Oregon terrorists don't plan siege very well, put out plea for snacks

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

11 hours ago, Fays1 said:

Right wing believe in free market but are against social issues.. left wing believes in social issues but are against free market.. libertarians believe in free market and social issues.. so how is his ideas radical and against social issues when hes a libertarian that believes in complete and absolute freedom for everyone?

Being anti feminist doesnt make you a misogynistic because feminism is a political movement.. I am anti feminist so em I misogynistic? it seems like you dont mind accusing others of misogyny and use that word loosely without even making sure and you refuse to make an actual argument of your accusation! it seems like you like to falsely accuse anyone that disagree with your ideology. also what do you mean his video titles do alot for me?

Incoming sort of long post. It just heavily expands on my response... I wrote it and was pretty happy with it, so instead of just trimming it down, I'll put in a spoiler, then put a relatively shorter TL;DR version at the end.  I hope you read the whole thing and digest it, but if you don't oh well  I'm gonna copy it and save it for a later discussion where it's relevant, which I'm sure there will be  

Spoiler

 

First off, it's not really that black and white as if right and left and libertarians are just all in agreement, let alone even "for/against" entire spheres of society/government  Left-Wing people are known as being Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Radical in ideology, and Right-Wing people are known as Conservative/Reactionary/Traditional in ideology. Libertarianism as I've learned of it is not some pure center ideology that just evenly combines both. In my anecdotal experience, many (well in my case, 100% of) people that identify as libertarian are actually pretty Conservative/Reactionary in most social issues, just with the added self-determination = freedom narrative added in It should be noted that there are Left-leaning Libertarians as well. I haven't met any, but im sure they exist  

Now for the large part  

He isn't inherently misogynistic because hes anti-feminist, hes misogynistic because some of his views (that in this case enforce his anti-feminist views) are very offensive and hateful stereotypes towards women, though typically in a more relatable disguise non-male perspective  

Also, feminism=/=women, so already I'm not sure where you get the idea that I even implied that anti-feminist = misogyny (which is hatred or disdain for women) Feminism as a term has both normative and descriptive definitions, so its not "merely" a political movement. For example, some believe to be a feminist you must simply believe that "women should be equal to men" or "in the equality of the genders" where as others believe that you must understand the structural differences that disadvantage women and feminine gender roles and expressions when compared to men and masculine gender roles and expressions, and others define it in even more ways. It's definitely not a group of people who all believe the same thing, some feminists are much more radical (in the sociological sense) than others... but I digress

I obviously haven't watched every single one of his videos (some are 3 hours long, the hell  ) but I had heard of him before and done research because hes a name that comes up in my circles sometimes. He aligns himself with certain lines of thinking that are problematic, or at least thinks favorably or neutrally of them regardless of whether he adopts any specific label... and these lines of thinking are themselves what are sexist or misogynistic or both.

Some lines of thinking or ideologies or movements or w.e we want to call them (The Red Pill, the Men's Rights Movement™ (and MRAs), MGTOW, AWALT, PUA and other movements in the Manosphere™ ) are often used to basically recruit men, and sometimes a combination of sympathetic and internally misogynistic women, in a cult-like fashion by appealing to their personal noticing of how society (and in feminist theory "Patriarchy") harms men and offering them a sort of "safe haven" of like minded individuals who see the solution to these problems, or at least recognize the problem. It's all very inviting and seemingly friendly till you analyze it from an outside perspective. 

The sexism and misogyny in these movements can go from something as seemingly innocent as "Men commit suicide more than men and die younger than Women do, It must be Gynocentrism and Male Disposability, down with Feminism for actively campaigning against men!" to "All Women are sluts and whores and we as Men deserve sex because of our "biological imperative" and women ALL cheat on men because of *insert other disgustingly offensive bio-truth* Sometimes we get people in the middle who combine the two with a severe misunderstanding of feminism as an ideological lens,  which is informed by sociology, anthropology, and linguistics (lets just call it what it is, it's structuralism ) also they tend to misinterpret feminist-championed, subversive acts as affronts to men or in the larger picture, the privileged class in comparison (So Male vs Female, white vs PoC, Straight vs Queer in any sense, etc.) For example, I encounter MRAs in different stages of their journey into analyzing oppression and the ills of society on classes of people on a daily basis and some of their biggest complaints to feminists are "Why can't men hit girls back!" and "Why is "Girl Power" a thing, but "Male Power" isn't, etc. etc. They seem like really really good questions to them i'm sure, but they tend to fundamentally misunderstand the power dynamics in play... also, Feminism is much older than these movements and ideologies or belief systems and I've in my 4 going on 5 years of Feminism not encountered an argument that is original. I'm always looking though  

Back on track,

These narratives appeal to men and women from different walks of life who haven't really managed to wrestle reality from their own relatively narrow and privileged perspectives, hence the wide variety of levels people in the Manosphere™ fall on. Things like MGTOW and AWALT, PUA, and TRP (The Red Pill) tend to be inherently misogynistic if not just sexist from their inception and general practices and beliefs (such as that women are disposable for men and that men "Deserve" sex) -- These beliefs and movements in the Manosphere™ tend to just breed middle aged men who are anti-feminism and to some extent Women internally at least...but at worst they breed Elliot Roger types  I'd say the only part of the Manosphere™ that I can think of that isn't inherently at least sexist if not misogynistic as well is MAYBE some individual MRAs, because they tend to be a large amalgamation of people in many different categories... though the common bio-truths of "Men and Women are just biologically different and make different decisions and choices and thus *insert x generalization* is valid!" do tend to be sexist from a systemic level almost ALL of the time  But I don't like absolutes, so lets say they might not be  

Finally, by "The titles do a lot of the work for me", it just means that clicking on his profile and seeing the people he discusses/debates, combined with the topics he discusses (which are pretty much always the title of the video) its clear to see that almost all of the issues are ones that are well-frequented and debated by people who are either Conservative/Reactionary, with the more "positive" sounding topics basically being circle jerks of like-minded people discussing their common disagreement with x (like Feminists/Feminism, BLM, and other Liberal/Progressive/Radical ideologies and their followers)  and the "Truth" videos being propagandized rhetoric that is supposed to sound objective, but its clearly not in light of everything he publishes has some sort of agenda. Tbh, I don't even care that its a generally Conservative/Reactionary link (Socially) its just the fact that there's a clear bias or agenda at all that made me post that. I think a YouTube page that so overwhelmingly appears one-sided and has a demonstrable tendency to engage in hive-minded behavior and discussion should be considered a "go-to" source for objective validity. 

 

TL;DR, First off, Left-Wing people are known as being Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Radical in ideology, and Right-Wing people are known as Conservative/Reactionary/Traditional in ideology. Libertarianism is not some pure center ideology that just evenly combines both in all aspects.  In my anecdotal experience, many (well in my case, 100% of) people that identify as Libertarian are actually ridiculously Conservative/Reactionary in most social issues, just with the added self-determination = freedom narrative added in It should be noted that there are Left-leaning Libertarians as well. I haven't met any, but im sure they exist  It could just be that I'm American and people tend to claim Libertarian as a more decided way to be not a Republican, but not Independent either  If he's a Libertarian, he seems strongly Right-leaning socially, which is fine.. and he also coversPolitical, and Economic (where's environmental  ) issues and some Pop Culture as well.

Secondly, Feminism =/= Women, so already I'm not sure where you get the idea that I even implied or meant that anti-feminist = misogyny (which is hatred or disdain for women) I don't think I'm falsely accusing anyone, it's actually really easy to see that he aligns himself with certain movements and ideologies that are INHERENTLY sexist and some are ALSO misogynistic  Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), All Women Are Like That (AWALT), The Red Pill (TRP), Pick Up Artists (PUA) are some popular ones, many of which have been discussed on his channel a LOT, even when not specifically named. I mean "Female Laziness, the Story of Male Exploitation"  Bam, sexism and misogyny right there  (and a bit of delusion on top  ) 

About the "titles do a lot for me"... well tbh I know of this guy because I refute his (mostly unoriginal ) points from time to time in feminist circles, so I already know a lot of his views on at least feminist-related social issues, which can include Race and Gender-Sexuality related topics. Not many (I cant think of one actually) videos I've been linked to in my years of feministing™ by him nor his contemporaries are actually "Gotcha!" titled videos where he actually REFUTES the title to death , but rather encourages it or discusses it from a narrow, usually one or maybe one and a half sided perspective (so its basically a circle jerk, and the disagreements he may have with guest speakers tend to, from what I've seen/heard, not be ideological differences, but semantics one where both people @ the end of the day still believe in generally the same overarching concept from the same side ) I realize much of this is assumption based mixed with personal experience with his channel and channels that have the same style and formulaic output of material, but they are strong ones with many variables accounted for, I just strayed away from absolutes.

At the end of the day, my criticism was mostly for rhetorical reasons anyway, but this was fun to write  Enjoy the novel  

[mmm 879]

1 hour ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

Incoming sort of long post. It just heavily expands on my response... I wrote it and was pretty happy with it, so instead of just trimming it down, I'll put in a spoiler, then put a relatively shorter TL;DR version at the end.  I hope you read the whole thing and digest it, but if you don't oh well  I'm gonna copy it and save it for a later discussion where it's relevant, which I'm sure there will be

Spoiler

First off, it's not really that black and white as if right and left and libertarians are just all in agreement, let alone even "for/against" entire spheres of society/government  Left-Wing people are known as being Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Radical in ideology, and Right-Wing people are known as Conservative/Reactionary/Traditional in ideology. Libertarianism as I've learned of it is not some pure center ideology that just evenly combines both. In my anecdotal experience, many (well in my case, 100% of) people that identify as libertarian are actually pretty Conservative/Reactionary in most social issues, just with the added self-determination = freedom narrative added in It should be noted that there are Left-leaning Libertarians as well. I haven't met any, but im sure they exist  

Now for the large part  

He isn't inherently misogynistic because hes anti-feminist, hes misogynistic because some of his views (that in this case enforce his anti-feminist views) are very offensive and hateful stereotypes towards women, though typically in a more relatable disguise non-male perspective  

Also, feminism=/=women, so already I'm not sure where you get the idea that I even implied that anti-feminist = misogyny (which is hatred or disdain for women) Feminism as a term has both normative and descriptive definitions, so its not "merely" a political movement. For example, some believe to be a feminist you must simply believe that "women should be equal to men" or "in the equality of the genders" where as others believe that you must understand the structural differences that disadvantage women and feminine gender roles and expressions when compared to men and masculine gender roles and expressions, and others define it in even more ways. It's definitely not a group of people who all believe the same thing, some feminists are much more radical (in the sociological sense) than others... but I digress

I obviously haven't watched every single one of his videos (some are 3 hours long, the hell  ) but I had heard of him before and done research because hes a name that comes up in my circles sometimes. He aligns himself with certain lines of thinking that are problematic, or at least thinks favorably or neutrally of them regardless of whether he adopts any specific label... and these lines of thinking are themselves what are sexist or misogynistic or both.

Some lines of thinking or ideologies or movements or w.e we want to call them (The Red Pill, the Men's Rights Movement™ (and MRAs), MGTOW, AWALT, PUA and other movements in the Manosphere™ ) are often used to basically recruit men, and sometimes a combination of sympathetic and internally misogynistic women, in a cult-like fashion by appealing to their personal noticing of how society (and in feminist theory "Patriarchy") harms men and offering them a sort of "safe haven" of like minded individuals who see the solution to these problems, or at least recognize the problem. It's all very inviting and seemingly friendly till you analyze it from an outside perspective. 

The sexism and misogyny in these movements can go from something as seemingly innocent as "Men commit suicide more than men and die younger than Women do, It must be Gynocentrism and Male Disposability, down with Feminism for actively campaigning against men!" to "All Women are sluts and whores and we as Men deserve sex because of our "biological imperative" and women ALL cheat on men because of *insert other disgustingly offensive bio-truth* Sometimes we get people in the middle who combine the two with a severe misunderstanding of feminism as an ideological lens,  which is informed by sociology, anthropology, and linguistics (lets just call it what it is, it's structuralism ) also they tend to misinterpret feminist-championed, subversive acts as affronts to men or in the larger picture, the privileged class in comparison (So Male vs Female, white vs PoC, Straight vs Queer in any sense, etc.) For example, I encounter MRAs in different stages of their journey into analyzing oppression and the ills of society on classes of people on a daily basis and some of their biggest complaints to feminists are "Why can't men hit girls back!" and "Why is "Girl Power" a thing, but "Male Power" isn't, etc. etc. They seem like really really good questions to them i'm sure, but they tend to fundamentally misunderstand the power dynamics in play... also, Feminism is much older than these movements and ideologies or belief systems and I've in my 4 going on 5 years of Feminism not encountered an argument that is original. I'm always looking though  

Back on track,

These narratives appeal to men and women from different walks of life who haven't really managed to wrestle reality from their own relatively narrow and privileged perspectives, hence the wide variety of levels people in the Manosphere™ fall on. Things like MGTOW and AWALT, PUA, and TRP (The Red Pill) tend to be inherently misogynistic if not just sexist from their inception and general practices and beliefs (such as that women are disposable for men and that men "Deserve" sex) -- These beliefs and movements in the Manosphere™ tend to just breed middle aged men who are anti-feminism and to some extent Women internally at least...but at worst they breed Elliot Roger types  I'd say the only part of the Manosphere™ that I can think of that isn't inherently at least sexist if not misogynistic as well is MAYBE some individual MRAs, because they tend to be a large amalgamation of people in many different categories... though the common bio-truths of "Men and Women are just biologically different and make different decisions and choices and thus *insert x generalization* is valid!" do tend to be sexist from a systemic level almost ALL of the time  But I don't like absolutes, so lets say they might not be  

Finally, by "The titles do a lot of the work for me", it just means that clicking on his profile and seeing the people he discusses/debates, combined with the topics he discusses (which are pretty much always the title of the video) its clear to see that almost all of the issues are ones that are well-frequented and debated by people who are either Conservative/Reactionary, with the more "positive" sounding topics basically being circle jerks of like-minded people discussing their common disagreement with x (like Feminists/Feminism, BLM, and other Liberal/Progressive/Radical ideologies and their followers)  and the "Truth" videos being propagandized rhetoric that is supposed to sound objective, but its clearly not in light of everything he publishes has some sort of agenda. Tbh, I don't even care that its a generally Conservative/Reactionary link (Socially) its just the fact that there's a clear bias or agenda at all that made me post that. I think a YouTube page that so overwhelmingly appears one-sided and has a demonstrable tendency to engage in hive-minded behavior and discussion should be considered a "go-to" source for objective validity. 

 

TL;DR, First off, Left-Wing people are known as being Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Radical in ideology, and Right-Wing people are known as Conservative/Reactionary/Traditional in ideology. Libertarianism is not some pure center ideology that just evenly combines both in all aspects.  In my anecdotal experience, many (well in my case, 100% of) people that identify as Libertarian are actually ridiculously Conservative/Reactionary in most social issues, just with the added self-determination = freedom narrative added in It should be noted that there are Left-leaning Libertarians as well. I haven't met any, but im sure they exist  It could just be that I'm American and people tend to claim Libertarian as a more decided way to be not a Republican, but not Independent either  If he's a Libertarian, he seems strongly Right-leaning socially, which is fine.. and he also coversPolitical, and Economic (where's environmental  ) issues and some Pop Culture as well.

Secondly, Feminism =/= Women, so already I'm not sure where you get the idea that I even implied or meant that anti-feminist = misogyny (which is hatred or disdain for women) I don't think I'm falsely accusing anyone, it's actually really easy to see that he aligns himself with certain movements and ideologies that are INHERENTLY sexist and some are ALSO misogynistic  Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), All Women Are Like That (AWALT), The Red Pill (TRP), Pick Up Artists (PUA) are some popular ones, many of which have been discussed on his channel a LOT, even when not specifically named. I mean "Female Laziness, the Story of Male Exploitation"  Bam, sexism and misogyny right there  (and a bit of delusion on top  ) 

About the "titles do a lot for me"... well tbh I know of this guy because I refute his (mostly unoriginal ) points from time to time in feminist circles, so I already know a lot of his views on at least feminist-related social issues, which can include Race and Gender-Sexuality related topics. Not many (I cant think of one actually) videos I've been linked to in my years of feministing™ by him nor his contemporaries are actually "Gotcha!" titled videos where he actually REFUTES the title to death , but rather encourages it or discusses it from a narrow, usually one or maybe one and a half sided perspective (so its basically a circle jerk, and the disagreements he may have with guest speakers tend to, from what I've seen/heard, not be ideological differences, but semantics one where both people @ the end of the day still believe in generally the same overarching concept from the same side ) I realize much of this is assumption based mixed with personal experience with his channel and channels that have the same style and formulaic output of material, but they are strong ones with many variables accounted for, I just strayed away from absolutes.

At the end of the day, my criticism was mostly for rhetorical reasons anyway, but this was fun to write  Enjoy the novel  

Your not really making any arguments, your just giving statements and rambling about your opinions! I dont mind long comments but it seems like it was unnecessary.
 
It doesnt matter if Libertarians lean towards being right wing conservatives because libertarians dont believe that their opinion should create laws because laws are nothing but an opinion with a gun.. for example, if a libertarian is against homosexuality, he still doesnt believe that a law should be created to make homosexuality illegal. Libertarians used to have alot in common with liberals like freedom of speech and social issues but liberal Progressives are now turning into Regressives and are against freedom of speech and thats why they both have nothing in common now and it looks like Libertarians lean towards the right when they really dont.
 

You talked about Stefan and the Mens right movement yet you did not make any arguments.. you also say that they invalidate womens experience but you also invalidate mens experience! I can give you a list of real mens right movement problems but you will find excuses and make fun of it or maybe tell men they are the reason for their problems right?

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

6 hours ago, Fays1 said:

Your not really making any arguments, your just giving statements and rambling about your opinions! I dont mind long comments but it seems like it was unnecessary.
 
It doesnt matter if Libertarians lean towards being right wing conservatives because libertarians dont believe that their opinion should create laws because laws are nothing but an opinion with a gun.. for example, if a libertarian is against homosexuality, he still doesnt believe that a law should be created to make homosexuality illegal. Libertarians used to have alot in common with liberals like freedom of speech and social issues but liberal Progressives are now turning into Regressives and are against freedom of speech and thats why they both have nothing in common now and it looks like Libertarians lean towards the right when they really dont.
 

You talked about Stefan and the Mens right movement yet you did not make any arguments.. you also say that they invalidate womens experience but you also invalidate mens experience! I can give you a list of real mens right movement problems but you will find excuses and make fun of it or maybe tell men they are the reason for their problems right?

I'm putting forth statements while countering your arguments because you accused me of calling people that don't agree with me misogynists. I explained (in a bit much detail) WHY they are misogynists and basically gave evidence to that fact in statement form. You don't know me or if I "invalidate men's experiences" (btw I am male  ) and admitting that some groups of people hold some seriously ****ed up and misogynist, sexist beliefs does not mean that I am "invalidating men's experiences" Im just saying that there is a **** ton of stuff that backs up me saying that he's misogynistic and or sexist, or at least holds some of those beliefs. My main point was that he's a clearly biased source, that he subscribes to certain ideologies known FOR their sexism or even rampant misogyny was really just extra information. So you linking him with "everyone should watch this" as if its some source of what's really going sans all the arguments and debate just seemed off to me. Like, hes not a good source  

It really wasn't even that big a deal, so im done now  

[mmm 879]

1 hour ago, ItsVenusBitch said:

I'm putting forth statements while countering your arguments because you accused me of calling people that don't agree with me misogynists. I explained (in a bit much detail) WHY they are misogynists and basically gave evidence to that fact in statement form. You don't know me or if I "invalidate men's experiences" (btw I am male  ) and admitting that some groups of people hold some seriously ****ed up and misogynist, sexist beliefs does not mean that I am "invalidating men's experiences" Im just saying that there is a **** ton of stuff that backs up me saying that he's misogynistic and or sexist, or at least holds some of those beliefs. My main point was that he's a clearly biased source, that he subscribes to certain ideologies known FOR their sexism or even rampant misogyny was really just extra information. So you linking him with "everyone should watch this" as if its some source of what's really going sans all the arguments and debate just seemed off to me. Like, hes not a good source  

It really wasn't even that big a deal, so im done now  

You said hes a misogynistic because he belongs to groups like The Red Pill, MRA and MGTOW when does not even belong to any of them and actually speaks out against some of them like MGTOW. Also, these groups are not even sexist or misogynistic as they are simply calling out the lie of the feminazi movement. Almost all of them support gender equality as they are libertarians but none of them support Equality of Outcome, they support Equal of Opportunity.  I do not think hes a biased source and I like what he says so thats why I said "everyone should watch this".

[lego 44,165]

Oregon militants keeping women and children around at standoff despite threats to kill or be killed

 

 

The militants occupying an Oregon nature preserve are apparently using women and children as human shields.

Television crews and newspaper photographers have shown women and children visiting the Malheur National Wildlife Reserve, where at least two dozen self-described militiamen have brought their guns and demanded the release of two ranchers sentenced in an arson case.

The militants are also demanding that the Bureau of Land Management turn over the nature preserve to local authorities for private use.

Federal authorities, however, have said they intend to flush out the armed militants by shutting off utility service to the visitors center they took over Saturday evening following a demonstration.

One of the militants’ supporters, Joe Oshaugnessy, said in a Facebook post that the government would be to blame if that shutoff caused any harm to the women and children staying on the grounds.

“Just a quick reminder if they do shut down the electricity to the facility they will be shutting off the heat to woman and children who are also at the refuge,” Oshaugnessy said. “With temperatures of -16 in the area let’s pray they don’t.”

There’s actually no outside forces stopping those women and children — or the militants, for that matter — from leaving the nature preserve.

Video, photos and social media posts suggests the armed militants and their supporters have been coming and going freely in the absence of law enforcement agencies at the refuge.

“I got warm hugs and well wishes and they thanked me for coming to see them,” said Maureen Peltier, a disabled National Guard sergeant who writes social media posts for the III Percent movement and other right-wing extremist groups. “Some people are saying it’s so relaxed there, we come and go with or without children.”

...

 

Many of the militants — including ringleader Ammon Bundy — took part in the armed standoff in 2014 at the Bundy ranch in Nevada, where militants admitted they deployed their own wives and children ashuman shields.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” recalled former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, a popular figure among right-wing extremists who is reportedly at the Oregon standoff. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-militants-keeping-women-and-children-around-at-standoff-despite-threats-to-kill-or-be-killed/

 

peaceful bunch...

no civilians can be harmed...

 

 

 

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

So basically this is domestic terror... I mean mental illness to the extreme, right? I just don't understand why these guys are getting such special treatment.  

[mmm 879]

On 1/3/2016 at 6:40 PM, Chic said:

Did...did anyone actually know this was an issue before this happened?

Im not American and I always knew about this.. this is a very old story that is ongoing.. it cant be solved because the government is breaking the law so it cant really act against them and they cant get their right because they will be shot..

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

On 1/8/2016 at 0:22 AM, ZacharyMark said:

I just don't understand why these guys are getting such special treatment.  

They're not. There is simply no cause for urgency given that there are is no actual risk to anyone's life.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

They're not. There is simply no cause for urgency given that there are is no actual risk to anyone's life.

So is the situation with women and children not true then?  Or their threat of using force if police were to go in? Whether or not those are are fact, these men took over a federal building. Unless this building was unoccupied beforehand, doesn't this qualify for a hostage situation?

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, ZacharyMark said:

So is the situation with women and children not true then?  Or their threat of using force if police were to go in? Whether or not those are are fact, these men took over a federal building. Unless this building was unoccupied beforehand, doesn't this qualify for a hostage situation?

It was unoccupied.

The point is that this is a non-essential building that a bunch of armed people are occupying.

What's the rush? Do you want someone to go in and kill them all or something? Would you risk the lives of those who would go in against a fortified structure?

Maybe they should bomb it. Throw in some nerve gas?

 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

58 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It was unoccupied.

The point is that this is a non-essential building that a bunch of armed people are occupying.

What's the rush? Do you want someone to go in and kill them all or something? Would you risk the lives of those who would go in against a fortified structure?

Maybe they should bomb it. Throw in some nerve gas?

 

Then what's the point if the building was unoccupied...?  I need facts.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

49 minutes ago, ZacharyMark said:

Then what's the point if the building was unoccupied...?  I need facts.

They are protesting.

[TiphEret 1,320]

food for thoughts...

article written by a Native

 

“We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners, more than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government.”

- Ammon Bundy, Ironic Philosopher

"Will we let ourselves be destroyed in our turn without a struggle, give up our homes, our country bequeathed to us by the Great Spirit, the graves of our dead and everything that is dear and sacred to us? I know you will cry with me, 'Never! Never!'"

- Tecumseh, Shawnee

“These are people that shouldn’t be in our country. They flow in like water.”

- Donald Trump

"A long time ago this land belonged to our fathers, but when I go up to the river I see camps of soldiers on its banks. These soldiers cut down my timber, they kill my buffalo and when I see that, my heart feels like bursting."

- Satanta, Kiowa Chief

I think it started with that damned Woody Guthrie.

See, before Woody Guthrie’s stupid song, most white folks knew that they were just fortunate visitors of this land of plenty. They came from Europe starving and knowing that they would never own their own house, so they came through.  Cool—I get it.  And yeah, most of you folks set up shop and did the whole “Manifest Destiny” thing.  Not cool. Still, in spite of that you allknewthis was our land first. And you respect “firsts”—the Wright Brothers, Bruce Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner, etc.  That’s why every third one of you say that your great-grandmother was a Cherokee princess—because you respect firsts and…

We were here first. That’s obvious. We get the trophy! Oh sure, many white folks tried to convince themselves that Natives shared everything so that you could pass off that “Doctrine of Discovery” nonsense and take land and that was pretty dirty too. “Communal living,” painting with the colors of the wind, all that jazz.

But still they knew. Somebody was here. It wasn’t them. Somebody fed those starving ivory tummies that first Thanksgiving. Racist white people killed all those tens of millions of buffalo forsomereason—because they knew that those buffalo were Native people’s power pellets and eventually those Native Nations were gonna replenish their power and populations and…

Someone was here. That was clear. This land wasn’t white people’s; it was somebody else’s. And those people didn’t lookanything like you. 

“This land is your land…this land is my land….from California, to the New York Island…”

No it’s not, Woody Guthrie.  You’re lying to them.

So now when I hear these crazy white people—Donald Trump, Ammon Bundy, Alex Jones, etc—you’d think you were listening to some Natives talk about their beautiful homelands where their ancestors have resided for thousands of years. When I hear these silly and hairy militia men in Oregon talk about the government taking “their land,” my first thought is “take a number.”  By the way, that number—if they were at the DMV trying to get their license renewed—would be like 327,000,000.  Similarly, when I hear Donald Trump talk about people who “shouldn’t be in our country” and how Mexico is sending criminals to this nation, my first thought isthey’re immigrating to Germany?The second thought iswhy wouldn’t they?That’s the lesson they learned from Europe.

Hence, we inherited such treasures as Donald Trump, Ammon Bundy, Alex Jones and other European-Americans.

Thing is, the data shows that Mexico isnotfollowing Europe’s lead; statistically Mexico is sending quality folks simply looking for opportunity andnotlooking to kill the people who are already here, enslave the people who are already here, steal the people who are already here’s land or change the religion of the people who are already here.

And in that way, Mexico’s immigrants aremuchdifferent than the European immigrants who came to this Nation in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were. 

Yeah, we had to go there. Because these fools keep bringing it up. And if they keep bringing it up, wehaveto tell the truth. 

So no, Woody Guthrie and Donald Trump and Ammon Bundy and Alex Jones, this land is not your land.  This is Native land. Unquestionably, unequivocally, no doubt. Yes, we can play nice and we can all get along; we are all stuck here together, so we might as well all work together.  But sincethey brought it up, as a matter of factmost white peopleare the descendants of VERY recent immigrants to this country.A very small amount of white folksare the descendants of immigrants who have been hereslightly longer—still, a teenie, tiny drop in the bucket to how long Native people have been here.  And that’s cool—absolutely, if you’ve ever been over to my auntie Wilma Faye’s house or my mom’s house or pretty much ANY Native auntie’s house, Native people are incredible house guests. Feed you, make you drink some coffee and eat bannock and talk your ear off.  Heck, they might even let you stay there for awhile.

But no amount of visiting, coffee or hanging will ever make it your house. Just to be clear.  

 

Read more athttp://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/07/crazy-white-people-are-new-native-americans-woody-guthrie-amon-bundy-donald-trump-163000

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

On January 10, 2016 at 2:10 PM, LebaneseDude said:

They are protesting.

With guns? People have stopped caring by now anyway. 

[lego 44,165]