Standing Rock General

Lol. I think you're confusing with another guy (or multiple guys?) experiencing Holla Forums doubleposting their posts. This is my first post here in days, although I've been lurking.

There /is/ a left. It might be a very reformist and liberal left, but there /is/ a left and it could potentially be steered or at least influenced through discourse.

Why should we interfere over battles that essentially consist of two sides fighting over the private ownership of land? This would be the biggest point. Stopping pollution should be a very clear and banal motive to support the natives, I'd say.

It isn't about private ownership of the land by the natives, it's about collective ownership of the land by the natives, who inhabit this land. This is a classic case of a local population opposing corporate encroachment over the natural resources they used to live off. This is literally public ownership vs. private ownership. Of course we should support the natives there.

That's the difference. The protesters claim that the pipeline, which is entirely on private land, will endanger the water supply on their reservation. It is not a claim on the land.

I'm curious as to why they don't take a more militant stance, like the lolberts at bundy ranch.

...

like seven of the bundy ranch people were informants. The right wing can get away with militant action because they're just useful idiots for the FBI and police. The left wing has to be way more careful because the feds actually see them as a threat.

From what i understand it, they trying to take away peoples homes and land to lay the pipeline which can very easily easily fuck up and cover the entire area in oil, and i know you know at the very least oil spills arnt very good for anyone, destroying the land and polluting the water is on everyone's "dont wanna happen" list.

actually it's way worse
15 confidential sources fed FBI info from Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/15_confidential_sources_fed_fb.html

FIFTEEN INFORMANTS

The FBI sends informants to ALL "radical" groups, including those Native Americans. Most militias are very wary of informants and "provocateurs". (They used them in the 19th century against radical leftists as well.)

Hell, I bet that most people in the "official" Communist Party nowadays are bored informants, reporting on each other.

The Feds definitely see the militias as threats. Hence, they actually shot one of them. Hell, do I even need to bring up Waco, which is what started the militia craze in the first place.

For the natives, they used sound cannons. The use of armored cars is due to terrain. (The lolberts were in Oregon, whilst the Indians were in South Dakota, a plains state. You don't drive heavy vehicles through a forest.)

I wonder if it's easier for them to infiltrate the right due to a leftist worldview requiring a completely different interpretation of the state and how it operates.

Cointelpro and Occupy Wallstreet? :^)

Pinkerton infiltrators causing Haymarket?

The entire Communist Party?

Seriously, just thinking that your ideology protects you from moles is retarded. You're going to have to deal with them if you're going to do any RL organizing.

I'm not saying it's impossible and people's guard should be up. It's obviously happened in the past. It just seems like every time I read about these miltias getting busted more than half of the members are feds.

It honestly popped in my head because I've been reading about the radical groups of the 60's/70's which were notoriously hard to infiltrate.

Actually, they were very easy to infiltrate. In fact, I would almost say that a lot of "New Left" ideology is cointelpro. As well as the more extreme actions of said groups. The FBI loves to justify arrests by sending undercover agents to convince members of radical groups to do insane shit.

The feds have made millitas into threats since the 90's, ruby ridge, Oklahoma bombing.
The modern libtard hates guns, they think protesting will be enough, the corporation will just hire some goons to beat the shit out of them and or use some agent provecutuers.

Right wingers have that millita, survivalist culture, liberals of course, suck the government teat and wait for others to do something for them

Oh also, yeah, most of the groups are controlled opposition, thats why the alt right through the government for a loop, it took the whole leaderless decentralized user thing.

Modern war is asymmetrical, just study how taliban and al quaeda do it.

Leaderless, anyone can become one, terrorism, proxy wars, being paid by shady governments, hiding in the mountains, blending in with the population, assassinations, etc.

don't embarrass yourself user

Well, the Zapatistas would be a better example. But, even Al Qaeda and the Taliban rely on lone wolves and similar strategies. All orchestrated by a secretive leadership, but still done in a indirect way.

we need to arm ourselves

Here's what you need to do.

GET THE FUCK OUT OF NORTH DAKOTA

Why?

Is there a livestream somewhere?

Should we try spreading it around?

Dhere are too many woodchipper-related incidents dhere doncha know.

Just admit you're against nationalism for white people only. Same reason you fags fap over third world nationalist dictators like Sankara.

Fuck off with your persecution complex, honestly.

Well it depends on what groups you're talking about. Groups like SDS were easy to infiltrate because of their large size and diversity of members. The Weathermen, Black Panthers, BLA, FALN, and I Wor Kuen weren't easily compromised due to their close nature and way of life.

Care to name the last time Al Qaeda or Taliban claimed a lone wolf attack? They leave that bullshit to ISIS now.

Because you don't belong in this state. Nobody wants you here. The cops could open fire with live rounds tomorrow and you couldn't find a dozen people to convict within twenty miles of Mandan.

I'd sooner have the Dakota Access Pipeline run through my fucking living room than need to look at one of you subhumans again.

Bundy Ranch faggots wanted to turn public land into private property. At least the few who were not FBI did.

The Injuns want to preserve a collectively-owned natural resource (water) from pollution by a private oil company. The red men are red in the right way.

This.
The pipeline has the potential to really fuck up their lives.

There was a live stream a while ago, but it's over.
I'll try and see if I can find a new one.
Here's an update from TYT in the meantime though.

youtu.be/3abeOE2iGCc

Actually, the Sagebrush Rebellion was more about giving the land to state and local governments.

BLM was squeezing the cattle ranchers out because of muh turtles and the pressure of a few environmentalist lobbies. Most Americans haven't even heard about it and so they looked the other way whilst an overbearing executive branch and bureaucracy basically jack up grazing fees and push every cattle rancher out but Bundy.

Bundy only survived because he was the biggest rancher.

Basically, the people don't control "public lands", executive departments and agencies do and, at most, they are only indirectly accountable through the Presidency, which is basically already a relatively undemocratic and "monarchic" position.

Of course, the folks who did the occupation weren't this articulated about their problems, but I'm just saying the real source of their anger, whether they know it or not.

Maybe not "lone wolf" attacks, but small terrorist bombings of populated centers. Al Qaeda and the Taliban actually love to do it in Middle Eastern areas. ISIS prefers true lone-wolves who do terrorism in the West.

Also, some more updates here.

seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/live-updates-from-the-dakota-access-pipeline-protests-oct-27/

this has nothing to do with decentralized Occupy / user shit

I know. Just generally warfare and politics is becoming more asymmetric.

It's like the general trend in the early 20th century towards armored warfare and squad tactics instead of line battles.

but their solution was basically to make all the land private, which is no better than an unaccountable federal government.

To be honest, it is a little better. At least the ranchers get to have SOME land regardless.

Note that this doesn't affect actual national parks or Indian Reservations. BLM land basically makes up the majority of land in the West, which is ridiculous.

Honestly, I think the federal government should homestead the BLM lands to small farmers and ranchers along with cooperative mines. The rest should be given to state and local governments.

(Note that there's an ENORMOUS amount of land in question here. So, you're not going to see an extreme concentration in property ownership regardless.)

The problem with giving land to states is that some states (mine for instance) are shit at conservation and will just privatize everything.

Then, organize a movement in your state. It'll be easier to influence a state government than a government that sprawls from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

Sorry fam, I trust the federal government to manage wildlife far more than the good-old-boy network that runs my state.

Try Reuters, Cenk, you fucking cocksucker.

Comrade, we have national parks for that purpose. The BLM land is just generic Federally owned land.

Shooting at cops on national television only scares people away from our cause. Leftism already has an image problem in the US.

cold war propaganda has taken tool to make it seem like leftism is all about USSR-style planned economy and goverment control

Any way to send them materiel?