>
Redneck Revolt is a national network of community
defense projects
> from a
broad spread of political, religious, and cultural
backgrounds.
> It is
a pro-worker,
At first
glance, using the term "pro-worker" suggests 'anyone
who has a job'. THAT would sound very inclusive,
wouldn't it? But from extensive experience reading,
I've found generally this is used to mean,
"blue-collar workers".
I really
have to wonder about people who insert code-words and
code-phrases in their speech. Sounds like the same
old "class-struggle" nonsense we've been hearing from
Communists and Socialists for 120+ years. The same
Communists and Socialists who were responsible for
well over half of the government-caused deaths around
the world in the 20th century.
I should
also point out that the kind of people who speak and
write like this tend to be PC (politically-correct),
which makes me want to prod them by reminding them
that "pro-worker" could be construed as rudely
excluding people who take welfare-checks. Are they
trying to be hostile in this way? At least, there's
an inconsistency here. But we know they aren't
hostile to welfare-check recipients. Rather, they are
simply being selective in their targeted audience.
Divide and conquer. And their website, below,
confirms this. Class this, class that.
>
anti-racist organization
My working
definition of "racist" tends to be, "Anybody who
thinks race is important". Sadly, the term
"anti-racist" is generally used as yet another
code-word, used to imply "leftist". Will you be
mystified when I tell you that I think that leftists
are some of the biggest "racists" there are? Do you
understand why?
> that
focuses on working
> class
liberation from the oppressive systems which dominate
our lives.
Uh, pardon
me, but why only "working class liberation"? And do
you mean, "everybody who has a job", or "just
blue-collar workers". And why don't you say you want
to 'liberate' welfare-recipients, too? Or retired
people? Or children? What do you think made them
welfare-recipients in the first place? Are they not
worthy of being liberated as well? Okay, I know, I
know, you are engaging in selective marketing here.
Tell you
what. 22 years ago, I figured out a method that would
truly and completely liberate everyone from the
oppressive systems which dominate our lives. I
called it, "Assassination Politics". (AP for short)
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
Maybe it will scare you, because I claim it will
completely eliminate governments as we know them, and
anybody who has a warm place in his heart for having a
large, intrusive government will find this outcome
truly terrifying. Read the essay and tell us all if
you are terrified.
> In
states where it is legal to practice armed community
defense, many
>
branches choose to become John Brown Gun Clubs,
training ourselves and
> our
communities in defense and mutual aid.
On the one
hand, I'd say that's great. Sounds like a militia. I
wonder, however, if there is any recognition here that
historically, the left has been strongly anti-gun, and
has extensively spoken against the formation and
operation of militias. Are you ignoring those facts?
Do you recognize the inconsistency? Maybe you
should, first, explicitly acknowledge this major
error, and then work to fix it?
Maybe your
first project should be Chicago, with its famous level
of murders. Sort of an armed "Guardian Angels"
operation. Are you hostile to the people who are
doing those murders? If not, why not? And maybe you
won't be able to carry guns in the open, exactly due
to the restrictive gun laws in Chicago? The very same
restrictive gun laws that keep ordinary, law-abiding
citizens from carrying guns, laws that somehow don't
seem to prevent the criminal-class from carry guns.
Maybe you
ought to advocate for a change in gun laws, so that
American government would actually obey and respect
the rights guaranteed to all Americans by the 2nd
Amendment. My understanding is that when the 2nd
Amendment was written, in 1789, and ratified, in 1791,
the only people prohibited from keeping and bearing
arms were people who were already convicted of a
death-penalty offense: Such crimes were called
"felonies", those so restricted were called "felons".
Problem is, over the next 200 years, the definition
of "felony" changed, ultimately being a crime
punishable by a year or more in prison. Do you really
think the Founding Fathers intended that this be the
proper definition of "felony", and that anyone so
convicted be prohibited from owning guns?
(One
exception: Blacks were not allowed to own guns in the
pre-Civil war period. But the reason given was that
they were not considered "citizens". One argument
made about the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
is that if blacks were declared citizens, they
would have the right to own guns.)
> This
project was founded in June 2016, by several members
of previous
>
similar community defense formations in Kansas and
Colorado. We have
> 30+
vetted branches, united under our common goals as
outlined in our
>
principles, and organized through a collaboratively
built national
>
network.
I checked
it. Clearly a lefty screed. You are obviously not
ready to solve any problem, let alone all of them.
Jim Bell
>Rr
>Ps. The
60s. "Rising Up Angry", Radical 'Greasers'