This is part one of some analysis of the occupation of the Federal building in Oregon.
Part one will be an intellectual discussion of the occupation. I’ll attempt to do this by ignoring personalities and discussing the concept.
Part two will discuss some pragmatic aspects to include an analysis of the players, with some specific questions as to who wins and who could win.
Part three will focus on what options exist for both we in the III movement and for the various government agencies.
There is a lot of conversation going on in the III world right now regarding the occupation of the Federal building in Oregon. Ostensibly, the stated argument for the occupation is to support the Hammond family (if you aren’t aware of the issues that surround the Hammonds, this blog probably isn’t for you.)
The Hammonds have been very adamant in their claims that they do not want any of these actions in support of them. They have stated again and again that they do not want or desire a scenario like the one in Nevada in support of the Bundy ranch. They welcomed support, but do not desire to have an armed standoff.
Most people supported the Hammond’s requests and conducted peaceful, non-threatening shows of support. The group that have seized the Federal building chose to ignore the Hammonds.
The question that needs to be answered is whether or not we in the III movement are justified in ignoring the requests of the aggrieved and take independent actions in their defense.
For the sake of this argument, we need to ignore the personalities of the various players. Let’s assume that the folks that started this are all well intentioned, have solid III/Liberty goals in mind and are not being manipulated by the Federal Government.
If those three criteria are in place, can an action like theirs be justified within the III movement?
I don’t think you have to have the consent of the aggrieved in order to come to their defense. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter who agrees with you. So, an action like theirs can be justified.
The better question is whether or not their specific action is justified.
To answer that question, you have to determine if this action furthers or detracts from the goals of the III movement.
What is the objective? Any action by the III has to have a strategic objective.
The events at the Bundy ranch were a strategic victory. We were able to demonstrate to the average American that the Federal Government was very totalitarian in their response to average Americans. Older women manhandled. Bureau of Land Management folks armed with heavy weapons; weapons that they pointed towards men, women, children and families. You didn’t even need to support the Bundy cause to see that there was something very wrong with the actions of the Federal Government.
I’ve long agreed with those who argue that we will win or lose this battle by convincing the middle 40% of America that we shouldn’t be feared or hated. We don’t have to make them love us. We must create the situation where they don’t hate us.
So, the question that remains to be answered is whether or not the Oregon occupation serves any strategic victory.
The Hammonds don’t want a standoff on their behalf. The people who live in the locality are not sympathetic to a standoff. The III movement is not unified behind the occupation.
I don’t see where this effort has any conditions for which any strategic victory can be accomplished. This event does not serve our interests.
In part two we’ll discuss some of the players.
georgepatton325 
“The better question is whether or not their specific action is justified.
Short answer: No.
Thought process: Based upon the facts that the aggrieved family received the support they publicly stated they wanted (peaceful protests and support); all the ‘hole up’ group did was force an issue closer to the conclusion they’d apparently planned for: armed conflict with the federal government that directly violates the local request for support. This action is unilateral and smacks of the description of a temper tantrum.
An aside here: To plan an operation that involves the federal government’s ideal scenario of having a centralized, easily isolated, easily contained, easily out-gunned, out-manned, and out equipped is another form of ‘suicide by cop’.
One wonders why these folks chose a ‘last stand’ scenario unless they’re either being manipulated to that end (who, with any sense, would seriously consider a plan like the one being played out in the occupied structures), or, they really have no earthly idea how this will end up on a personal note.
LikeLike
[…] Part I […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.
LikeLike
Whomever wrote this piece is a bone-head.
FYI jack-wad… this protest is not about the Hammond’s plight.
The Hammond’s plight is only a couple of snowflakes on a Mount Everst sized list of grievences and abuses perpetrated by the thugs in DC…. hereby refered to as ThugFOR.
Over 200 famlies have lost thier property to the unelected, pencil-necked, beurocrats from ThugFOR over the last two decades…. and this sort of unconstitutional activity is going on all over the western half of the USSA (formerly the USA).
You should listen exactly what Bundy and other are saying in these two videos…
Pay close attention to what the guy from Arizona in the tan cowboy hat has to say….
And for everyone else–a complete synop of past to present events…
Soooooo basically you’re shitting all over these actions because they do not stand up to your criteria?
Who made you the Liberty Movement Judge and Jury?
And just where do you draw the line in the sand–huh!?
If you took time to go through the issues here, you will find out that ThugFOR’s actions are wayyyyyy more outragous than what occured at the Bundy Ranch–and thank your for your service there BTW.
In this case–people were actually unjustly sent to prison on trumped up charges–over 200 families lost their livelyhoods and property to ThugFOR and the unelected pencil pushers whos dictates are backed up by goons with guns.
So what’s your plan here out?
Where is your line in the sand?
Do you even have a line in the sand?
FYI–did the men standing at Lexington Green think they had a perfect situation in front of them to make a point?
Perhaps you should be running up a British flag with your line of thinking.
Now you have a group of people up in Oregon standing for what is right, in the worst possible place, in the worst possible conditions…. or is it just toooooo cold for you to do something?
LikeLike
Welcome to the blog Sammy! I was wondering when you would write comments here like you do at WRSA.
We can disagree about what the protest is about, but Ammon Bundy himself tweeted that “the occupation would end when the Hammonds are freed and the federal government gives up control of the Malheur National Forest”. His words, not mine.
The Hammonds themselves disagree with this occupation.
It doesn’t matter that we agree that the federal government is way out of control. We don’t have to convince each other. We have a whole lot of Americans to convince.
The folks at Lexington Green didn’t have a perfect situation, but they did have the acceptance by a significant percentage of the citizenry. Not all of them, but enough of them didn’t support the British. We don’t need the support of the people. We need them to not hate us and think we are domestic terrorists.
Are all of your local preps done? Tribe big enough? Trained enough? Do you have enough supplies?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Soooooo basically you’re shitting all over these actions because they do not stand up to your criteria?
Who made you the Liberty Movement Judge and Jury? And just where do you draw the line in the sand–huh!?”
He’s saying the actions are foolish because he understands what reality requires for success (that is what we’re after, correct, not just a noisy version of suicide?) It has nothing to do with his criteria, it has to do with common sense requirements that apparently you don’t have the required understanding to grasp the significance of. He gave an experienced and knowledgeable opinion, there’s only one person I know of that thinks he’s the judge and jury in the Liberty movement. We hear him squawk every couple days to his III Shit Army “Killahs” about who’s a “Patriot” and who’s not, who is “III” and who’s not. Unfortunately for “Judge Jed”, he’s lost in the court of III Public opinion, and has been banished to “night court” where only those that suck his “III-III” hang out.
LikeLike