Antifa's armed wing Redneck Revolt in North Carolina....

HMP said:
I remember seeing that video posted here...and the local leo not giving a dang about it. Shame. (shame that leo didnt care enough)
Click to expand...

What law, exactly, was broken?

One may argue that AntiFa represents a dangerous element.in society based on ideology or it's past willingness to engage in violence for political ends - but until a law is broken or the breaking of a law is imminent, what exactly do you expect LE to do?

Have you never carried extra protection in your vehicle when things might go squirrelly? Maybe BLM protests in a city that for whatever reason, you couldn't avoid (work, appointment,etc)?

How many such conversations of "if this, then that" have you heard here? Are you equally disappointed that local LE doesn't care enough to insert themselves into the lives of the membership of CFF?

These are serious questions, with serious answers.

For in the end, the protection of Liberty requires that the Rights of all Citizens are respected, especially those with whom we disagree. For it's not when we defend our own Rights that we discover our hardiness and resolve for the foundational principles of the Republic, but when we defend the Rights and Liberties of those we oppose.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
What law, exactly, was broken?

One may argue that AntiFa represents a dangerous element.in society based on ideology or it's past willingness to engage in violence for political ends - but until a law is broken or the breaking of a law is imminent, what exactly do you expect LE to do?

Have you never carried extra protection in your vehicle when things might go squirrelly? Maybe BLM protests in a city that for whatever reason, you couldn't avoid (work, appointment,etc)?

How many such conversations of "if this, then that" have you heard here? Are you equally disappointed that local LE doesn't care enough to insert themselves into the lives of the membership of CFF?

These are serious questions, with serious answers.

For in the end, the protection of Liberty requires that the Rights of all Citizens are respected, especially those with whom we disagree. For it's not when we defend our own Rights that we discover our hardiness and resolve for the foundational principles of the Republic, but when we defend the Rights and Liberties of those we oppose.
Click to expand...
They were handing out knives, ice picks, and other weapons to stab people with during the protest. They were also giving advice on how you should use your weapon. I’d agree they weren’t breaking laws at that moment, but given what they had done in the past before that event, they were going to be using said weapons. It is a slippery slope.

Edit: That is why they had the backup plan to fall back to the vehicles where they had guns. They knew they’d provoke a response if they started the attack. They were trying to bait people in.
 
Last edited:
Geezer said:
Never, ever, underestimate your opponent.

View attachment 37138
Click to expand...
ChickenHawk said:
They were handing out knives, ice picks, and other weapons to stab people with during the protest. They were also giving advice on how you should use your weapon. I’d agree they weren’t breaking laws at that moment, but given what they had done in the past before that event, they were going to be using said weapons. It is a slippery slope.

Edit: That is why they had the backup plan to fall back to the vehicles where they had guns. They knew they’d provoke a response if they started the attack. They were trying to bait people in.
Click to expand...


No doubt, and if anyone has been on the don't discount these people, it's me.

And here's the thing: the professor is actually playing his part expertly. Here's the thing about revolutions; the would be Revolutionary must understand the political context for any paramilitary campaign.

There's an element that relies heavily on popular support for the revolutionaries while simultaneously undermining the position of the current power structure.

The first is accomplished by ensuring that the revolutionaries are seen as the victims. That is done by controlling the narrative, lofty, high minded speeches that stoke the popular moods, and ensuring the current government is the aggressor. This is always true in successful revolutions, and was why the Lexington militia was given the command of "Do not fire unless fired upon." It was absolutely critical the State shot first.

Then, you must also undermine the current power structure. This is done by a combination of general rabblerousing by the revolutionaries as well as the missteps the State will always make with regards to public trust and support (and let's be honest, this one isn't hard - trust in government across the spectrum is terrible). The government cracks down hard on the revolutionaries before they're actually breaking the law? Then their Rights are being violated, they're the victims and the government is acting immorally and unconstitutionally. If they fail to act and the revolutionaries get strong enough, then they're perceived as weak and unfit to rule (which is true, if the Declaration of Independence is true).

The same thing was true in 1767-1775: the Crown tried smothering our Republic in the cradle through active and aggressive intervention. This only served to push those indifferent to the political arguments into the arms of the radicals proposing Independence.

Had they not intervened, the potential for the defiance to spread throughout there Empire was very real.

For in the end, an insurgency or rebellion doesn't need to win the war. The State HAS to win the war.

The insurgency just has to not lose it.

These are very different things; one is difficult, the other is less so. Had Robert E. Lee understood this, and had a solid grasp of the political context for his military campaign, North America would likely be starkly different than the one you and I currently know.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
No doubt, and if anyone has been on the don't discount these people, it's me.

And here's the thing: the professor is actually playing his part expertly. Here's the thing about revolutions; the would be Revolutionary must understand the political context for any paramilitary campaign.

There's an element that relies heavily on popular support for the revolutionaries while simultaneously undermining the position of the current power structure.

The first is accomplished by ensuring that the revolutionaries are seen as the victims. That is done by controlling the narrative, lofty, high minded speeches that stoke the popular moods, and ensuring the current government is the aggressor. This is always true in successful revolutions, and was why the Lexington militia was given the command of "Do not fire unless fired upon." It was absolutely critical the State shot first.

Then, you must also undermine the current power structure. This is done by a combination of general rabblerousing by the revolutionaries as well as the missteps the State will always make with regards to public trust and support (and let's be honest, this one isn't hard - trust in government across the spectrum is terrible). The government cracks down hard on the revolutionaries before they're actually breaking the law? Then their Rights are being violated, they're the victims and the government is acting immorally and unconstitutionally. If they fail to act and the revolutionaries get strong enough, then they're perceived as weak and unfit to rule (which is true, if the Declaration of Independence is true).

The same thing was true in 1767-1775: the Crown tried smothering our Republic in the cradle through active and aggressive intervention. This only served to push those indifferent to the political arguments into the arms of the radicals proposing Independence.

Had they not intervened, the potential for the defiance to spread throughout there Empire was very real.

For in the end, an insurgency or rebellion doesn't need to win the war. The State HAS to win the war.

The insurgency just has to not lose it.

These are very different things; one is difficult, the other is less so. Had Robert E. Lee understood this, and had a solid grasp of the political context for his military campaign, North America would likely be starkly different than the one you and I currently know.
Click to expand...
Agreed on most points. The government has been so uninterested in stopping AntiFa that they are becoming seen as the bad guys. With the spread of footage across the internet, the media can only protect them so much. To that I say thank goodness for smart phones and the internet. If the police crack down hard then I think they will be seen as the bad guys. In the case of the Crowder video, the police were the only ones interested. Even though the media didn’t run the story against them, that meant they also couldn’t make excuses for them. That’s why I said in my other post that it is a slippery slope. Unfortunately both sides are extremely pro big government. They just want their own flavor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
ChickenHawk said:
Agreed on most points. The government has been so uninterested in stopping AntiFa that they are becoming seen as the bad guys. With the spread of footage across the internet, the media can only protect them so much. To that I say thank goodness for smart phones and the internet. If the police crack down hard then I think they will be seen as the bad guys. In the case of the Crowder video, the police were the only ones interested. Even though the media didn’t run the story against them, that meant they also couldn’t make excuses for them. That’s why I said in my other post that it is a slippery slope. Unfortunately both sides are extremely pro big government. They just want their own flavor.
Click to expand...

No, I would argue the government is and always has been the bad guys, as it should be in any Free Society.

The Liberty side of the house - our side (and I'm going to exclude neoconservatives from this for the very reason you state: they like big government too) - is trying to fight AntiFa from a mainstream position using a mainstream mindset and mainstream tactics.

My bigger point is the Liberty movement IS NOT mainstream any longer in these United States, that we are a radical movement that believes in the limited form of government outlined in the Constitution, that believe in the Republic's original intentions as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

We should start acting like it. Because if we cede that portion of the field to AntiFa, then we may be thrust into the uncomfortable position of defending the goons of a big, intrusive government from other goons who want to make it bigger and more intrusive.

This professor knows how to go about it, even though his ideology is horrifically wrong.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
No, I would argue the government is and always has been the bad guys, as it should be in any Free Society.

The Liberty side of the house - our side (and I'm going to exclude neoconservatives from this for the very reason you state: they like big government too) - is trying to fight AntiFa from a mainstream position using a mainstream mindset and mainstream tactics.

My bigger point is the Liberty movement IS NOT mainstream any longer in these United States, that we are a radical movement that believes in the limited form of government outlined in the Constitution, that believe in the Republic's original intentions as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

We should start acting like it. Because if we cede that portion of the field to AntiFa, then we may be thrust into the uncomfortable position of defending the goons of a big, intrusive government from other goons who want to make it bigger and more intrusive.

This professor knows how to go about it, even though his ideology is horrifically wrong.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree the government are the bad guys. I was just giving a simple observation that right now the majority see them as the good guys and AntiFa as the bad guys when it comes to violence. I got into an argument with my own family over the weekend about me hating that the government uses force/violence/insert buzzword here to make people comply. Sadly most people nowadays want papa gov to beat down those they disagree with.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
What law, exactly, was broken?

One may argue that AntiFa represents a dangerous element.in society based on ideology or it's past willingness to engage in violence for political ends - but until a law is broken or the breaking of a law is imminent, what exactly do you expect LE to do?

Have you never carried extra protection in your vehicle when things might go squirrelly? Maybe BLM protests in a city that for whatever reason, you couldn't avoid (work, appointment,etc)?

How many such conversations of "if this, then that" have you heard here? Are you equally disappointed that local LE doesn't care enough to insert themselves into the lives of the membership of CFF?

These are serious questions, with serious answers.

For in the end, the protection of Liberty requires that the Rights of all Citizens are respected, especially those with whom we disagree. For it's not when we defend our own Rights that we discover our hardiness and resolve for the foundational principles of the Republic, but when we defend the Rights and Liberties of those we oppose.
Click to expand...


When I first started reading your post my thoughts went to (and it has been a while since Ive seen the video) how I THINK they were discussing how to use the weapons against people. or maybe it was more, "here's a weapon to use"
Its been a while, apologies.

But as I read further of your post I can see what you are saying, that they, maybe, were carrying for the same reason that we do - IF.

Thank you.
 
HMP said:
When I first started reading your post my thoughts went to (and it has been a while since Ive seen the video) how I THINK they were discussing how to use the weapons against people. or maybe it was more, "here's a weapon to use"
Its been a while, apologies.

But as I read further of your post I can see what you are saying, that they, maybe, were carrying for the same reason that we do - IF.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not the most comfortable realization, at first. But Liberty, once it takes root, is a plant of rapid growth. :D
 
SPM said:
Exactly. It's not the most comfortable realization, at first. But Liberty, once it takes root, is a plant of rapid growth. :D
Click to expand...
And the taste of Liberty is what eventually makes reformed communists (see Whittaker Chambers, et al) great freedomistas. Some of Professor Peckerhead's students will have trouble reconciling his rhetoric with that taste of Liberty.

On another note, however, this Professor at Elon might have you on her list of 400k "Supremacists" if your behavior clicks with her metadata analysis program. She'll be sharing her list with the SPLC, antifa activists, and possibly your employer in an effort to get you fired. From the linked article-

Make no mistake, this is literally a women building a database on patriotic conservative Americans, with some racists throw in, and then providing the details to a group that openly uses violence against Trump supporters or anyone else that they have deemed to be “fascist”.​
 
B00ger said:
What I find ironic is that each firearm they carry was purchased with money from a capitalist system, at least one of them is employed by a school that runs a top capitalist business school, and they are all wearing clothing that was produced, transported, sold with a network based on capitalist principles. Practice what you preach...quit your job, move into a commune (that you will still owe state/federal taxes on), and start living that socialist utopian dream.
Click to expand...

I saw this rationalized recently as “hang the capitalists with the ropes they sell you”.
 
11B CIB said:
I saw this rationalized recently as “hang the capitalists with the ropes they sell you”.
Click to expand...

They can certainly try. I'm happy to sell them the ropes.

The copper jacketed lead to get me into it will be free of charge.......
 
11B CIB said:
I saw this rationalized recently as “hang the capitalists with the ropes they sell you”.
Click to expand...

Oh, no doubt...but the morons don't seem to ever realize that after they use those ropes to "kill the capitalists" then there will be no more ropes to use on anything else because the driving force behind the international trade of rope making equipment and supplies has just been murdered.

People can rationalize anything. Personally, I am glad they are showing their violent side more. For far too long the lie that the "militant right" is the greatest threat to security has been sold. Now the true face of intolerance and hate is being shown, and it has fabulous mascara.
 
The opportunity on the right is to quietly bait these folks and draw them further into the limelight. Kinda like younger daughter does to older daughter.
 
B00ger said:
Now the true face of intolerance and hate is being shown, and it has fabulous mascara.
Click to expand...
Yea, kind of like a thirteen year olds raccoon eye makeup.
 
ripv2 said:
Wired Magazine, which published the article referenced by your link, mentions Redneck Revolt by name. The professor uses them as a means of vigilante justice. She has rationalized this as attacking non-protected and dangerous speech.

The part most troubling to me is that Wired Magazine isn't InfoWars. You might find a copy of Wired in your Dr.'s waiting room. The article makes her seem heroic.

https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-antifa-data-mining/
Click to expand...
Which is part of what makes alternative news outlets so important. Wired, just like ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN, NY Times, Charlotte Obscurer, ad infinitum, get their talent from America's J-schools, where cultural marxism has long enjoyed a largely-unopposed laboratory for indoctrinating young minds. Started in Frankfurt, immigrated to Columbia, spread like a cancer.

Not unlike Antifa, short for Anti-Fascistche(sp?)...born in Germany to oppose Hitler & Mussolini and specifically to promote Marxism. They didn't say pro-Marxism then, nor do they now, for the same reason: Branding. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Black Bloc, Democratic Socialists, Redneck Revolt, WhackAMole... All little attempts to plant seeds of respectability into the mainstream. Obama cut Van Jones out of his Cabinet plans, not because Jones said he figured there'd have to be 1/3 of America's population get killed off to fully implement their (Marxist) schemes, but because some of that 1/3 heard about what he said and voiced their objection. Goes back to the Cloward-Piven strategy and Alinsky's Rules. The Long March Through the Institutions.
 
ripv2 said:
Wired Magazine, which published the article referenced by your link, mentions Redneck Revolt by name. The professor uses them as a means of vigilante justice. She has rationalized this as attacking non-protected and dangerous speech./
Click to expand...

Non protected and dangerous is of course defined thru the lens of some goofy lib snowflake.

I dropped WIRED a could decades ago because of its lefty bent.
 
I'd like to refer folks watching/participating in this thread to consider another I created in the politics section, called How We Win. Relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom