The Right Wing's Insurrectionist Mindset

[mikeb302000]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201111040026">Media Matters reports

The federal government has alleged that four Georgia militia members who are accused of plotting to kill federal employees modeled their plan on right-wing blogger Mike Vanderboegh's online novel Absolved, which depicts underground militia fighters who declare war on the federal government over gun control laws and same-sex marriage, leading to a second American revolution. Vanderboegh is not alone in promoting such insurrectionism: several right-wing media figures, including other gun rights bloggers, have suggested the possibility of political violence or revolution as a means of responding to progressive policies.

This was covered adequately by our own intrepid reporters, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-right-wing-anti-government-gun.html">here and http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/11/nras-three-percenters.html">here, but the Media Matters folks went on to cite a few other offenders.

Bob Owens: "Go To Your Congressman's Office... If You're Willing To Do The Time For The Crime, Have A Swing At Him."

Kurt Hoffman Suggested It's A "Good Thing" That Politicians Who Support Gun Control Perceive "A Personal Threat To Their Own Lives."

Dick Morris: "Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case."

Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head."

Erick Erickson: "At What Point Do The People ... March Down To Their State Legislator's House, Pull Him Outside, And Beat Him To A Bloody Pulp?"

There's more but you get the idea. Ever since http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/02/tenessee-church-shooter-sentenced.html">the incredible Mr Adkisson wrote his Manifesto I've been convinced that the blabber-mouth right-wing talkers are partly responsible for what their less-intelligent followers do. These political commenters and righty bloggers are abusing the 1st Amendment. I'm not sure what the answer is, but these people are definitely part of the problem.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[hack89]

1. Looks like us progressives should obtain the means to protect ourselves. nt

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Sounds like a redux of the Munich Beer Hall Putsch without the numbers.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

3. Oh, these right wing nut bags have been

fantasizing for years about a revolution and choking the chicken while thinking about it. These dumb asses may get what they have been asking for and they will all pee their pants at the same time.

[jmg257]

4. DU has reporters?

[RSillsbee]

5. trying to figure out what this has to do w/ guns? NT

[mikeb302000]

22. the examples given are all gun rights guys. nt

[RSillsbee]

24. And Hitler was a vegetarian. Himmler thought smoking was evil

Your point?

[iverglas]

36. if anyone were discussing Hitler's statements on meat-eating politicians

or Himmler's statements on politicians who smoke, your post wouldn't be wildly ridiculous.

These were incitements by gun militants against people who disagree with them about firearms control.

Groom that diversion now.

[gejohnston]

37. it is not the Nazi thing

it is the genetic fallacy thing. I think gun militant is a rude nickname, rule two.

[iverglas]

38. I think that calling people who say things like

Bob Owens: "Go To Your Congressman's Office... If You're Willing To Do The Time For The Crime, Have A Swing At Him."

Kurt Hoffman Suggested It's A "Good Thing" That Politicians Who Support Gun Control Perceive "A Personal Threat To Their Own Lives."

Dick Morris: "Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case."

Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head."

Erick Erickson: "At What Point Do The People ... March Down To Their State Legislator's House, Pull Him Outside, And Beat Him To A Bloody Pulp?"

"gun militants" is a compliment on the scale of what they could be called.

Do any of you people actually have any clue about logic? Where the hell is there a "genetic fallacy" anywhere within sight on a clear day here?

This was a really easy little subthread to follow -- the posts were "no text":

trying to figure out what this has to do w/ guns? NT RSillsbee Nov-05-11 10:14 AM #5
the examples given are all gun rights guys. nt mikeb302000 Nov-06-11 02:15 AM #22
And Hitler was a vegetarian. Himmler thought smoking was evil

The statements quoted are ABOUT GUNS/POLICY in 3 of the five cases:

- politicians who support gun control deserve death
- ATF agents deserve death
- somebody should be shot in the head

I don't know whether the other two were talking about guns/gun control or not, but I do know that I don't know how anybody could look at that grouping and not be able to figure out what it has to do with guns.

These are right-wing gun militants, lighter on the gun militancy specifically, maybe, but come on. They are what they are.

And they are the ones suggesting that violence is appropriate for / deserved by people they disagree with, particularly on firearms policy.

And like I said, our Hitler/Himmler noise might be relevant if somebody had been holding Hitler up as a typical vegetarian, or Himmler as a typical anti-smoker. Does that happen often?

Who is it that are all the time throwing Hitler into the firearms policy mix? Hm.

[gejohnston]

39. they were uttered by

talking heads that have nothing to do with gun rights. IIRC, Beck is a prohibited person. G Gordon Liddy certainly is.

I have no clue who the others are. Yes it was an extreme example of your genetic fallacy.

As far as the term "gun militants" let's let the mods decide.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

7. I suspect this will go much like the Hutaree arrests.

[PavePusher]

8. Yeah, 'cause no liberals/lefties EVER bloviated about violent revolution.

EVAH....

[iverglas]

13. are you going to name some

who would be at least rough counterparts of the ones named in the opening post, and provide samples of what you assert is equivalent verbiage?

If not ...

[PavePusher]

33. Dear ghod, now you either feign ignorance of history....

or are attempting to Newspeak it out of existence.

The mental contortions of restrictionists are truly a wonder to behold.

[iverglas]

35. I guess you aren't going to

Sounds to me like you condone all those statements.

Just political speech ...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. OWS uses some pretty strong revolutionary language too

Then again,you wouldn't know anything about that...

[iverglas]

14. are you going to give us some quotes?

Is "strong revolutionary language" an accurate description of the quotations in the opening post?

Or is it a demagoguish obfuscation of the true nature of those quotations?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. You should come down to an encampment and see for yourself

[iverglas]

26. no, you should answer the questions

are you going to give us some quotes?

Is "strong revolutionary language" an accurate description of the quotations in the opening post?

Or is it a demagoguish obfuscation of the true nature of those quotations?


Are people participating in Occupy calling for the assassination of political figures or the murder of government agents?


I have no idea what I wouldn't know about. Occupy is taking place in places other than the US (and the US basically has the weakest track record on this sort of thing; consider France's record of insurrectionary activities, and previous tent cities at Ottawa's Parliament Hill, for instance).

I'm asking YOU what YOU are referring to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. You are a snork a minute

OWS does not have spokespeople. What gets said at a GA or at the demonstrations is not an official since there are no officials. It can get pretty wacky from any number of sides, Just look at what the MSM has reported.

Things I have heard in the last 48 hours include:
- Calls for the forcible removal and restructure of governments "by any means necessary"
- Calls for the physical elimination of Black Block members and provocateurs
- Calls of the arrest and peoples tribunals for all kinds of government leaders for being "traitors to the people"

Its interesting to listen to, the desire is quite real. They are also a small fraction of those out here.

[ObamaFTW2012]

11. Liberals should have guns too

When the conservatives decide they aren't interested in talking out our differences anymore, and they move to persuading us by using force, it would be in our best interest to have enough force in our hands to persuade them to go back to the table for more discussion.

[iverglas]

15. when is that going to be?

When the conservatives decide they aren't interested in talking out our differences anymore, and they move to persuading us by using force, ...

Do you have, like, a date, the way the other end-of-the-world cultist types do?

Only fair that liberals should be forewarned if you want them to be forearmed, I'd say.

Of course, they might prefer to exercise their right to retreat, but at least they'd be able to book ahead.

[ObamaFTW2012]

18. No

I have no date of any sort. Never suggested that I do, or would. Do you have a date? If not, can you let me know when you find out?

Also, why would you call me an "end-of-the-world cultist type"? I've read some of your posts, and from what I've gathered you have been here a very long time, you think very highly of yourself (to say it politely), and you are quick to insult others who do not share your opinions. You also have a habit of debating grammatical and logical minutiae as if your victories over small mistakes (ie - "your" vs. "you're", etc.) somehow support your ideological arguments.

Do you have any redeeming qualities? After familiarizing myself through your numerous posts, I have to wonder what would make you so mean and spiteful. I pity you.

[iverglas]

19. oh, well, c'mon now

When the conservatives decide they aren't interested in talking out our differences anymore, and they move to persuading us by using force

You didn't say "if", did you? You said "when".

So you can hardly blame me for assuming you've put a lot of thought into this and come to the conclusion that it is an inevitability, and that you might have some tips to share with the others.


Also, why would you call me an "end-of-the-world cultist type"?

Hm, a stated belief in an apocalyptic event?


You also have a habit of debating grammatical and logical minutiae as if your victories over small mistakes (ie - "your" vs. "you're", etc.) somehow support your ideological arguments.

Oh dear, new members of the fan club are supposed to demonstrate their knowledge of their subject a little better than that.

Lest anyone be confused by this nonsense: the grammatical mistake in question (not made by anyone here) had provided a means of tracing a particular misquotation around the internet. Clever, eh? Sadly, you seem to have completely misunderstood what you were reading. I'm not sure how that would even have been possible, frankly, but I guess you must have managed it.

So I think you'll be wanting to study a little harder for the entrance exam.


I have to wonder what would make you so mean and spiteful. I pity you.

Oh, there's something else you might want to study up on, if you want to be able to do the fan-club thing at this particular place:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

A pass this time, because you have amused me, but just this once.


Of course, if you had qualified for fan club membership at some time in the past, you may be eligible for "grandfathering". Just slip me the relevant info by PM ...



damned html tags, this DU3 thing had better have got rid of that nonsense

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ObamaFTW2012]

29. You're right

I did say, "when", not, "if". It didn't come across as I meant it to. If you construed my statement as a belief in a coming apocalypse, I'm sorry, as that is not what I was trying to convey.

On the third quotation, I must clarify that I was not referring to any specific incident. If there was one, I didn't read enough of your posts to discover it. My statement was based on individual posts and a general reaction to them, not any particular discussion.

Regarding TOS violations, I think it needs to be said that many of the regular posters here in this forum frequently violate rules 2,3,5, and 7 without anyone chiding them for it. I try to keep my posts civil, if not polite, but I don't think I've posted anything approaching a rule violation. I expect to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't think that's asking for too much.

[gejohnston]

12. your intrepid reporters?

Not going to waste the time.
Sounds like shades of Tim McVeigh and the Turner Diaries. A poorly written book inspires a mental weakling to build a bomb.
So, Glen "I don't care about the political process, I'm in it for the money" Beck (yes he really told Forbes or Fortune mag that)rants some nonsense in front of a chalkboard and are supposed to think he reflects what anyone else thinks?
Toe sucking turn coat Morris? Does he actually speak for anyone in fly over land? Anyone else outside of his studio?

Political speech is never abusing the first, no matter how absurd. That would be making us McCarthy. Lying commercials and porn, that is a different matter.

You are not sure of the answer. I am not sure of the question. Before you can find the answer, you have to know the question.

[iverglas]

16. interestingly selective objection

Political speech is never abusing the first, no matter how absurd.

What's actually absurd is to talk about abusing a right. Makes no damned sense at all. Besides: in whose opinion?

Funny thing, though. "Gun rights" advocates say it all the time around here.

Now here's the real question, of course. Even if what you said made sense and was correct, in what sense are

Those Crazies In Montana Who Say, 'We're Going To Kill ATF Agents Because The U.N.'s Going To Take Over' -- Well, They're Beginning To Have A Case.

You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head.

just for example, "political speech"?

It's "political speech" to say that someone advocating the murder of government employees has a case? Or advocating the shooting in the head of anybody at all is "political speech"?

Phew.

I'm not saying there is justification for prohibiting it. I'm just sayin' ... "political speech". Phew.


html fixed

[gejohnston]

17. to the best of my knowledge

Dick Morris was just another pundit talking out of his ass for ratings. In other words, I ignore these people. I doubt Morris could find an example of these crazies (although they may exist. They might be a group of 20 Walter Mittys that watched Red Dawn too many times.) No one is listening to him or taking him seriously. It sounds almost exactly like something G. Gordon Liddy said about 15 or 20 years ago.
The difference between abuse of 1st or 2d. Mike uses the term "abuse" as speech he does not like. The right says the same of speech they don't like. No crimes are committed.
When gun rights advocates use "abusing their 2d rights" it refers to committing a crime.
That is the difference.

[iverglas]

20. no, I don't care whom you ignore

I didn't ask you whom you ignore.

I asked you how you could characterize those quotations as "political speech".


The difference between abuse of 1st or 2d. Mike uses the term "abuse" as speech he does not like.

Oh, what abject nonsense.


Mike uses the term "abuse" as speech he does not like.

That's your opinion, and a demagoguish one at that. Certainly he didn't like it. That doesn't mean there is no other reason for objecting to it. I don't like dog shit in my garden. I'm entitled to object to people letting their dogs shit in my garden based on the law that says they are trespassing; it wouldn't matter if I (or you) adored dog shit, and my objection to it would be no less valid if I didn't.

The right says the same of speech they don't like.

And that's just fucking disgusting AND YOU KNOW IT.

If Mike says the sky is blue, are you going to say the right says the sky is blue? No?

So I'm absolutely safe in assuming that you said "the right says the same of speech they don't like" for a reason, and the only reason I can see is that you are attempting to portray Mike as being on the right. Of course, you have no basis for that, it's a pure slur.

No crimes are committed.

So the fuck what? There was a time when child-beating wasn't illegal. Would you have said that someone who beat their child was "abusing their parental rights"? I wouldn't have because it's nonsense, but I would certainly hope that in your own paradigm you would have.

When gun rights advocates use "abusing their 2d rights" it refers to committing a crime.

Oh bullshit.

What a very silly web you spin.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

27. not even

That is what he is doing. Demagoguery? No. I did not say there was no other reason for not not liking it. I don't like it.

No, simply pointing out a parallel. I was not saying Mike is right or left. Authoritarian most likely, but not right.

This is irrelevant nonsense.

Can't be that silly if all you can say is "bullshit"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Or "snork"

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Wrong forum.

[rl6214]

32. Now you're an "intrepid reporter"?

Posting blind links to your own blog and calling it "intrepid reporters"? That's rich.

Can't make an opinion on any of the crap you post because you won't provide the information here.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.