what not to do again. Or, in some cases, refuse to learn...

I do think Jefferson would have seen McVeigh and the others as patriots. And I do think, in a way, he has a point. Government governs with the consent of the people, not the other way around. It might be forced or coerced consent, but it's consent none the less. When a person does not consent, but also strongly identifies with their nation and does not want to leave, what are their options but to form a new nation, or resist? Nations are born of that instinct all the time. In that way, I think it's arguable that men like McVeigh - or even the men who stormed the capitol - are patriots. It's simply that their idea of America is vastly different to those around them. They believe they were fighting in defense of their nation, and against tyranny. And I'm DEFINITELY not saying I think they were justified, because I absolutely don't - but it's an important look into the mindset, I think.

That also brings up the point that "educate the people" can mean a lot of things, including forcing people to go against their deeply-held beliefs. Again, don't get me wrong, some beliefs are not worthy of respect - but Jefferson did believe people had the right to hold their beliefs, to a point. Is it better to let these conflicts in belief run their course, and let the nation and humanity benefit from the lessons, or is it better to stifle these conflicts? I honestly lean towards the former, because the latter has only managed to create more conflict. Lots of the divides in America have been brewing for over a century. I'd prefer to find a way for these conflicts to exist without bloodshed, but tempers boiling over is the natural result of a divided people.

Personally, I find this sort of unrest inevitable. People will not always be on the same page, and if government and the ruling classes aren't willing to adjust their course to prevent this kind of shit... it's gonna keep happening. Racial tensions, economic inequality, religious conflicts, all that happened because government ignored issues or slapped bandaids on bullet holes. Eventually, the infection's gonna get to the heart, and all. Change and conflict are natural parts of history, but they don't have to be this explosive.

[Fox Lokison]

Or, to summarize, since I'm too wordy again - I think conflict is always inevitable, but not always violent, and CERTAINLY not always justified.

[gaggedLouise]

Of course what I meant was that Jefferson's quote can't just be taken as a general principle, a hard law that's true at all times and in all countries. He is speaking as the rich landowner and aristocrat he is, and he's still a bit high on the memories of the revolutionary war - very understandable. He seems to be denying the possibility of any lasting progress within the state - once liberation has been reached, which to him happened in 1783, there's only so much that can be done except safeguarding that kind of liberty. He's actually saying that if the republic can't convince practically all of those who count politically, all citizens, and leaves a share of disgruntled and bloody-minded "tea-partists" behind, then it has no moral right to stop those people from trying to tear the country down, with guns, deceit and lies ("everything is permitted in love and war"), because to them the government would just look like a bunch of tyrants. To me, this is uncomfortably close to Grover Norquist's "I don't want the federal government destroyed, I just want it reduced to be so small and helpless that it could easily be drowned in a bathtub."

Lincoln's vision of what the republic should be, in the Gettysburg address, is a much more inspiring statement, and more forward-looking. He is actually seeing the country as being on a journey towards maturity, enlightened governance, self-improvement and better understanding of itself (but still keeping a firm bond to its origins). Jefferson, on the contrary, is just trying to set up a hard claim meant to outdo Hobbes' defence for absolute monarchy in Leviathan - a book very few people would take seriously in the modern world.

[gaggedLouise]

Just to make it clear, I am discussing what these two statements (Jefferson and Lincoln) could mean if they are removed from their original context, the way some people will use them today. Of course Jefferson would not have applauded the OKC bombing, if he had been able to see it on tv - the hard point is that his "tree of liberty" quote is weak on allowing for broad protection against paranoid loonies who will tend to act like that and call themselves "patriots".

[Fox Lokison]

I got your gist, no worries!  I don't have all that many coherent thoughts in my head on the matter at the moment, I'm just dropping in a few things that come to my mind when I read that quote. I've never read Leviathan, and probably won't, so I can't really speak much on it.

[Humble Scribe]

It's worth thinking about Franklin's statement in the light of the philosophy of government at the time. It's a deliberate rebuke to Rousseau and his idea of the General Will - that there is a single 'right' Englightened solution to securing the Common Good for every problem in government, which can be worked out just as an astronomer calculates the orbit of a planet, and it is the duty of government to work out what it is and then enforce it. Unfortunately, he left no room for honest disagreement - it follows from that anyone who goes against the General Will is Wrong and needs to be crushed. That's what led to the Terror in Revolutionary France, and much worse in the 20th century.
Franklin is saying that dissent is healthy and governments need to be reminded that they don't speak for all now and again. Of course, he framed it in violent terms because there wasn't really a history of non-violent protest at the time. Still, sometimes I reflect that even today non-violent protest is easily ignore. I marched with 2 million others against the war in Iraq - the largest protest in British political history - but Blair ignored us, yet a violent Poll Tax riot a decade earlier concentrated Thatcher's government's mind wonderfully.

[Humble Scribe]

D'oh. Jefferson, not Franklin. It's late and I've been on the whisky.

[Hawkwood]

I'm not really a fan of what people call 'realism' in politics / international relations. The argument goes that history is a zero-sum game in which might is right going back to Thucydides. The alternative is usually some rehash of Marxism or Critical Theory which leaves me likewise cold. Bleh. As for democracy, the older and more sullen I get the less of a fan of I am. But I think it's the least bad option that we've discovered. Ideally, democracy should be about messy compromise that leaves both sides unhappy but not angry. But what possible compromise is there when the other side are evil? Couple that with partisanship and a identity and you end up with gridlock.

I'm attracted to the notion that there's a difference between what is right and what is popular. Politicians frequently have to make unpopular decisions, but I usually err on the side of assuming that they're doing it for the right reasons. But then we've chosen "rulership by popularity contest" and they're going to tell us what we want to hear every 4-5 years just to come back to power. I'm not a fan of plebicites and referenda either - we don't end up healed by them. Having now lived through the Indy-vote and EU-vote, I think they've divided far more than they've united, and really have no place in a parliamentary system. Scottish politics isn't really a matter of left v right anymore, but rather in v out. I suspect, actually, that a lot of folk would choose some quite unpleasant (to my centre-left human-rights liberal sensibilities) policies if they could vote for them individually - homophobia, capital punishment, fox hunting, protectionism, and so on.

The only philosopher of politics I really had any time for was Popper. He didn't have answers, but rather methods. That appeals to the scientist in me. I'm also quite partial to what we call "rule of law" which is again about methods rather than results. Where there's a boring and non-violent way to express disagreement (Courts, elections) then I think violence has absolutely no place in a modern state, rather like smallpox, slavery, and duelling. To my mind no tree, metaphorical or literal, should be fertilised with murdered humans. Battles should be fought with words, wars won with education. "Because we have done things this way in the past" is a poor guide to the trying to do things in the future. Likewise I think dead white men who had slaves and / or beards have far too much hold over political thought. But I don't really have a better answer that isn't platitudes like "compromise and talk".

[Oniya]

So, Snopes is currently marking this 'Unproven', as far as any intent goes, but pictures of the CPAC stage have been circulating over the past 24 hours.



That awkward stage design, if viewed from the entrance area (the red screen, flanked with doors), is strikingly similar to the Odal or Odin rune, which was adopted by certain alt-right groups in 2016 to replace the way-too-obvious swastika.  (The symbol is not shown in the linked article, but there's a hyperlink to the ADL website, that I've extracted for convenience.)

There's a certain amount of deniability, since it's a less familiar symbol, but on a practical level, there's no reason to make a complicated to-do out of a serviceable triangular stage.

(As a note, it seems that 'web archive' articles also bypass paywalls, which is useful for older articles.)

[gaggedLouise]

I think Trump spells the point in history where the idea of Robin Hood and his band of free men in the Sherwood forest (and with a claim to represent the people of England) as the eternal blueprint for democratic government and its limits became impossible. Robin vs King John is an inspiring model for revolt, but useless as a yardstick for what a modern government or modern political institutions and lawmaking should look like.

[Fox Lokison]

An interesting article about white supremacists in the Navy.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/04/13/us-navy-marines-white-supremacy-discharged/4566463001/

The Navy records describe investigations into allegations of white supremacist assault, theft, verbal abuse, threats and gang crimes from 1997 to 2020.

One investigation involved members of a white supremacist gang called the “RRR” – an apparent nod to the Ku Klux Klan – who branded themselves with lighters and got in fights with nonwhite Marines.

In another case, a female sailor started one of the earliest online white supremacist message boards. She bragged about her top-secret security clearance while writing screeds about Hitler, Jews and Black people.

Not one of the 13 investigations resulted in a military trial, known as a court-martial, according to the documents. That's the only way a member of the military can receive what's called a "punitive discharge" such as a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge.

Some of the personnel received small fines or pay cuts. Most of the troops who were let go received a general discharge under honorable conditions, the most mild administrative discharge.

Besides the 13 cases, records for 10 were not released because they are being reviewed, said a spokeswoman for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which investigates felony-level criminal activity.

Most of the cases in the documents were never written about in the media. The names of Navy personnel are redacted, along with other identifying details. USA TODAY identified a few through other sources, but most remain anonymous.

What most of the accused white supremacists went on to do after leaving the Navy is unknown.