Post: #101

Honestly I don't see this as working out for a future gun grab. As it stands the militiamen picked about the most remote building in Oregon you could choose to occupy: a wildlife refuge visitor's center in the middle of a sage desert. They haven't shot anyone or damaged anything. And with smartphones, there's really no way for the government to try and effectively spin the situation like they did in Waco where ATF just made up a bunch of shit about the people they burned to death.

All the post shooting gun control pushes that have occurred under Obama have basically flopped. Dylan Roof got sidetracked into making Dukes of Hazzard into crimethink, Elliot Rodger got sidetracked into PUAs or effete half-asians being psycho or something, San Bernadino was just too obviously Islamic terrorism for non-ideologues to buy the workplace violence narrative. Sandy Hook was probably the most potentially effective event that woudl have convinced the public to support more gun control with little children being shot (and too politically incorrect to blame it on spergs gonna sperg), but even that fell flat. (There's a long whining episode of Frontline about that if you're interested).

After a couple years of the public being told by liberal activists that the police are evil racists that will blow you away if you so much as look at them cross-eyed, I find it hard to imagine that a militia getting into a gun battle with the cops in a remote desert is going to make people suddenly clamor to give up their guns.

Post: #102

Not to mention, that even though certain individuals in this stand-off are not universally liked by the patriot / militia crowd.
U.S. authorities will have to weigh up the cost / benefit of turning these folks into potential martyrs.

Post: #103

(01-04-2016 01:31 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  Maybe they'll false flag themselves. Setup their own snipers in the hills, take the people out in/around the building, blame the government. Just enough bodies needed to force something, give IR chemlights to the non-targets (Ammon and brood) and later he can come out bullhorn blaring against "government hostility".

Is it movie night over there, spokepoker? haha

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #104

(01-03-2016 04:45 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 03:27 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 01:15 PM)Troutslayer Wrote:  Please see link below for a thorough synopsis of the events leading up to this.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016...rsecution/

The willingness of the BLM to engage in subterfuge, vindictiveness and all sorts of chicanery is not a secret, nor is it isolated.

Some suspect all of these incidents of BLM over reach across the west as being some sort of conspiracy being led by the federal government to economically marginalize a potentially (and increasingly actually) restive part of the population. By preventing many of these very independent communities from being economically self sufficient, they are effectively brought into tighter orbit around the mainstream and neutered as political opposition.

Is there an actual conspiracy at the federal level to accomplish this? It is certainly possible, though not exactly plausible. The malevolence certainly exists but the competence and operational security likely does not. Malevolent conspiracy or not, the effect is the same, many, many people across the west have lost the ability to derive a living from the land as a direct result of BLM/Federal overreach. The end effect is the same and therefore must be resisted with force either way. It is natural and justifiable to do just that.

A final note, I would not trust any breaking news report on this, especially regarding strength, disposition, training & equipping of the militia operating in the area. Anyone even halfway competent in conducting a 4th generation operation will be adept at using the media to deceive their opposition. As they should.

A lot of good information and fact-checking there.

But more importantly... WYB?

Y/N/Y

Looks like a wholesome, hardworking, white, American family....





I'm starting to love this meme.

Those guys remind me of the frontiersmen of America that were its founding stock.

The hardy heroic pioneers that helped make this country great in the 1st place.

Just by looking at them I can see the red-hot blooded America in them that are still healthy and strong.

I pray those guys win.

Post: #105

(01-03-2016 07:38 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 02:50 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  The land they're ranching on is owned by the Federal government, but his family, like the Bundy family, has ranched it for generations, the Bundys since 1870s. They have had permits to farm/ranch it for many many years.

Over the years the Federal government has been steadingly decreasing the area they allow for it and then asking the ranchers high fees if they want to continue.

What is therefore happening is the government formally taking over land that has informally been used freely by farmers. They then use enviromental concerns to take over the land.

As with anything else, this is about the government wanting to get paid from its serfs.

Few people know that one of the things that really started the French Revolution, was the fact that the State (through the King at that time) had been deliberately shrinking the "communal lands" where ordinary, middle-class or poor Frenchmen were allowed to farm (feed their cattle for free).

Interestingly, lower- and middle-class Frenchmen who made the Revolution (partly to get access to more free-farming "communal lands"), were massively cucked: 4 years after the Revolution, the new, revolutionary French State, passed a law... allowing for the selling of "communal lands" to (very) rich private citizens. So ordinary people who had fought the Revolution, at the end of the day got... less available farming land than during the Kings! Capitalism always win!

References: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_du_par..._juin_1793
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biens_communaux

Since another have said it better than me I will let this guy do the talking in addressing many ills that are attributed to "Capitalism"

''Capital does not have a will. Capital is not the kind of thing that can have a will. The cultural degradations ascribed to “capitalism” therefore are not the fault of capitalism per se but the fault of human actions: what humans decided to DO with their capital. And this is made explicit by the equation of capitalism to double entry accounting. What? You’re blaming THAT on double-entry accounting??

Does double-entry accounting lead to blow job bars? No. Bad people found, staff, and attend blow job bars. We got to fix the people and their norms first. Then we’ll worry about the accounting, if indeed it is a problem at all.''

-Nick B Steves

https://esoterictrad.wordpress.com/2015/...e-killers/

Post: #106

(01-03-2016 02:54 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Here's the government's take on the conviction of the Hammond's, who the militiamen are supporting:

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

They were convicted in court for two fires. Conviction of the first fire depended mostly on a witness that testified against them that happened to be a relative. The government story is that they started the fire to hide killing deer. The Hammonds contend they wanted to burn invasive species.

The second fire were backfires to prevent spread of a fire caused by lightning.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

Any hunters here? Is starting a fire a good way to hide an illegal hunt? Has fires been used in the past to hide illegal hunts?

I speak as a licensed hunter in Canada - though fairly green. It is an incredible super ultra dangerous and wasteful (of greenery) of hiding deer corpses and likely to bring way more attention than one could ever want. Some areas have legal times of year to light fires and such depending on jurisdiction.

Maybe it was done in a "controlled" fashion to hide evidence, but in a super dry and hot climate all you need is one good wind to start up and you're in a world of total and utter shit.

Post: #107

The Hammond's don't want the Bundy's help. So now what?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-ranch...ccupation/

Post: #108

(01-04-2016 06:53 AM)Tytalus Wrote:  

(01-03-2016 02:54 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Here's the government's take on the conviction of the Hammond's, who the militiamen are supporting:

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

They were convicted in court for two fires. Conviction of the first fire depended mostly on a witness that testified against them that happened to be a relative. The government story is that they started the fire to hide killing deer. The Hammonds contend they wanted to burn invasive species.

The second fire were backfires to prevent spread of a fire caused by lightning.

http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easter...ars-prison

Any hunters here? Is starting a fire a good way to hide an illegal hunt? Has fires been used in the past to hide illegal hunts?

I speak as a licensed hunter in Canada - though fairly green. It is an incredible super ultra dangerous and wasteful (of greenery) of hiding deer corpses and likely to bring way more attention than one could ever want. Some areas have legal times of year to light fires and such depending on jurisdiction.

Maybe it was done in a "controlled" fashion to hide evidence, but in a super dry and hot climate all you need is one good wind to start up and you're in a world of total and utter shit.

Intentionally setting wildfires are a legitimate and widely used ecological management tool. They are called prescribed burns. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/management/rx.html

That s what they claimed to be doing.

Post: #109

I don't know what to believe, covering poaching by burning fires?

The government trying to fuck over these guys (who don't want militia help) on what I understand is leased land?

Is this considered a terrorist act or an act by a concerned citizen ?

Post: #110

(01-04-2016 11:53 AM)kaotic Wrote:  The government trying to fuck over these guys (who don't want militia help) on what I understand is leased land?

Is this considered a terrorist act or an act by a concerned citizen ?

The revolution America deserves, but not the one it needs?

The revolution America needs, but not the one it deserves?

Post: #111

(01-04-2016 12:30 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 11:53 AM)kaotic Wrote:  The government trying to fuck over these guys (who don't want militia help) on what I understand is leased land?

Is this considered a terrorist act or an act by a concerned citizen ?

The revolution America deserves, but not the one it needs?

The revolution America needs, but not the one it deserves?

I just don't see a "revolution" happening over a building in the middle of what looks like nowhere is going to do that.

Sounds like a bunch of pissed off ranchers are sick and tired of government encroachment.

Yes, I partially understand the bigger picture of WHY they're doing this.

I just don't see this coming down to a firefight and igniting the flames for a revolution.

Post: #112

Great thread so far, lots of interesting and insightful posts.
Articles about the incident start appearing in German and Austrian newspapers and media now. Not surprisingly the militiamen are portrayed, or in the comments seen, as any combination of:

Hillbillies/rednecks/neonazis/white supremacists/terrorists/radicals/
libertarian extremists/evangelicals/gun fanatics/anti-democrats/...

Basically, every negative stereotype liberal Europeans hold against non-liberal Americans. The mainstream news articles read by most people however provide none of the essential details that explain how the situation arose and the militia's position, readers have to do their own research. The story is essentially that some ranchers got rightfully convicted of arsony in a national park, and their heavily armed 'Murica buddies are trying to force their release in an act of domestic terrorism. A minority in the comments points out that things are not as simple as they seem though.

I suspect that none of the parties involved are paragons of truth and justice, but that is definitely biased reporting.
And most readers will never know.

Post: #113

Funny how all the liberals who can't stand to admit a muslim that shoots a bunch of people for jihad is a terrorist, and who went on and on about the Bush-era being a descent into a fascist police state because of the Patriot Act, are all now screaming "TERRORISTS! KILL THEM! BEND THEM TO THE WILL OF THE ALL-POWERFUL AND OMNIBENEVOLENT STATE!"

Fucking hypocrites.

Post: #114

Liberals are using #YallQaeda and #YeeHad to make fun of the militia. Making clear parallels between Islamic terror and their networks proves that lefties are completely lucid in their lack of concern for muslim crime. They reveal that they're really only about opposing anything with the benefit of whites in mind. As usual, liberals are really out to hurt people while pretending to make it about saving the whales.

Post: #115

Another case they are using is complaining about the lack of law enforcement or military (national guard) response. Of course, they play the victim card and claim the Law enforcement organizations are blatantly racist because they are keeping their space here while they actively intervened in ferguson and Baltimore.

However, any competent individual can clearly see the difference. One is a bunch of guys with weapons saying "leave us alone." The other was a mob of armed individuals actively destroying civilian property and attacking law enforcement officers. It also tactically makes zero sense to send in the law enforcement/military in an armed raid up against well armed and dug in individuals that are ready to become martyrs. The situation needs to be descalated through negotiations and not offensive actions.

I'm not condoning the actions of these guys as I don't have enough information to figure out if they are wanna-be patriots or if they have a legitimate case (although the retrial seems like complete BS), but once again the black lives matter crowd is showing their complete incompetence with arguments like the above.

I do think #YallQaeda and #YeeHaw are hilarious though.

Post: #116

Just call them rascists, they're denigrating a different cultures core tenets in a derogatory manner.

These idiots (guys who took over the log cabin) souldn't have done anything in the first place, the rancher didn't want their help, and they were ok with doing some more time (probably to be able to build a case against the prosecutor/judge) and now these drama queens run in and scratch everything up with their press on nails.
It's been 4 days into 2016 and I already wish it was over. Get Trump in White house already so we can fix this shit.

Post: #117

(01-04-2016 03:29 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  I do think #YallQaeda and #YeeHaw are hilarious though.

#VanillaISIS was pretty good, too.

Post: #118

Reported on MSNBC twitter that the protesters are to seek clemency from Obama

Post: #119

that would further incite the race relations war. Well shit, in that case he might actually do it.

Post: #120

(01-04-2016 05:13 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 01:31 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  Maybe they'll false flag themselves. Setup their own snipers in the hills, take the people out in/around the building, blame the government. Just enough bodies needed to force something, give IR chemlights to the non-targets (Ammon and brood) and later he can come out bullhorn blaring against "government hostility".

Is it movie night over there, spokepoker? haha

Heh, I figure a stupid plan deserves a stupid explanation. I don't see any point in what they are doing besides making everyone else pay for it later.

Post: #121

(01-04-2016 11:53 AM)kaotic Wrote:  I don't know what to believe, covering poaching by burning fires?

"covering poaching by burning fires?"

Seems ludicrous. Someone kills two deers, and to "cover up" his "crime" (felony?), instead of just disposing of the deers' bodies (by eating them or giving them to his dogs, or - if pressed by time -, by burning these dead deers or burying them deep in the ground), he set fire to huge pieces of land (139 acres)?

Who could have such a stupid, exaggerated, overkill, idea? Burning acres of land instead of just burning (or burying) the dead animals themselves... Or, they could just let the dead deers where they are on the ground and say, "Hey, we didn't do it, some dude roaming the woods did the deed, we've got no idea who killed these deers".

In any case, to dispose of dead (deer) bodies, the best idea remains - and you can bet farmers know it perfectly well, the famous "sixteen pigs in one seating" method (much safer and easier than burning land):





As to burning lands to subsequently farm on them, it's a quite valid and very old, and well-known technique:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn

"Slash-and-burn is an agricultural technique that involves the cutting and burning of plants in forests or woodlands to create fields. ... Slash-and-burn is used by 200 million to 500 million people worldwide"

Disclaimer: as I understand, the Hammonds did not claim having used Slash-and-burn agricultural technique.

Post: #122

I was mulling this over a few beers. As far as I'm concerned, this is clear evidence of a grand conspiracy. Let me explain.

The people in question here who are being pushed around tend to be ranchers. The bureau of land management and the fish and wildlife agency are always reducing the number of grazing leases, buying up land that they made no longer profitable through huge fees and fines, and charging grassland-burners with arson and terrorism charges even though that is standard operating procedure.

What this does, in effect, is reduce the amount of beef available to people in Oregon, and raise the price enough so that hippie/vegan/granola alternatives might actually be cost-effective.

Clearly, they are working on behalf of ex-Californian tech millionaires who are gentrifying the shit out of Oregon by reducing the amount of testosterone-affirming beef available to the local populace. Without beef, native Oregonians will never be able to get swole enough to overthrow their Silicon Valley overlords. Since the majority of them are hipsters anyway, this was not likely to happen from the get-go, but those Silicon Valley nerds figured they'd better cover all their bases just in case. It's a swole-spiracy. A bunch of skinny-fat PBR-swilling vegan hipsters with ED and patchy neckbeards are not as likely to start up a civilian uprising.

Thoughts, RVF?

Post: #123

Strong, that was more of a question than a statement, that's what some have claimed, I'm sure it's more than just that.

Last I checked I think they already served their time but are now getting shafted by federal trumped up charges now.

Post: #124

(01-04-2016 06:20 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Strong, that was more of a question than a statement, that's what some have claimed, I'm sure it's more than just that.

Last I checked I think they already served their time but are now getting shafted by federal trumped up charges now.

Yes Kaotic, I noticed that it was a question and that you didn't really believe the "poaching cover-up" story yourself.

They had served their term indeed (respectively 3 months and one year), but then another judge has now said that they have to serve the minimum-term of 5 years for arson (arson: 5 to 20). I mean, the first judge ordered clemency but a second judge just overruled by saying the 5-year minimum has to be served. So the farmers have just turned themselves in, to serve the remaining time...

Post: #125

(01-04-2016 06:20 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Strong, that was more of a question than a statement, that's what some have claimed, I'm sure it's more than just that.

Last I checked I think they already served their time but are now getting shafted by federal trumped up charges now.

They were convicted under an ANTI-TERRORIST statute.
The district court judge gave them their sentences, that really was in line with the crime. (no one says they didn't break the laws on the books, whether those laws are legitimate are something else)

The higher court said to the lower court, "Hey, you didn't follow the law here. Calls for a higher penalty, since that's how the US Attorney set it up"

The Fed had to appeal as the appellate court rarely does that sort of thing on their own.

So the district court gave them the time they were supposed to get according to the Federal Law, (Written and passed by a bunch of rich white Christians at the behest of born again Christian George W. Bush who meant it to only apply to Muslims)

The sort of thing is not unheard of, but it's really fucked up.

WIA