Stefan Molyneux on Bundy Ranch Standoff

Note from the editorial staff: Things have turned incredibly nasty in the comment section of this post. It has become a free-for-all and speaking quietly one on one with the commenters involved is no longer an option. We are locking this post and a few others to further comments. If anyone still wants to fight then they’ll have to take it outside the site. 

Stefan Molyneux utterly destroys the government’s non-arguments for seizing state property, supposedly in the name of tortoise preservation. A true lover of wisdom, Molyneux eviscerates any pretense of authority or legality by the thugs in the Bureau of Land Management. If you want to go deeper than the apologist lapdog media can, please check out the collection of links below documenting the assault on liberty witnessed in Nevada this past weekend.

Why Bundy Ranch nearly caused the next American Revolution:

Please download, share, distribute, and ACT.

Standoff at Bundy Ranch ends with photo of the year, so far.

Why you should be sympathetic toward Cliven Bundy.

Why a lawful sheriff is so important in this situation is covered in these:

BLM stand down – what happens when YOU STAND UP!

And Washington Times exposes Harry Reid corruption behind standoff:

More on solar energy scandal:

166 Comments on "Stefan Molyneux on Bundy Ranch Standoff"

  1. Anarchy Pony | Apr 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm |

    Bundy is a thief. A theif that used threat of violence to defy a court order. Fuck yourself wiltshire.

  2. The comments here should be interesting . . .
    No “good guys” in this propaganda cluster fuck, as far as I can tell. Looks to me like fascist v fascist. Fuck ’em all.

  3. This video dump is an insult to people around the world who have faced real government brutality while fighting for real liberty. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Camron.

    • @Reasor:disqus Why should I be ashamed exactly? Let’s see if you can justify your aspersion casting.

      • I’ll give you one, you posted an Alex Jones clip.

        • I also posted a Stefan Molyneux clip. Now before presuming that you can just ignore everything Alex Jones says, what did he say that you can factually refute in the above stream? I’m going to hazard zilch.

    • Up-voted only because video dumps are an insult, period. At least they didn’t auto-play like the Washington Times link (take note, Moonies).

  4. Apples and oranges.

  5. Wow, this is the most disgusting and offensive post I’ve ever seen on disinfo.

  6. Are you trolling us Camron?

    • Juan, have you even read any of the articles listed or watched the videos? If so please present a cogent argument for your perspective.

      • No, I haven’t. That is because you referenced both Faux “News” AND Alex Jones. That put me off to everything you posted, so I did not read any of it.
        I refuse to waste my time in any way absorbing the ramblings of fascist propagandists and paranoid purveyors or fear porn.
        Also, the entire “libertarian” project and mindset, to me, looks just as bad or worse than the status quo.

        • So you are basically unwilling to have an open mind and are ok with it, I get it. Can you at least save your ignorant rambling for someone elses posts then? You are in fact ignoring everything here and yet you presume you know what you are talking about. Kind of precludes having an informed opinion to go off the rails because your reality tunnel triggers went off. I understand you are actually trolling, I’ll take the bait, just to explain that your in effect arguing for stupidity based on uninformed notions.

          • gustave courbet | Apr 15, 2014 at 5:26 pm |

            Hi Camron, I’ve not perused all the vids above, but plan to go through some of them because I want to get more info about this situation before forming an opinion, but I would like to ask if you read the article on that Andrew posted above, and what your opinion of it is?

          • Greetings Gustave,

            Thank you for being willing to go through the material before posting an uninformed and biased rant like most of the posters here.

            Honestly, Snopes does not pass muster as a reliable source of information in my book. For example, most informed folks do not deny the existence or relevance of the third tower to mysteriously implode on 9/11. I’m speaking of course of Building 7. ( )

            Before we go any further, are you aware of Building 7 and would you find it odd if a website that purports to debunk “conspiracy theory” would refuse to address evidence which renders the government’s conspiracy theory of 9/11 completely inadequate and in fact exposes it as a fraud?

            Building 7 is a good litmus test for sanity in my book, you either can see what is happening and that we need a new investigation based on this piece of evidence alone, or you pretend it doesn’t matter and ignore it (like snopes, or some of the clownboys here) preferring to stay asleep and snooze through the fire alarm.

            Best wishes.

          • That’s classic. Snopes doesn’t pass muster with you but Alex Jones, yeah he’s an authority. That really sums this post up. I don’t think the BLM is above suspicion, but this totally one-sided shotgun approach at conspiracy is just kinda pathetic. And it’s all got to be true because of 9/11, that’s just icing on a cake of shit.

          • @veixj:disqus you’ve not addressed what I said or what is posted at all. Snopes is not a valid source for debunking anything if they pretend Building 7 is not controversial. Notice they’ve no mention of it on their site. What is your take on Building 7, take the sanity litmus test.

          • I don’t now what happened at WTC7 and I don’t really give a fuck. 2 airplanes crashed into WTC1 & 2 so it’s really just collateral damage even if the government blew it up for some mysterious reason. And it’s the fact that Snopes doesn’t mention it is what invalidates them? And Alex Jones is a complete and utter fuckwit so I don’t think my original needs any modification. Keep on icing that shit cake man.

          • So let me get this straight. You presume your sources are valid even though they are willfully ignorant of information which presents them as anything but honest in their supposed service as expert debunkers. You yourself “don’t really give a fuck” though you’ve obviously done no homework let alone organized your thoughts on the matter and then accuse me of having a one sided approach. Nice, it’s good to know that the “edukashional”system is spawning such stellar offspring. Now I read the post on snopes, and had you done any homework (which you didn’t because you just don’t give a fuck) or bothered to read or listen to anything I posted above you would see the greater story is that the government is overreaching and the supposed rational is lacking both ethically as well as legally and that was has occurred is a victory for liberty loving and thinking individuals which you obviously are not. Grow a brain and learn to think.

          • Here I reposted it so you really have no excuse minus intellectual bankruptcy and laziness.

          • I actually watched a bit of the first video and most of the second one (the one you’ve reposted). The second is definitely a better production, but it totally skips discussing the allegations that this rancher has been illegally grazing his cattle on BLM land. And that, it being BLM land, its seems to me it’d be within the BLM’s purview to sell it off to whoever they please. There might be more to that but I wouldn’t know because they don’t really get into it–they just focus on their targeted attack of Harry Reid.

            So Snopes debunks the Harry Reid angle, but you don’t trust them because they don’t support you WTC7 thesis. Harry Reid seems like a typical scumbag politician so if he did have any involvement in this, or any other shading land deals in Nevada, I hope it comes to light.

            I am definitely intellectually lazy. I don’t waste my time on information that seems suspicious because I value my time. Every time I walk through a bookstore or library I end up getting depressed because I start thinking about the epic amount of shit there is to wade through in order to find something interesting.

          • You are presuming that the BLM owns the land. What are you basing this upon exactly?

          • Just the narrative that the BLM is putting out there and that he was purported to be paying grazing fees for the land at some point prior to his falling out with the BLM. Seems to be a fair bit of history involved in this dispute but everyone seems more focused on the big showdown.

            I lived in New Mexico for a few years and did a good bit of hunting and fishing on BLM land. Saw first hand the kind of damage grazing cattle can do the land and heard a lot of tales of ranchers taking advantage of their access to public lands. Don’t really know too much about the history of this particular dispute but I’m not going to immediately jump on the freedom fighter bandwagon just because the Feds are showing a little muscle. If the BLM has been up to something fishy then I’m definitely interested in the facts, but all of this stuff you’ve posted look more like a bunch of anti-government whoopla.

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 16, 2014 at 12:54 am |

            ah the classic wiltshire building 7 shibboleth.

          • So what is your position on Building 7 Lypservice? For the record. Was it “fires” or the “terrorists” who did this

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 16, 2014 at 12:28 pm |

            my position is that whatever the cause i wish you had been in it.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

            I would have thought such statements to be beneath you.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

            Concern troll.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:53 pm |

            On a roll, are we?

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:02 pm |

            You honestly expect people to take all this seriously? The best thing to come out of this pile of turd post is the golden statement by Thinker45.

            That’s the only reason I am thankful for Camron’s indoctrination infused lies, it gave the truth an opportunity to be shown.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm |

            “you honestly expect people to take all this seriously?”

            spoken like one of the indoctrinated

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm |

            “you honestly expect people to take all this seriously?”

            spoken like one of the indoctrinated

            Ditto darling!

            I am not even going to waste my time dredging up the reasons why it is logical to hold Camron in contempt. Others have expressed why in this very thread. Let alone the past examples provided by he himself in the past.

            Save yourself some time and find a kindred spirit whose jonesing for another fix of outrage and paranoia porn.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

            I’m not here to defend Camron.

            I generally come to disinfo comments section these days to get views, including opposing views, by other rationed thinkers. There have been a handful of such views expressed here. And I am grateful to especially bobconner, and even Thinker45, for adding their educated opinions to this illustrious forum.

            Unfortunately, what I see today is a group of found “kindred spirits” of bandwagon jumpers too happy to wallow in appeals to ridicule, offering little to no substance. That, “darling” (what a twat that makes you to use that word), is my criticism of you and Calypso, in particular, among others, here, today. You make the comments section only marginally superior to YouTube.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:50 pm |

            Ah… Thurlow Weed’s other sock puppet. Well done, pat yourself on the back. How many more?

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:13 pm |

            Seriously? You are really revealing the (shallow) depths of your imagination, here.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:17 pm |

            Is that what I am doing? Let’s get your educated opinion on imagination.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:25 pm |

            Ha Ha!

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:32 pm |

            I get it, I can be a dick. I appreciate your honesty (good intentions or not), but there’s a method to my madness. We can shake hands now, or you can continue to snipe at me. Good day sir.

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:36 pm |

            you are defending him.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:49 pm |

            I may not have read all of the comments if Camron wasn’t in the middle of the assault, because there is little here worth reading, but he is my friend, I will not deny that. Camron doesn’t need me to defend him. I’ve let him fight the waves on his own more times than I’ve stepped in to offer support.

            It was the absurdity of referring to him as indoctrinated (when indoctrination is what I see all around) that drew me out. That, and your comment wishing he had perished in Building 7. That’s just mean-spirited. And coming from a NP…

          • gustave courbet | Apr 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm |

            I am still at a loss in attempting to parse the cloud of conflicting information surrounding this issue. The Video entitled “Bundy Ranch-What you’re not being told” is well put together, cogent, and seemingly reasonable, but so is the Snopes article I referred to, and they are in direct contradiction with each other.

            As far as gauging media outlets’ trustworthiness, I tend to go on an issue by issue basis, because in my experience, most outlets (even Fox and the New York Times) are telling some truth. Issues like WTC7 (which I’ve done extensive research on and probably agree with you about) aren’t necessarily indicative of a new’s outlets total output quality because they are ‘third rail’ issues that are so dangerous to the prevailing mythology that they are reflexively marginalized or laughed off. That said, your perspective may turn out to be the more accurate one (or not), and I’ll have to let the proverbial dust settle.

            One thing this issue certainly has done, as indicated by this forum (as well as others I’ve seen), is divide politically independent people that share more in common than they have differences. It’s a shame that people are so easily divided when our blood is up.

          • “Yeah, well, that’s just, like your opinion, man.”
            -The Dude

  7. Wall Street is bad, so disrupting it is good. Public lands are good, so disrupting them is bad.

  8. Snopes says:

    “However, the theory that Reid’s putative involvement in the Bundy dispute was motivated by a desire to somehow profit from the building of a solar plant falls flat in the face of two basic facts: The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government (the former was near Laughlin; the latter is in the Golden Butte area, about 180 miles away), and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013”

    • The theory about Reid threw me so I chased that down. The only credible article I could find on it was a Reuters article from August of 2012. And, as Andrew wrote, it’s pretty far away from the Bundys. Then I started to wonder where all this recent information was coming from. Then it came out that Americans For Prosperity is behind a lot of this. AFP is primarily financed by the Koch brothers: the same Koch brothers Reid has been attacking on the Senate floor. So, this thing started looking like powerful men fighting through proxies.

      • Number1Framer | Apr 15, 2014 at 9:53 pm |

        Where did it come out that AFP was involved? The involvement of Alex Jones (WE DID IT INFOWARRIORS!!!!!) was enough to indicate Tea Bagger astroturf, but where was it that you saw this come out?

        • Let me find the link, although Disinfo often doesn’t post my links. I’ll try. Hold on.

          • Number1Framer | Apr 15, 2014 at 10:21 pm |

            My favorite quote:

            One protester, a former Arizona sheriff named Richard Mack, told Fox News about the militia’s plans if violence broke out in Bunkerville. “We
            were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If
            they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going
            to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal

            These freedom fighters are so brave!! LOL

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 16, 2014 at 12:49 am |

            why stop at women. let them put their children up front and center.

          • emperorreagan | Apr 16, 2014 at 6:47 am |

            Maybe they could strap small children to riot shields and make the women carry them.

          • Brilliant idea! The kids should be holding puppies or kittens too.
            What I find chilling is that these fuckers (US military) have no problem killing anyone, women, children, little old ladies, doesn’t matter. Apparently, what they are afraid of is bad press. Don’t wanna upset the livestock, I mean public.

          • Calypso_1 | Apr 16, 2014 at 3:17 pm |

            Ha! I almost included the puppies. They should have collars with aborted fetus charms on them as well.

          • Such a psychopathic thing to say….

          • Matt Staggs | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:24 pm |

            Do the links don’t pop up in your comments or are you talking about submitted articles? Let me know and I’ll try to help.

          • When I post comments and cite support links, the entire comment is usually held on ice as “pending” and then it disappears. What are you referring to as “submitted articles? Articles I wrote or articles from other sites? Articles from other sites are often citations.

          • Matt Staggs | Apr 17, 2014 at 7:37 pm |

            I think I understand, then. You mean when you post links here in your comments they disappear? I’m not sure why. Could be a Disqus bug. I can tell you that I’ve not deleted any posts here in a long while, and certainly not yours. It is common for new posters to have their comments snagged in the pending folder, though. Believe me, if I wanted to just start deleting the posts of people who annoyed me I wouldn’t start with you. 🙂

          • Thanks. 🙂 Give me time: I can annoy the best of ’em.
            Here’s an example: the other night on the neopaganism thread, I tried to post a link to a pic of Kali in her “destroy/rebuild” stage and it would not post. It’s happened before and I thought maybe some sites were off limit because, like most people, I don’t read the terms for posting either. It’s probably something with Disqus then.

      • I suspect the fictional solar energy connection is Big Oil astrofoil. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Wiltshire won’t even consider Snope’s evidence, because I agree with him on WTC 7 and that the government should handle their dispute with Bundy differently.

        • They started fracking in Nevada for the first time in March. Maybe that’s the incoming angle.

        • Andrew, I looked at what Snopes said and it is tip toeing around the obvious facts. Ask yourself why don’t talk about the following information?

          See it’s easy to see through them if you are willing. So are you willing?

          • Well, I’m biased towards solar power and against beef, so I can’t say I’m entirely willing. (Whether or not being honest about my biases counts for anything.) I believe that while everyone should have private property, not everything should be private property. If the land is indeed public, and the government wants to use it for a solar plant, I’d rather someone make money from that than from cattle ranching. But the “facts” and “allegations” are too complicated for me to be willing to slog through at this point. I’m not even going to research the tortoise angle, even though I’m biased towards them too.

          • misinformation | Apr 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm |

            What’s your beef with beef?

      • Giant conflicts of interest exposed here. Do your own thinking and question Snopes as a reliable source.

        • I don’t use Snopes for anything. When I am captured by an issue, I research all sides of it and evaluate the information available to us according to who is making that information available. Powerful interests use propaganda and inflammatory language to incite our deep frames which is partly why our country is so polarized. Most of the issues our country is dealing with are complex/multifaceted and to reduce them to a few talking points is not only dumb but dangerous for the people that simplicity is directed at. Bundy is not that difficult: he has decided to be “special” and not follow the law. the complexity is not with Bundy, it’s with the people who rushed to his side to defend his abuse of federal lands and not recognizing the federal government. So, let’s take that to it’s conclusion which is the tragedy of commons. The tragedy of the commons is that everyone agrees to play by the rules in protecting the commons. It only takes one greedy individual to demand more than his/her share, and the whole thing falls apart and the commons suffers and eventually so do all the people who escalated the misuse of the commons. Bundy is neither a hero nor a coward: he just wants what he wants and to hell with everyone else.
          BTW: your video has been taken down. Why is that?

          • “my” video? You mean storm clouds gathering’s video yes? They are documenting why this is on their facebook page. Glad to hear you don’t fall for Snopes. I see the error in the tragedy of the commons but still the federal gov’t is exploiting it’s bully pulpit to slander those who dare oppose them. You are aware of the 10th amendment to the Constitution I presume. Should we ignore it’s purpose and meaning and allow ourselves to be regulated into “free speech areas” all at once? Obviously there is not feasible defense for the actions of the gov’t. here. Also did you watch Molyneux’s video here?

          • I’m sorry: the video link that you posted–when I went to it, it was taken down.
            State’s rights are proving to be as detrimental as you think the federal government is. How many states have been highjacked by powerful interests aligned against the people of the state? Nationally, we are witnessing state attacks on voting rights, zoning rights, hunting rights, and other rights. We don’t maintain or increase our rights by giving them away to the state or the federal government.

            BTW: where were you and your friends when TransCanada (a private foreign corporation) seized private land for Keystone under eminent domain under Texas law? On the other side of that issue, Nebraska struck it down but that doesn’t help East Texas farmer Julia
            Trigg-Crawford who now has to live with this one her land and had no say it in.

          • Not saying this is you, just sharing info, “11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or
            element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that
            some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have
            seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater
            criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf,
            later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have
            already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and
            respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing
            more serious issues.”

      • Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

        1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather,they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

        2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, orfocusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

        3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

        4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

        5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

        6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

        Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.

        With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

        7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

        I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

        8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

        a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFOIN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or
        the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

        b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

        c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

        • “Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering
          within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression.
          The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression,
          becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil.
          God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a
          world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have
          the truth and freedom our spirits require… or let
          us die seeking these things, for without them, we
          shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.”

  9. Christopher | Apr 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm |

    It seems so hard to find any good information on this story. Among the various rants and conspiracy theories, it is possible to glean some information. I’m more likely to believe that grazing on public lands is over-regulated by meat-growers industrial complex lobby influence more than some rights-eating federal entity.

    • There’s no good source of information on anything anymore (especially this non-story). Ukraine is a great example: do you want your blatant propaganda from US or from Russia? Best bet is to use a curated new aggregator and an international source.

      • Can you give us the names of a news aggregator or two you trust?

        • Sure, I use the RealClearPolitics family of sites. It’s a stand-by among political scientists. It leans Right, but you’d never guess unless you read the original content, which I don’t recommend. Use Al-Jazeera for international stuff. BBC and CNN-Int’l aren’t that bad, either (CCTV is also improving).

  10. Echar Lailoken | Apr 15, 2014 at 3:00 pm |

    What this post is missing is the Nuge and Palin making out on a gigantic American flag.

    • Indeed, where is the Nuge when we need him?

      • What does that even mean? So if you stand up for yourself against the gov’t you are quasi racist? You guys watch way to much MSNBC.

        • I don’t watch tv. And if I did, the last thing I would ever watch is the so called “news.” What a joke.

      • 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything
        else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses
        which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally
        render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing
        the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
        the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive
        they are to criticism.’

  11. Cortacespedes | Apr 15, 2014 at 3:53 pm |

    Cliven Bundy is the American equivalent of an Afghan warlord.

  12. He thinks himself serious but he has nothing intelligent to add to the discussion, thus he falls back on trite ad hominem attacks. Sadly most of the trolls here follow suit, no logic, no citations just bluster and self important opinion that bears nothing on the facts of the matter. Everyone is their own Stephen Colbert impersonator here…

  13. Thinker45 | Apr 15, 2014 at 5:55 pm |

    I have had this conversation way too many times in the last couple of
    days. Ok, as someone who has a lot of first hand experience with grazing
    rights, and knows the history about it all in context, since my family
    have been ranchers for generations,
    this guy is WAY out of line. Look at it like this: you’re leasing an
    apartment and you quit paying rent. You get evicted, simple as that. The
    government, like it or not, has sovereign land ownership of all lands. I
    mean they either took it from others in a war, or by force, or bought
    it from others who had. Then came homesteading and selling land to
    settlers and whatnot, but when they ended the homesteading stuff, any
    land that hadn’t had a claim filed against it and purchased, remained
    Federal land.

    Believe it or not, there wasn’t a lot of oversight in those days, and
    land was over grazed and water sources were destroyed by over use, and
    we had problems with all sorts of things, from wild fires to
    desertification. We had a variety of agencies that began to oversee
    all that, including things like mineral rights and water rights and
    forestry and so on.

    the BLM was created in the 80s by Reagan,
    there were systems of agreement and control instituted long before that
    with things like the Taylor Grazing Act and so on. This was, and is, a
    way of ensuring that greedy mother fuckers like Bundy, don’t just use
    the land, fuck it over and move on, leaving a legacy of disaster behind
    them which fucks the rest of us over. The BLM manages how many cows and
    sheep, and where and when. And your fees account for how many cows you
    have and you pay regularly for the ability to keep your cows on the
    range, saving you HUGE money on feed and pasturing.

    wants to claim that he has the right to do whatever he wants, because
    his ancestors grazed there. Funny, he didn’t seem to think that for all
    the time he WAS paying fees. He just threw a fit when BLM told him he
    couldn’t use certain land that he wanted to continue to use. It’s well
    within their rights to do so. And he has the fucking balls to try and
    turn this into a “Merica, Freedom!” issue, rather than a rich man being
    miserly, and having some asshat attitude that makes him think that just
    because he lives out in the middle of nowhere and there’s no fences that
    it’s every man for himself.

    My family, on both sides, have a long history of being farmers and ranchers. I have many homesteading ancestors that made their
    way west and farmed or raised cattle. My grandparents and parents have
    had range rights my entire life, I have rode out into the desert
    numerous times to bring the cattle in, or take them out. I am engrained
    in the culture, it’s been a part of my life.

    I also understand the sort of man that Bundy is, and how the isolation of
    their lives tends to make them feel as if they are in another time and
    place and that it’s still the wild wild west and it’s each man to
    himself and that they think they’re above the law, and that the lack of
    fences means that it’s ‘free land’ for the takin’, much as it was 200
    years ago.

    He’s been doing his thing for a generation or more and resents being told
    the truth of the matter, that the land doesn’t belong to him. So when he
    was told to keep his cattle out of a certain area he just quit paying
    rent. Because of course, he thinks that the law doesn’t apply to him.

    • Echar Lailoken | Apr 15, 2014 at 6:33 pm |

      I truly hope everyone viewing this post gets an opportunity to read your comment.

    • Cortacespedes | Apr 15, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      Awesome statements.

      Would like to add tho, that the BLM was created not by Reagan, but by the merger of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service in 1946. It’s been around awhile, just under different guises.

      Also, the BLM has bent over backwards historically to take care of ranchers by ridding the land of wild horses, burros, prairie dogs, wolves and coyotes because they were a “nuisance” to sheep and cattle.

      It’s not nicknamed the Bureau of Livestock and Mining for nothing.

    • I wish I could up vote you twice:)

    • Add to this the simple truth, that a genuinely totalitarian government would have slaughtered Bundy and every seditionist who showed up to support him, with far less media coverage of the story.

      Bundy appears to be the kind of fool who’s impossible to reason with because he mistakes politeness for weakness. Given Camron’s track record here, it’s no surprise that Camron’s a fan.

      • It’s incredible your ability to ignore every fact that contradicts your beliefs and continue to prattle on unfazed. In your world this tyranny just ain’t as tyrannical as tyranny can tyranny cuz no one died (this time). How about it is the federal gov’t (whose boots you obviously love licking), threatening violence and the initiators of force. Again the whole pretense for their totalitarian attempts at land grabbing are ignored by you because your special ideological helmet filters out any information not suiting your agenda. By the way, what is your name? Since you feel so bold as to throw mine around “Reasor”, I’d ask that you be man enough to share your own.

    • gustave courbet | Apr 15, 2014 at 9:25 pm |

      Very interesting response, thanks.

    • misinformation | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:34 am |

      “Because of course, he thinks that the law doesn’t apply to him. ”

      Then he’s in lock-step with many of the people who call themselves the government.

    • Brave New World | Apr 16, 2014 at 9:16 am |

      I was going to comment something to this effect, but I don’t need to add much now.

      The rancher’s grazing on public property is illegal. And in fact, illegal for good reason. Not many of you have probably spent a lot of time in the southwest, but cattle have literally destroyed much of the landscape, and completely destroyed the landscape in some places. Where there was grass, now there is only prickly sagebrush. I’m sure I don’t have to explain how bad this is for the wildlife who live in these areas. There are good reasons why this guy’s cattle should not be there.

      As much as I hate the federal government, and believe me, I do, this is not a place where they are really in the wrong. The rancher is basically defending a parasitic and inappropriate use of public land, for his own benefit, while degrading it for everyone else. His “freedom” here is really freedom to be a jackass, and nothing more.

      Bundy should buy his own damn land to raise his own damn cattle on, rather than ruining the landscape for everyone else.

    • “8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority
      and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate
      you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues
      or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.”

  14. I really don’t understand why everyone’s being such a dick to this Camron guy for posting. Whether you buy into it or not I don’t see how the content wouldn’t be appropriate for this site. There’s about 4 of you guys I’m staring to suspect are total fucking tools and shitty human beings.

    • The videos in the OP are fascist/rightwing/libertarian propaganda. They are misrepresenting facts and law, based on emotion and some silly notion that any protest against government is just and fair.

      People are being hard on Camron Wiltshire because he will post things that are easily refuted by other sources and then dismiss those sources as suspect based on completely different issues. It’s basically the Alex Jones factor of his posting that gets to a lot of people.

      • @farbauti:disqus you’ve never been able to rationally argue a point in all my previous experience with you. So please explain to me how any of what you said is true, you just loaded up a bunch of epithets, framing your non argument. Let me repeat for you an astonishing admission of where your mind is, in your own words here, “based on emotion and some silly notion that any protest against government is just and fair”.

        No one here has refuted anything, (not that you bothered to look) I think it is hillarious how I’m accused of shiboleth but the trolls here all decide (without thought, reason or evidence) to discount my posting Stefan Molyneux’s entirely logical presentation of the facts in favor of fixating on the fact that they are butthurt over Alex Jones. See the non sequitorial illogic of the common disinfo troll?

  15. So protecting your family and property from the abusive gov’t equals “hot white-guy rage injection”. Do you think at all or just copy paste from your list in forums like this? “Juding by the list of videos..” oh the one’s you didn’t watch and or can’t comment on the content because you ‘already know’ by scanning them… Yeah disinfo pretty much is infested with troll bots.

    • But hey, at least your comments keep the articles up and people with heart and brains can share and comment. They just have to wade through troll shit to see what is actually here versus the delusional rantings of the anonymous troll army.

      • Number1Framer | Apr 16, 2014 at 9:00 pm |

        “But hey, at least your comments keep the articles up…”

        I think I understand what this is really all about now.

  16. For all the trolls who love their enslavers like a good stockholm pet.

    • I think you are confused, Camron. I can only speak for myself, but I am pretty sure many here agree, we do not love the gubmit.
      I see them as a totally out of control fascist military empire causing untold havoc and misery all over the planet, and creating a fascist survaillance state at home. They serve the interests of the large corporations who own the politicians. I think we are pretty clear about this.
      It’s just that this right wing pseudo populist, teabagger, bullshit is getting old. If this guy were fighting for something beyond the privilege of abusing public lands for free to further his own narrow self intersts, then that would be an entirely different story.
      As I mentioned in my first post, as I see it, there are no good guys in this thing. Just because I have no love for the gov does not mean that I have to blindly support every whack job, entitled assclown who crosses them. Fuck ’em all.

      • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 12:04 pm |

        Confused, or indoctrinated?

        • Doing my best to keep the rhetoric civil.

        • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:16 pm |

          This is the most obtuse statement I’ve ever seen you make.

          You, Echar, have contributed nothing in this thread but ad hominem, appeal to ridicule. and bandwagon fallacies.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

            Concern troll.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm |

            Would you like an essay on indoctrination?

            If I had laid out my views, in entirety, on how the majority of those posting here fall into the category of “indoctrinated” while excluding Mr. Wiltshire, would that have given you more to work with so you might have avoided another ad hominem? or are you just wearing your troll hat proudly?

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:33 pm |

            Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

            Why is it you most usually only show up when Camron sharts out some nonsense on disinfo?

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm |

            You have a limited view and/ or a selective memory.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:08 pm |

            You express a habitual tendency to support causes I view as a detriment to society, and therefor view you in contempt.

          • Kevin Leonard | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm |

            You express a habitual tendency to speak with as much substance as what fills a baby’s diaper, and therefore, I view you in contempt.

          • Echar Lailoken | Apr 16, 2014 at 2:39 pm |

            Good for you! That’s your trip.

    • Yeah, I’ve been beaten many, many times throughout my life. Much of it happened before I was 6. Calling me a troll and a pet isn’t going to get me on your side, because I’ve been called many, many names over the course of my life too. As far as I know, Stockholm Syndrome can’t be overcome by further abuse.

      • Sorry to hear you were assaulted, I didn’t call you personally anything, if you take it personal that is on you now isn’t it. I’m not trying to get you on my side, I’m asking for fairness and reason. Both are completely lacking in this forum and frankly it spoils the entire site, it’s become nothing but an echo chamber for people who’ve no guts to speak out about anything of substance. Presuming that I am “rude” when simply expressing opinions that are not favored by people here too condescending and prejudiced to even listen is most likely the goal of the trolls who repeatedly attack me personally for daring to express ideas that don’t jive with their favored world views (or that of their owners). Reminds me of the following

        • Perhaps this site is full of paid spies. And perhaps you’re here to discredit real conspiracy research with ridiculous astrofoil.

          • See again you are just name calling, you’ve not addressed any evidence whatsoever. Doing so only discredits yourself honestly.

          • I didn’t call you any names, I merely proposed a couple of possibilities. And I don’t claim they’re the only ones.

            And I did address some evidence by linking to a Snopes article, but it was dismissed without consideration, so I don’t expect to be taken seriously anyway. Just pretend I’m not here.

    • Your rudeness and condescending attitude towards the other posters because they don’t fall into lockstep with you and yours is beyond the pale. You consistently engage in ad hominem attacks and seem to believe that you have some kind of special insight. Special insight is often accompanied by special blind spots and attacking people personally does not help your cause. Verbal attacks like yours are one of the myriad of reasons why people do not want to get involved with a bunch of mean-mouthed Rambo-wannabes who are being used to further someone’s hidden agenda.

      • What are you talking about? This is pure insanity, first they ignore everything you say, then they tell you that you say something completely different and when you prove them wrong they condemn you for pointing out their errors and defending yourself without kissing their asses.

        • It is the same script over and over again, I’ve seen you all do it a thousand times.

          • 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument
            which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent
            to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on
            your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select
            the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and
            destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and
            fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

            5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known
            as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify
            as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such
            as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy
            buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual
            deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear
            of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

  17. bobconner | Apr 16, 2014 at 1:19 pm |

    There are more contradictions and ironies in this situation than a well written novel. Even beyond the “brave” militia using females as canon fodder while screaming the right to bear arms.

    And, the ironies aren’t just created by Bundy, but by the BLM too.

    Bundy’s claim to “preemptive rights” to the land his family has been
    ranching there since the later 19th Century is beyond silly.

    Bundy’s ranch is right in the middle of land a Native American tribe,
    the Paiute, who are direct descendants of the Anasazi/Puebloan people.

    This area of Nevada has been occupied by the Paiute and their ancestors
    since as long ago as the 12th Century BCE, so it would seem Bundy’s
    preemptive rights have themselves been preempted by about 14,000 years or so.

    He certainly isn’t paying the Paiute any grazing fees and if they decided
    to leave the government-sanctioned reservations and build homes in his
    grazing area, I am certain he would ask the government to get involved
    (free of any fees of course).

    Bundy not only promotes the federal government round up of the
    “non-indigenous” wild burros and horses that interfere with grazing his
    cattle on BLM lands, he’s among the ranchers that complain quite
    vociferously about the grazing competition from the wild animals.

    So. As it stands today, there are over 50,000 wild horses and burros
    that have been rounded up so they don’t interfere with free-range
    cattle-rancher’s grazing “rights.” These horses and burros are cruelly
    being confined indefinitely in small BLM corrals throughout the
    southwestern US, the huge majority being here in Nevada and in Utah. And, while
    dipshit ranchers like Bundy cry foul when the BLM doesn’t round up the
    wild animals, the federal government, via tax payers, funds $120,000.00
    every day for the cost of corralling and caring for them.

    Excluding gaming, mining is Nevada’s largest industry, mining everything
    from precious metals and gems to salt, borax, uranium, lime, boron,
    etc…… Even simple rocks for desert landscaping is a big industry
    here (can’t imagine why). I’m not sure, but I think mining is why the
    BLM owns and controls so much of Nevada’s land – 67% of the state. I
    can’t think of any other reason they would want to own the desert.

    This issue, according to the BLM, is about the desert tortoise habitat.
    However, when a mining company wishes to open a mine, all they’re
    required to do is find and relocate the tortoises. And, somehow, this
    has been circumvented as the BLM has been forced to create artificial
    habitats and care facilities for the tortoises costing the tax-payers

    A wild guess on my part, but I’d bet mining is far more detrimental to
    the environment than cows. There’s quite the argument here that the
    wild horses and burros aren’t indigenous and create havoc on the natural
    environment. Certainly the wild horses and burros have been here long
    before cattle – more irony.

    Some even suggest that horse and burro shit is better than cow shit for the desert, but one thing’s for certain; it’s all hyperbolic bullshit.

  18. gustave courbet | Apr 16, 2014 at 7:46 pm |

    While I have struggled to form an opinion on this issue (and failed) I would appeal to my fellow free thinkers to cut each other some slack. It’s easy to feel smug in your superior position (I admit it- I enjoy trolling anti-semites and homophobes on Infowars), but lets try to keep in mind that most of us here at Disinfo share more affinities than differences, and while we may not always agree, we should aspire to treat each other with respect. On numerous occasions I’ve learned new things from people I started out disagreeing with, starting out assured in my position only to find that we each had relevant, if incomplete understandings of the topic at hand.

  19. bobconner | Apr 19, 2014 at 11:05 am |

    Very good point Cortacespedes. It’s insane to watch how much water is used in southern Nevada. In the little town, Boulder City alone; a town with somewhere around 12,000 residents, there are 5 golf courses and somewhere around 15 in Las Vegas/Henderson.

Comments are closed.