[vanity post] A whole new meaning to 'Rr'

jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 11:17:34 PDT 2017



 From: Leigh Meyers <g2s at riseup.net>

> 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.


>https://www.redneckrevolt.org/

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'

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Up_Angry



   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12239 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170813/93736ebc/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list