#randy weaver

[cimmerian-war-shrine]

[livingfictionsystem]

I cannot even begin to tell y'all how much I need this shirt.

-Sparrow 🧷

[roguemechanic]

Ruby Ridge Standoff: Randy Weaver has died at the age of 74

Randy Weaver, the man involved in the Ruby Ridge Standoff, has died at the age of 74.

Can finally rest easy and be reunited with your family.

[trueconservativepundit]

Operation Fast and Furious: The History of the U.S. Government's Notorious Involvement in 'Gunwalking'

Operation Fast and Furious: The History of the U.S. Government’s Notorious Involvement in ‘Gunwalking’

By Ammo.com

“The ATF generally arrests the straw buyer and members of the larger criminal organization at the point of transfer, confiscating the weapons in the process. Not only did this not happen under Operation Fast and Furious, but top brass within the ATF prevented agents on the ground from following standard operating procedures.”

  he ATF isn’t all bad. In fact, they had a policy of…

View On WordPress

[jennywritesworld]

HISTORY—Remember Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver and family. It was called the siege of Idaho, with the FBI and Madam Ambassador Hillary Clinton behind the scenes.

Image: celebritynetworth.com

Madam Ambassador Hillary Clinton's net worth is approximately $31 million per year, primarily from speaking engagements and book deals. Combined with Bill Clinton's income, she is worth about $100 million and she recently ran for president again! 😱

November 11, 2025, Portland, Oregon 97217, 4:20 PM and I don't smoke cannabis. Below: Shopping cart bowling with expensive pineapples. The pins are at the checkout.

[meanypunches]

Conspiracy theory as I’ve said is a type of horror (a social ‘program’, act, or performance, oicotype perhaps even as in the sense of folklore, a type of political folklore even)… like tabletop role playing games it combines oral history with textual analysis in its modern form… below is my review of Mark Fenster’s 2008 edition of his book Conspiracy Theories Secrecy and Power in American Culture:

What is most intriguing about this book is that it is pre-Trump, pre-Steele Dossier, pre-Russia hoax, pre-Epstein, pre Jan 6, pre-Covid, pre-Biden’s dementia cover up, pre- all of it. I found this especially exciting as a book of *recent* history, a retelling of conspiracy theory history from the 90s through around 2007-2008 with this revised edition. I really enjoyed his discussion of the modern folklore (media-rituals-symbols) of conspiracy theories up until he seems to suggest Hofstadter’s idea about “paranoid style” somehow “seeks a violent confrontation” such as evidenced by Ruby Ridge and Waco. (p. 83) Could it be that this is merely a common security system (legal + political) response to perceived threats that has nothing specifically to do with Hofstadter’s book? Police I think are known to be a little paranoid according to the MMPI studies I’ve heard about. Thus we have an effect as Niklas Luhmann describes in that Fenster suggests somehow that Hofstadter’s ideas have penetrated all the way to law enforcement in a gunfight atop Ruby Ridge. Did those cops need to read Hofstadter? Or is all of society leaving this trail of breadcrumbs?! (On a side but related note some of Fenster’s descriptions of Arlen Specter’s militia hearings sparks a similar idea in me given that I lived through that history and barely noticed the hearings- perhaps some ‘current events’ are mostly important to historians?) Fenster says that Hofstadter is to blame in a subdued, dispassionate (i.e. academic) way and I’m sure he would likely respond that he’s not arguing direct causation. Yet could it not be the other way around as well, that such ideas as Randy Weaver’s or David Koresh’s also “seek confrontation” and “have consequences”? There is the effort that Weaver went through to remove himself from society, yes. And Koresh had his own separate compound for his group as well. But still it seems a bit silly that Fenster suggests community policing might work with regards to such extreme views that edge towards violence. He also mentions MOVE in comparison with the Branch Davidians. I’ve previously lived in West Philly and heard a few stories about MOVE. I doubt most of us would have liked having them as neighbors. I also wouldn’t call that group ‘non-confrontational’ even if in the same breath I might be sympathetic to the idea that dropping a bomb on the MOVE building was excessive. Fenster’s analysis is mostly reasonable but yet I’m not so sure the idea that we all can just talk about things and it will work out is necessarily true when it comes to extremism. We hope in our relatively free society that is the case. Yet Fenster does eventually get around to this counterargument when he discusses The Turner Diaries, the racist tract that likely inspired the OK City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Fenster is willing to admit that some extremism is too extreme for dialogue. He fails to articulate a separate definition for this program of the social system, and I suggest terrorism is what he missed here. Which brings me back to the idea that I wonder how he sees it now with Trump in office. A lot of intellectuals have become in favor of suppressing speech and ideas considered ‘misinformation’ in these current dangerous times. Did the 9/11 truth era end as we entered first the ‘birther’ conspiracy against Obama, then the Russiagate hoax about Trump’s first win in 2016, Trump’s famous counter allegations that his campaign was spied on, and the Steele Dossier shenanigans of the Clinton campaign? Then of course COVID which is the biggest conspiracy of them all. Not to mention the most extreme conspiracy wing of the MAGA movement which is QAnon. There are so many ideas here and do they all have “consequences”? Is history now moving in conspiratorial time, where we will continue to proceed from one conspiracy to the next ad infinitum? Could it be that the internet news cycle that feeds off clicks actually feeds off conspiracy theory?!

What happens when a famous conspiracy theorist becomes President? Judging by the unusual separation between Trump’s two terms and the terrible response of his most zealous supporters I’d say this is unprecedented. I’ll have to see if Fenster has written more on this topic post-Obama. Fenster does a great job of showing that conspiracy theory is nothing new and has a rich history in the U.S. He also does a great job connecting conspiracy theory to play (i.e. non-consummation) such as tabletop roleplaying games or groups like the Discordian Society. I would say something seems to have changed recently that appears hard to deny however. Has conspiracy theory grown up? Or has the internet regressed us all to childhood? I do like the way Fenster distinguishes between populism and conspiracy. As I already mentioned I think some of his questions in the end piece might be helped if he distinguished further between populism, conspiracy and terrorism. Just like all populist movements are not conspiracy theories, it seems all conspiracy theories are not terrorist schemes. Still this has me thinking that like the infamous ‘freedom fighter / terrorist’ distinction, it could also be said that one man’s ideology is another man’s conspiracy theory. I find this particularly relevant where Fenster flirts with Marxist analysis. The bits from Fredric Jameson are certainly ironic. If conspiracy theory is “the poor person’s mapping” as Jameson claims (p. 128), then Marxism belongs in the same way to the ‘comfortable intellectual’. Fenster clearly does a lot to avoid leftwing intellectual bias but it still creeps into his analysis, particularly in discussing Jameson and also how conspiracy theory is somehow “different . . . from Marxism’s call for a mass revolutionary movement”. (p. 124) Whenever Fenster felt compelled to mention “capitalism” or “patriarchy” as a cause I found myself thinking one could apply the same type of ‘conspiracy’ analysis to those intellectual canards. The ivory tower is perhaps just as much a removal from society (but in the opposite direction in terms of status) as Randy Weaver’s cabin. Certainly one might make the claim that all terrorist groups are linked to certain conspiracy theorists or extremist views we could say, as well as being actual conspirators in the legal sense. It seems clear that not all conspiracy theorists are actually committed to violent action against the state. I wonder what the data looks like, if you mapped various conspiracy theories and attempted to trace any back that resulted in violent confrontation with the state. Perhaps there might be certain commonalities between the violent ones. Perhaps you could model it and make predictions. As with most social data this complexity would be difficult to measure. Accurate predictions would be a long shot. Predicting a conspiracy theorist in the White House though is perhaps the longest. I’m reminded of the song ‘Lunatic Fringe’. Does a conspiracy theorist in the White House change the analysis here at all?

[sergeant-macho-nacho]

*Laughs in Horiuchi*

[mclmm-us]