From Merriam-Webster.com:
Irony: Incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result.
Once upon a time, Right Wing outfits like Fox News and all of AM radio stoked the fears of conservatives that liberals were going to “take over” the country and put them all in “re-education camps.” Militias spread across the country like wildfire, suspicious of a “liberal” government that, so they were told, was poised to strip away all their rights at gunpoint.
It got so bad that wingnuts started showing up at conservative rallies openly carrying their guns in states where it was legal to do so. Of course, the Right Wing media celebrated this expression of their fundamental right to bear arms because it was directed against the Obama administration which has done exactly nothing to warrant these fears.
Oh, how times have changed!
The whole point of the militia movement was to defend the people against gross violations by the government of peoples’ constitutional rights. For instance, suppressing peoples’ First Amendment right to peacefully protest with pepper spray, beatings, tear gas and flashbang grenades.
Here’s a few gentlemen decked out in full gear at the Occupy Phoenix protests:
These are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination. The armed citizen, J.T. is, in fact, a neo-nazi. While one can assume he finds hippes and liberals…distasteful, he still makes a point of stating that he doesn’t even need to agree with the protest; they still have the right to be there without being assaulted by, yup, the government.
This has to be an extremely distressing development for the Right Wing fear mongers that have taken great pains to sow paranoid distrust among certain elements of the Right. If you condition people to fear the government taking away their freedoms, it shouldn’t be particularly shocking when they respond to that very thing. This is, literally, the kind of violent suppression of civil rights that militias have feared for decades.
Of course, the difference is that the suppression was supposed to be from “evil liberals” against “patriotic conservatives” rather then corporate “persons” against actual flesh and blood people. The problem is that the Occupy movement is under assault by proxies of the 1% and protecting them runs counter to the interests of the Right Wing media and their paymasters. It will most interesting to see whether Fox, Rush and their ilk ignore, applaud or denounce this. My money is on ignore.
Another reason for panic among the powers that be is the very presence of armed, Right Wing militias defending the Occupy movement is proof that the smear campaign is failing and failing epically. If virulently anti-government conservatives are looking past partisan politics to defend people they would normally despise, that’s not just a crack in the wall that’s been built between them, it’s a gaping hole.
Feel free to tell me what a terrible person I am on Facebook here (public) or here (not so public) or follow me on Twitter @FilthyLbrlScum. Share and Tweet the love.
While I understand the concerns that having armed militia at an #Occupy event ratchets up the number of possible bad outcomes, given the behavior of police at many other sites, the likelihood of police swarming on these protestors with billy clubs, rubber bullets and tear gas is greatly reduced.
There are ‘rules.’ (Not really, but we have these things called “laws” that people are expected to obey. Including the police. So we HAVE the right to protest peacefully, and in theory, the police are supposed to allow this. When they choose to attack a peaceful protestor, it’s easy to do – your buddies egg you on and you’re all suited and booted so the adrenaline says “go for it.” But when the peaceful protestor is backed by a person sitting peacefully, but with a big-ass assault weapon in hand, chances are far greater that he will be allowed to exercise his 1st Amendment right.
My only ‘knowledge’ of militia is like many of you, from the media and movie viewpoint, which is severely flawed, based on the worst and most colorful of the genre – for “entertainment” purposes. But J.T. is more articulate than I would have given credence if I hadn’t “seen it on YouTube,” and this scenario has made me rethink my assumptions.
I’m sure there ARE militia to be leery of, social rejects that just want an excuse to shoot big guns and act macho. But I’m glad these guys were there. Thanks, J.T. Defending someone he doesn’t like and whose viewpoint he does not support takes real humanity – and balls.
It’s a trap. They are extremist racists and are up to something.
I hate the condescending tone of this article but yes it is nice to see right and left coming together
Don’t ya just hate it when the crazies are right? Even if they’re YOUR crazies? I’ve been saying for years that I’m unhappy at how close my thinking has become to these very people. Militia mentality is definitely NOT the mode I prefer to operate under – but this is what the right has brought us to, with its orchestrated barrage of lies and distortions and callous depraved indifference toward those who put them in office (no, not the Citizens United corporations, that’s NEXT year…) And now it’s coming to pass: the armed anti-government right against the “anti-government-that-impacts-business-but-restricts-rights” Fox News mercenaries and Tea Party johns. Militia leaders may not be nice people, but they know which side of the face their politicians are talking out of…
… I’m just weighing in as a conservative Jeffersonian Democrat that is very “pro” 2nd amendment! I have no problem with militias’ presence at “Occupy” sites… They, too, are being represented by the 99%, right? The neo-nazi label is personal, & should not be slapped on an entire group just because one person proclaims himself to ascribe to a backwards philosophy.
It is my hope that your characterization of this development as “strange bedfellows” is premature. I have enjoyed your past articles, but I can’t go with you on this one. You’re enthusiasm for this development leads me to believe that you see it as a good thing for the movement, I couldn’t disagree more.
The two hallmarks of the Occupy movement has been 1) they are non-political, and 2) they are non-violent. I believe these precepts are what give the movement its legitimacy and its broad based appeal. Adding an armed militia fundamentally changes the nature of the movement, and the movement will suffer for it.
While I’m not a fan of either OWS or the Militia Movement, I am a fan of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, so I say more power to both groups.
Justin I didn’t even know it was you till I got to the end. ” a gaping hole in the wall that divides us..” -I hope you’re right!
Supak:
“…no from our own government.”
Yeah, them too…there’s no dividing line and no specifics.
All enemies, foreign and domestic, peace and tranqulity.
Liberals should really try to at least make an effort to be at peace with the second amendment and the possession of firearms by responsible law abiding citizens. It doesn’t make sense that only the conservatives, only the right wingers and only the Tea Party are the ones who have an understanding of this.
I am old enough to remember when liberals had no problems with personal possession of guns. It didn’t make them any less liberal, just more firm and confident in their beliefs.
This is not to say that all liberals should arm themselves.
That’s a personal choice of course, but not all firearm owners are necessarily bad or dangerous, and I am proof that not all of them are conservative :-)
@ Jeff H – you’re buying NRA propaganda if you believe all liberals are against the 2nd Amendment. Most liberals I know are in favor of gun *control*, not guns being outlawed altogether. I support responsible gun ownership, with background checks, safety training, and safe storage if there are children in the home. I have no problems with pistols and hunting rifles. I *do* have a problem with AK-47s on our streets-those aren’t to deter burglars, they’re just murder weapons.
There are not “AK-47s on our streets”. This is typical of the “liberal” mass-media’s misrepresentation of firearms to confuse the populace and enact gun bans. The AK-47 is a fully-automatic military weapon, a machine gun, that can only be privately owned under rigidly controlled federal permitting and at great expense (they’re about $16,000 +). The civilian AK-type rifles *look* like the military ones but are semi-automatic and functionally no different from any other semi-auto weapon like the shotguns used by duck hunters and the common handguns used by police and legally-armed citizens. As for “NRA propaganda”, they give reference to where their data comes from (often the DOJ), unlike the gun-haters who spread unsubstantiated lies and true propaganda.
BTW, I am by most standards a “liberal” but support the 2nd amendment 100%.
Please do a little more research before making such statements like “AK-47s on our streets”. Only by knowing the TRUTH can we all stand together and prevent being divided and conquered.
Steve, There are constantly arrests all over the country for ILLEGAL AK-47 assault riffles. A man was arrested in Tucson Oct 6, 2011 for trying to rob a bank with one; Aug. 2, 2011, Newark police arrest man and woman for possession of AK-47–the fourth confiscated in several weeks. Just Google it!
I don’t believe that libs hate guns as much as reputed. Speaking as a progressive, responsible gun ownership (i.e. where the gun is not the extension of one’s penis) is fine by me. I don’t want a gun, don’t want any around me. What others do is fine, as long as they obey the laws and keep the guns safely away from kids (locked up and empty at home). And, I see no good reason to have guns in a bar where it’s a good bet that most people need a designated driver, and are in no better shape to handle a weapon.
I don’t have a problems with the idea of someone owning a gun. I don’t, however, want to be around people who are carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise.
“It seems that the “well regulated militia” idea was to protect communities from outside attack, like the British, or Native Americans, not from our own government.”
That’s right, the military and militia for the 13 colonies were established to establish the wealthy aristocracy (aka founding fathers), put down slave rebellions in order to protect the southern aristocrats, and help to establish a buffer (along with white settlers) between the Native American “savages” (as the Declaration of Independence calls them)and the white aristocrats.
I highly recommend reading “A People’s History of the United States” by legendary historian Howard Zinn for a more thorough analysis of this early period in American History.
I could personally care less if the white militia groups want to play Soldier at Occupy, so long as their focus is against police repression instead helping the police to repress the demonstrators. What is worrisome is that they inject their Constitutionalist rhetoric–when the experiment of 1787 has so obviously failed the greater populace time and time again. It is foolish to value Silver and Gold mined out by slaves as a currency for the simple reason that it is shiny or rare–or my favorite excuse.. the founding fathers would have wanted it that way. Just leave the thinking for this new society to the thinkers and watch our backs.
This is simultaneously the most hopeful, peculiar, heartening and just plain weird thing I have read today. Not to mention unsettling.
It’s wonderful!
As long as we have to fight the powers that be, I feel any and all of the 99% who want to join are welcome. We all have a voice that needs to be heard which is something all of us have in common. We will no longer be ignored as we have been for decades now. WE the people are back and we will be heard. Off to NYC this weekend. Long live the 99%…..
I have a problem with this:
“The whole point of the militia movement was to defend the people against gross violations by the government of peoples’ constitutional rights.”
It seems that the “well regulated militia” idea was to protect communities from outside attack, like the British, or Native Americans, not from our own government.
So, if the neo-nazis want to instigate some violence against the government, which is by definition “us”, then I sure hope they don’t say they’re doing it for the sake of the liberals who are, for the most part, peaceful. I really don’t think it’s a good idea to have a bunch of Nazis out there provoking the cops right in the middle of a bunch of peaceful hippies, you know?
On the up-side, it’s good to know that even these violent wingnuts have a little common sense left.
In _The End of Liberal Loserism_, Dean Baker points out that Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders have backed a bill to audit the Fed. While Paul would like to get rid of the Fed, and Sanders would like for the FED to pay attention to its DUAL mandate, they both agree that an audit would be a good idea. This is how we should reach out to the wingnuts.
In short, I’m pretty sure that the #occupy protesters are going to get better at defending themselves by moving to flash mobs and other open-source protest techniques that might even have more impact. We really don’t need some ultra-violent right wing gangs out there facing off with cops, because Faux News and the Village will just try to make it look like the left-wing is violent.
When I wrote “militia movement” I meant the modern day militias that are forever on the lookout for “black helicopters” not the 1800s version.
One of the reasons for forming militias was, indeed, to guard against government tyranny. Many forget that our founding fathers so distrusted government that they enshrined a way for the people to rise against it if necessity presented.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson, (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, p. 334, 1950)
Different times. It’s illegal to attack the government. Also foolish, since they have overwhelming force.
it’s always been illegal to attack the government. And tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the source – or nature – of the acts.
And yes the government has overwhelming force, which s why a serious militia movement tends to be more like a guerrilla force than a toe-to-toe slug-fest. And why the left’s primary propaganda response will need to be aimed directly at the fighting soldier/peace officer. They, too, are the 99%, as long as we can show them.
They seem to be catching on. Although only former military personnel can participate.
“It’s illegal to attack the government.”
Don’t you have a keen sense of the obvious. Did you know it’s also illegal to commit a crime?
you’re a terrible person! I LOOOVE IT!