|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 9 users and 62 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 10:59am.
One of several possible reasons why the National Socialist Movement is focused on Olympia and N.W. region is because of the white supremacist David Lane. David Lane issued the call for a white homeland here in the N.W. That call is definitely on the minds of white supremacists today. NF Publications, which has a P.O. box here in Olympia, is listed on Northwest Migration sites. The Northwest Homeland: The 14 Deeds (Reader caution advised, this is an actual hate site)
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 Nazis come to OlyWa: A history (so far) 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
After reading the site, I hav
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 11:09am.Would you consider yourself a racist (e.g. you go out of your way to keep other races down) or a separatist?
I think both are extremely different and, whether we want to admit it or not, most people are separatists.
As Dr. King said, the most segregated day of the week is Sunday.
n/m
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 11:22am.Based on the definition of se
Submitted by Rob Richards on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 11:22am.WHY OLYMPIA??? Because a g
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 1:16pm.Because a group of people who went out of their way to give these Nazi's a reason to come here. Had the Nazi's been ignored when they came to town, they likely would have gone elsewhere. But common sense was lacking, so now they will be back. Results of "progressive thought".
I agree, though the Northwest
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 1:21pm.That doesn't answer the quest
Submitted by chaney on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 2:18pm.This actually isn't true. Fl
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 3:23pm.Floyd Cochran, former national spokesperson and coordinator of a neo-nazi group, says that apathy and "quiet denial" is what he wanted when he worked as an advance man. I've read and heard other current white supremacists say the same thing. Strip away the layer of boasting and recruitment talk, in most cases white supremacists prefer that communities not have a vigorous response.
Also, what is up with the blame the targets stance? Compare all this to domestic violence. Hopefully most of us understand that in an abusive family, no one -makes- the abuser be violent, the targets are not to blame for somehow being unable to magically prevent the abuser from acting out.
Apply this to hate group activity. Are we going to blame the targets because they won't shut up/won't speak out/dress wrong/look wrong/don't play the harmonica correctly? Or are we going to focus on hate groups and their behaviors?
There are a wide array of tactics available for a community when a hate group comes to town. Many of us choose to use common sense and I can assure you that it is being applied. "Common sense" meaning on the ground reality, information from those who monitor hate groups, and experience.
Instead of blaming targets, why not come up with some creative strategies of our own?
I don't think this gentleman
Submitted by Milagro on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 4:03pm.I think the comment was directed toward the idea that giving the nazi's attention at their rally only eggs them on.
And Sarah (and I) are arguing
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 4:49pm.And Sarah (and I) are arguing that it did NOT "egg them on" as much as you assume.
When the person placed the responsibility on us for NSM's response, that was "blaming the victim." When the person writes that the NSM is responsible for its own choices, they will no longer be "blaming the victim."
If you want to argue that the NSM is coming back because of how they were treated on January 22nd, you should make that argument by using facts, not your own assumptions.
I have listened to radio shows produced by the NSM organizer of the J22 event, so I know that I have heard him say that he values face to face discussion above all other recruitment methods. He states that he distrusts the "jews media" and did not look for sympathetic coverage in the Olympian, and he also stated that he tried to deliberately trick Olympia activists into going elsewhere.
Those are pieces of evidence that he would prefer to be left alone to hold his rally, without anyone shouting at him, taking his picture, or doing anything which could dissuade others to arrive and speak with the NSM.
So, what do you have for your arguments?
Very true. Also, I agree w
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 1:36pm.Also, I agree with your assessment that separatists are much different than racists.
I can understand wanting to separate from different groups, whether due to race, religion, sexual preference, political position, etc. I don't agree with the racist platform.
Maybe like fishing, testing t
Submitted by white feather on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 2:47pm.It's simply fear and ignoranc
Submitted by thespartantruth on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 3:44pm.With the United Arab Emirates
Submitted by Milagro on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 4:00pm.UAE, Port Security & the Hariri Hit
The argument that the UAE or
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 5:01pm.The argument that the UAE or Dubai should be suspect because their ports have "connections" to terror transhipments, two of the 9/11 hijackers were of that region, (etc) is simply racist.
Our country (and its ports) have been involved in the operation of a military adventure which was NOT authorized by the United Nations, destroyed villages and cities of a country which had done us no harm, and was sold to the American People as a response to a deliberate attack on our destroyers - in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Having established that this amounted to Terrorism, which is the deliberate use of unlawful force to coerce the people to accept a government they did not choose willingly - (and ignoring for the moment the effects it had on the people of Viet Nam), let us call instead the United States the terrorist nation. At least it would be parity.
The Port scandal which does exist is the obvious Pork Barrel / Kickback / Corruption of the Treasury which we have seen again and again. The difference is that the hand which will be greased is brown. That's racism, folks.
DrewHendricks: a military ad
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 5:14pm.The Fire: I hope you meant Congress.
The United States and its all
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 5:48pm.The United States and its allies in the Post WWII era created the United Nations and determined that specific crimes defined by that body would include 'aggressive warfare.' The UN is the legal entity to which any nation should appeal for military adventures outside its own borders, which would usually be presumed to be agressive warfare without specific UN authorization. See the first Gulf War (1991) and the lead-in to that if you don't think that these are actual legal authorities.
I hope you realize that the UN Charter is superior law to the US, as a treaty which we have signed and ratified, per the US Constitution. If you'd prefer that was not the case, fine. But be prepared to say goodbye to most of the drug prohibition laws in the US, predicated on exactly the same legal authorities. (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs)
From the US Constitution, Art
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 02/25/2006 - 9:53am.The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.
The Constitution is very clear about who is in charge of the American Armed Forces and who is authorized to send them into warfare.
And it ain't the United Nations.
Just because we enter into a Treaty doesn't mean it's "superior law" to the Constitution.
The constitution sets forth t
Submitted by Milagro on Sat, 02/25/2006 - 10:07am.No it doesn't. A Treaty cann
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sat, 02/25/2006 - 10:14am.For case law, see: Reid v. Covert
Good Lord, kids! Are you this willing to surrender the Constitution?
I peeked at http://www.consti
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Sun, 02/26/2006 - 10:40pm.I peeked at http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm and all I saw there was a case about
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, in an opinion joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concluded that:
1. When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution, including Art. III, 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Pp. 5-14. [354 U.S. 1, 2]
2. Insofar as Art. 2 (11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries; since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Pp. 15-19.
3. The power of Congress under Art. I, 8, cl. 14, of the Constitution, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," taken in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, does not extend to civilians — even though they may be dependents living with servicemen on a military base. Pp. 19-40.
4. Under our Constitution, courts of law alone are given power to try civilians for their offenses against the United States. Pp. 40-41.
I don't see how it relates...
Per Drew's own source:The Uni
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 02/26/2006 - 11:24pm.In short, nothing can supercede the Constitution when prosecuting American citizens. One could take this to mean the Constitution cannot be superceded by any document across the board (e.g. UN Charter being "law of the land").
This, however, is the portion where the case is most important:
That's it. We answer only to the US Constitution. The opinion goes on to say that a treaty has to conform to the Constitution, not vice-versa. The only legal authority who can determine whether or not the US Armed Forces are going to war is Congress and unless it's changed in the Constitution, nothing is superior.
This is a big reason why people say simply being in an organization like the United Nations is unconstitutional.
OK, I've drifted too far afie
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 6:06pm.OK, I've drifted too far afield here to continue to ignore the change of topic. My point was NOT to debate the United Nations, but to point out that the United States has done things which can be called terrorist acts. I used the VietNam war as an example, because most people have already accepted that the war was wrong for the United States to engage in, and was conducted in ways which brought shame on this country. That point has not been disputed, and that was the point I was making.
Let's start a new thread if we want to drift onto this US / UN topic some more... it's interesting, but I think someone was triggered by the fact I cited international legal authorities. These are well accepted parts of our own legal code now - we (in the US) need to start learning that we're not "all that." Our laws are not the best, our system is not the best, and our decisions to go to war are not automagically good - or bad.
Xenophobia? That's What You'r
Submitted by Milagro on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 10:26pm.Good Lord. My previous essay on the port deal was my better half writing. Fine, whatever. Now let's get a little pissy, shall we?
When you can't differentiate between a race and a specific government, that makes you a racist, by definition. When you declare that every government must be treated equally, regardless of their actions, that just makes you an idiot.
Over and over, these last few days, I've been seeing the argument that racism is driving liberal opponents of the port deal. Over, and over, and over. Once such luminaries of American race relations as Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are on the case, David Brooks predictably snuffled around to the same point, in the Times, showing that the talking point has now reached the ears of the Officially Enlightened Ones. Now we have Tom Friedman (for whom corporatism and Free Trade has reached the status of the One True Millennial Religion) and even David Ignatius (who nobody pays enough attention to to come up with an insult for) repeating the same points.
N/M
Submitted by Jade on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 7:49am.First off, I have to say this
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 4:34pm.First off, I have to say this: I agree with much of what was posted on that "14 Deeds" site.
Minor points of editing, some conflation of points separated into false categories in the original, here are six points I agree with:
1. Don't feed the System, withdraw from it. Deny the enemy your help by becoming self-sufficient. Grow, eat, and sell your own food. Shop at farmers' markets, swap meets, and yard sales. Boycott corporations. Avoid taxes, debt, and gambling.
2. Protect yourself and your loved ones. Don't be easy targets. Purchase firearms and learn to use them. Carry a legal-sized knife. Get a family guard dog or an alarm system. Take a self-defense course. Also acquire undocumented guns and bury them.
3. Activists and their families, regardless of location, should be prepared for emergencies. People should keep a surplus of food, water, fuel, weapons, and ammo in their homes. The shit could hit the fan in any number of ways at any time. Remember Katrina? Be ready.
4. Whites make up less than 8% of the world population. (Of course, this is not a problem in my view - but I agree that it is probably true.)
5. The Internet is causing our enemies in the entertainment world to lose power and profits. Online file sharing drives the corporate music industry crazy. Go here or here or here or here or here. Download the free software, and swap all the music you want.
6. Don't complain about the media, BECOME the media. Start by refusing to support the System press in any way. Cancel your newspaper and cable subscriptions. Use the Internet as a means of resistance. Treat it as an instrument for communication and propaganda.
So that's a start. Common ground has been achieved. But the racist thing is not a common ground, and it seems to be the defining aspect of the NSM, and this fellow with the 14 points. I wonder why, with their understanding of the situation, they are so sure of their own genetic heritage? I wonder which of them can post their family histories without fudging? Why are we still seeing this obsession with Eugenics in the 21st Century? I'll admit it is a minor aspect of political thought in the US, but racism is alive and well - and fueling the upset over the Dubai Port World "scandal."
This cracks me up for some re
Submitted by Rick on Fri, 02/24/2006 - 8:17pm.This cracks me up for some reason:
Re: ports issue: The Boy W
Submitted by Milagro on Sat, 02/25/2006 - 10:10am.The Boy Who Cried Wolf
A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush's invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defense spending by more than 40 percent. Hysteria has been used to realign US foreign policy for permanent imperial war-making, whenever and wherever we find something frightening afoot in the world. Hysteria will justify the "long war" now fondly embraced by Field Marshal Rumsfeld. It has also slaughtered a number of Democrats who were not sufficiently hysterical. It saved George Bush's butt in 2004.
Bush was the principal author, along with his straight-shooting Vice President, and now he is hoisted by his own fear-mongering propaganda. The basic hysteria was invented from risks of terrorism, enlarged ridiculously by the President's open-ended claim that we are endangered everywhere and anywhere (he decides where). Anyone who resists that proposition is a coward or, worse, a subversive. We are enticed to believe we are fighting a new cold war. But are we? People are entitled to ask. Bush picked at their emotional wounds after 9/11 and encouraged them to imagine endless versions of even-larger danger. What if someone shipped a nuke into New York Harbor? Or poured anthrax in the drinking water? OK, a lot of Americans got scared, even people who ought to know better.
...
Bush's terrorism war has from the start been in collision with the precepts of corporate-led globalization. One practices hyper-nationalism--Washington gets to decide where it goes to war, never mind the Geneva Convention and other "obsolete" international restraints. Yet Bush's diplomats travel the world banging on governments for trade rules that defenestrate a nation's sovereign power to run its own affairs. The US government regards itself as comfortable with this arrangement since it assumes the superpower can always get its way. Most citizens are never consulted. They are perhaps unaware that their rights have been given away, too.
It would be nice to imagine this ridiculous episode will prompt reconsideration, cool down exploitative jingoism and provoke a more rational discussion of the multiplying absurdities. I doubt it. At least it will be satisfying to see Bush toasted irrationally, since he lit the match.
The neo-nazis have a pretty s
Submitted by djmega on Sun, 02/26/2006 - 7:42pm.I saw that there is a convers
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 02/26/2006 - 8:14pm.It's the Corporation...
"What many media fools fail t
Submitted by Sylvester P. Smythe on Mon, 02/27/2006 - 9:34pm.The rights the Nazis have to
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Tue, 02/28/2006 - 12:09am.The rights the Nazis have to be free from Government interference with their march, I accept and respect. The Nazis do not have a right to come into our community unopposed, however. Let us be clear on the difference between action by the state, and action by our fellow citizens directly. You have no First Amendment Right to be heard, you have the right to be left alone in your speech BY THE GOVERNMENT. Out here in the real world, the rest of us can shout at you, ignore you, or turn our backs in your presence.
Your assertion that Jim's goal was to get coverage and have a controversy was rebutted already by his own words, as well as his actions. If he wanted us to show up at the rally, why did he publish the wrong time and location multiple times? Why does he almost NEVER publish the actual time of his rallies before they happen? If the July 3rd event comes off from 2-4pm, it would be the first time I've ever seen Jim Ramm tell the truth about when an NSM event starts.
Remember that Wacko Jacko used to think that bad attention and good attention were the same thing, too. I bet he's over that by now, don't you?