A far-left militant group calling itself the Redneck Revolt says it aims to put “the red back in redneck” – “red” as in communist red – and use aggressive tactics to promote social justice and protects minorities. Armed members of Redneck Revolt can often be seen providing protection to minority groups such as Black Lives Matter and to other left-leaning groups conducting marches and demonstrations. Redneck Revolt insists that the group should not be compared to another leftist militant group — the Anti-fa group. Members of Redneck Revolt explain the difference as mainly one of tactics: Anti-fa are willing to engage in property destruction, cover their faces in “black bloc,” and occasionally punch Nazis on the street. “We don’t do that,” a member of Redneck Revolt said firmly. “We do everything within the law.”
The Independent reports that armed members of Redneck Revolt can often be seen providing protection to minority groups such as Black Lives Matter and to other left-leaning groups conducting marches and demonstrations.
Redneck Revolt was founded in 2016 in Kansas and Colorado, and now claims to have forty-five regional branches in thirty states.
The group distinguishes itself from more run-of-the-mill liberal groups by advocating the right to bear arms.
“Charity is the lowest rung of what we do,” one member of the group told the Independent. “What we want to do is help people organize themselves – reorganize the conditions of their lives, so they don’t have to depend on someone else for a meal.”
This is why the group encourages its members to own gun, and go to firing ranges to learn how to use the arms effectively.
The groups says that it was established in order to counter the rise in extremist rhetoric, violence, and confrontational tactics used by white supremacist groups.
“The current political environment has seen armed militias intimidating people as they go into their mosques to pray, violent white nationalists attacking people in the street, Nazis openly calling for genocide all across the country, and political wavering around whether white nationalism is a defensible political ideology,” the group said in a press release sent to Newsweek.
“Redneck Revolt members recognize how real the threats of violence have become because of the friends and loved ones they’ve already lost, and they organize in community defense as both an obligation and a commitment to defend each other.”
Newsweeknotes that the group also aims to bring members of the working class together across racial divides. The group offers various social services such as clothing drives, potlucks, farming and gardening, and providing training in safety and survival.
“[Redneck Revolt] is a pro-worker, anti-racist organization that focuses on working class liberation from the oppressive systems which dominate our lives,” the group said.
The group also says that its members come from a variety of political ideologies, including libertarians, anarchists, communists, and independents — but that all members agree on the goal: countering the growth of white supremacist movements and building solidarity among diverse members of the working class and the poor.
In a membership recruitment letter the group sends to potential members, it urges working-class white people to consider the minorities who work beside them and reflect on their shared interests.
The letter urges working-class white people to “look around” and wonder: “Who lives in the houses or trailers in the same neighborhoods as us? Who works next to us in the factories, or cooks alongside us at the restaurants?”
“It sure as hell isn’t rich white people,” the letter continues. “It’s Brown people, Black people, and other working-class white people. They are the ones that are in similar situations to us, living paycheck to paycheck, stretching to feed their families like we do. So why then would we view them as so different from us that we literally view them as our enemies?”
“Redneck Revolt believes that real working-class solidarity will come from working alongside each other in person and in our everyday lives, not in the sterile conversations of privilege in college classrooms, or in the phony hand-wringing of politicians,” the recruitment letter says.
Recruiters who work for Redneck Revolt show up at events and venues which may attract white working-class people, but which are typically associated with populist, white nationalist movements and causes: gun shows, firing ranges, state fairs, Nascar races, and cattle shows.
“We focus on counter-recruitment of other working-class people against white supremacist and white nationalist organizations, through direct outreach in places where working-class folks are already being targeted,” the group told Newsweek.
The Suffolk County branch
The Independent has just published a lengthy story on the Suffolk County, New York, branch of Redneck Revolt.
The Suffolk County branch was founded this April, as an offshoot of a leftist reading group at Stony Brook University. Many of the reading group members were Bernie Sanders supporters.
The first act of the branch was to start the community food garden, the yields of which they donated to a local school and the anti-violence organization Food Not Bombs. In an early-December meeting, the group planned how they would give back during the holiday season. They had already started organizing a drive to collect winter coats for the homeless. At this meeting, they decided to hand out the coats themselves, rather than giving them to a charity to distribute.
“Take the charity party out and put the solidarity in!” one member declared.
Members of Redneck Revolt also came to Charlottesville – and they came armed. Their presence at the rally made national news, including a Fox News headline warning: “The Left has gun-toting militias of its own.”
But Redneck Revolt claims it did not come to Charlottesville seeking confrontation. According to a blog post on the group’s website, Redneck Revolt members came to offer protection for the community and show opposition to white supremacy.
Redneck Revolt insists that the group should not be compared to another leftist militant group — the Anti-fa group. Members of Redneck Revolt explain the difference as mainly one of tactics: Anti-fa are willing to engage in property destruction, cover their faces in “black bloc,” and occasionally punch Nazis on the street.
“We don’t do that,” a member of Redneck Revolt said firmly. “We do everything within the law.”
Best-selling author Edward Klein drops a bomb in his new book “All Out War” publishing the FBI documents warning of violence coming from Antifa and other left-wing groups.
“In the FBI report that I have reproduced in full in my book, it says that these violent left wing groups traveled to Europe, met with representatives of al-Qaida and the Islamic State, or ISIS. They also went to Syria and got bomb making instructions and toxic chemical instructions.
On Sunday, mass murderer Charles Manson finally received the trip to Hell he earned long ago. The world universally condemned his life’s work — as, of course, they should, given that Manson’s followers were responsible for nine murders in 1969 alone, that one of his followers attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford, and that he hoped to initiate a race war through “Helter Skelter,” a strategy of chaos and death.
The universal hatred of Manson is revisionist history. There was a small but significant element of the radical left — people who are now praised in academia and on the political left — who praised Manson fulsomely. Among them: Bernardine Dohrn, of the Weather Underground. After the Manson family slaughtered fully pregnant Sharon Tate, Dohrn reveled, “Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!” No wonder she felt that way: at a Weathermen “war council” in Michigan, the Weathermen Underground preached Manson’s race war message. Dohrn spent over two decades teaching law at Northwestern University Law School, and her husband, Bill Ayers, is one of the more famous radicals of the 1960s-cum-professor at University of Illinois.
As Vincent Bugliosi reports in his book, Helter Skelter, it wasn’t just Dohrn:
The underground paper Tuesday’s Child, which called itself the Voice of the Yippies…spread his picture across the entire front page with a banner naming him MAN OF THE YEAR. The cover of the next issue had Manson on a cross. Manson posters and sweat shirts appeared in psychedelic shops, along with FREE MANSON buttons.
Leftist social activist Jerry Rubin stated, “I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV … His words and courage inspired us.”
Manson had connections in the music industry, too. Manson was friendly with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys. Neil Young knew him, and said that he liked Manson’s songwriting, but that it was a “little out of control.” Young later added, “It was the ugly side of the Maharishi. There’s this one side, the nice flowers and white robes and everything. And then there’s something that looks a lot like it, but just isn’t it at all.” The New York Times acknowledges that the Manson family were “viewed as heroes by the extreme wing of young revolutionaries.”
Manson was one of the most evil people on Earth. But the fact that so many people on the Left fell under his sway because he mouthed platitudes about race and class demonstrates that lengths to which human beings will go to justify the atrocities of people they consider to be their political allies.
Violence is endemic to American life. We know this because people are largely inured to it, at least when it happens to other people.
The routine slaughter of young black men over minuscule beefs in Baltimore and Chicago is waved away as some sort of racist myth. Mass killings, meanwhile, happen so frequently that they rarely shock anymore. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 people at Columbine High School nearly 20 years ago, it stunned the nation. Now, Stephen Paddock murders 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas, and the public and the media quickly move on. Barely a week after the worst mass shooting in America history, Paddock’s atrocity had been relegated to page B-26, next to the legal notices.
The same will probably happen after the church massacre in Texas. (That attack has been described as the “worst massacre at a house of worship in American history.” We have so many mass killings that we break them down by specific location of atrocity.) Unsurprisingly, the U.S. murder rate is much higher than that of other industrialized countries.
People often point to America’s unusually lax gun laws as being solely responsible for the elevated homicide rates. And it’s true that roughly 11,000 Americans are murdered each year by gunshots, according to the CDC. That’s a rate of 3.5 deaths per 100,000 Americans.
The total homicide rate in the U.S., meanwhile, is 5.0 deaths per 100,000, meaning the non-gun homicide rate is 1.5 per 100,000 Americans. And here’s the thing: at 1.5 per 100,000, our murder rate is still higher than many of our peer nations. Sweden’s murder rate is 1.15; Denmark’s is .99; Australia’s, .97; Germany and Greece each have murder rates of .85 per 100,000. Spain comes in it .66, Ireland at .64. Japan’s is an amazing .31 per 100,000.
So even if we removed every gun homicide in America, we would still be significantly more violent than other countries. And in a way, that’s much, much more disturbing than the fiction that America’s violence problem is one of technology, and not of deep societal rot.
“We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code.” So declared MIT professor David D. Clark in 1992.
Twenty-five years later, this sentiment mirrors the global zeitgeist more than ever. The American public distrusts government in record numbers. Other nation-states disdain the US to world-historical degrees. A non-nation-state, Facebook, just topped 2 billion users—more than a quarter of the world’s population, surpassing even China’s population by almost 40 percent. In short, nation-states are not the only game in town anymore.
It is time to name this new landscape. The world is no longer dominated by nation-states alone. We have moved into a non-state, net-state era.
Why “net-states”? Because the world is no longer neatly divided into states (countries like the US, France, and India) and non-states (terrorist organizations like ISIS and al Qaeda). Ever since Barbara Ehrenreich’s 2011 article “Coming to a Theater Near You: War Without Humans” described the “emergence of a new kind of enemy, so-called non-state actors,” the term transformed into a fancy way of saying “bad guy.” Now we need new language to describe the non-state, non-bad-guys. I propose “net-states.”
Net-states are digital non-state actors, without the violence. Like nation-states, they’re a wildly diverse bunch. Some are the equivalent to global superpowers: the Googles, the Facebooks, the Twitters. Others are mere gatherings of pranksters, like Lulzsec (whose sole purpose for action is “for the lulz”—the laughs). Others still are paramilitary operations, such as GhostSec, an invite-only cyberarmy specifically created to target ISIS. There are also hacktivist collectives like Anonymous and Wikileaks.
Regardless of their differences in size and raison d’etre, net-states of all stripes share three key qualities: They exist largely online, enjoy international devotees, and advance belief-driven agendas that they pursue separate from, and at times, above, the law.
Take Google, for instance. In 2013, the company launched an anti-censorship initiative called Project Shield, a sort of online safe haven for news sites censored by their national governments. Democratic countries like the US may laud such efforts, but in countries where Project Shield has been deployed across Asia and Africa—where free speech is not necessarily protected—those governments would be well within their rights to see Google’s actions as both disruptive and illegal. While Project Shield may be branded a business practice that generates good PR for the company, it also embodies Google’s fundamental doctrine to bring about positive change in the world. As co-founder Sergey Brin put it in a 2014 interview, “the societal goal is our primary goal.”
Anonymous—the hackers and pranksters most famous for the Operation Chanology protest movement against Scientology—occupies a very different role from Google among net-states. It’s not a business; it’s not even an official, card-carrying membership organization.
But Anonymous, too, dabbles in actions traditionally in the domain of government. For instance, after the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, Anonymous disabled between 5,500 and 20,000 ISIS-backed Twitter accounts within 48 hours. Governments have their own official channels to shut down terrorist social media accounts too, but doing so legally at such a large scale likely generates a tad more paperwork than can be processed in just two days.
It’s worth pausing for a moment to consider the point of all this. With deaths by terrorism steadily rising each year, does placing a new name on our already extant world order do anything to actually make us safer?
I argue that it does, because nation-states need a wake-up call: The world needs net-states in order to defeat the non-states. We’re not beating them on our own. To win information-era wars, countries need to recognize the power of the net-states, not as an ancillary locale of assembly in the cyberspace, but as critical entities wielding the kind of power and influence necessary to go toe-to-toe with non-state actors.
The world needs net-states, because they occupy the same territory as the non-states: the digital sphere. As such, they understand their norms and tactics far more than a land-war, Cold-War era strategist ever could. Major General Michael K. Nagata, commander of American special operations forces in the Middle East, circled this idea back in 2014, in a leaked confidential conversation about ISIS. He said, “We do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it. We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.”
Failure to understand the idea is part of why the US continues to be stuck in the war on terror. And the US is indeed stuck: Secretary of defense James Mattis confirmed that in June, saying in a briefing to Congress, “We are not winning in Afghanistan,” His commanders have classified the 16 years of war a “stalemate.” And without the net-states, the war will likely continue to be one.
The US airstrikes acolytes by the thousands as if they were Old World beasts they can hunt to extinction. But deploying traditional military tactics in battles of belief are the equivalent of setting bear traps for ghosts: They’re not going to work. They’re not relying on the wrong weapons; they’re relying on the wrong worldview. And even purportedly innovative tactics, like government-generated counter-terrorism messaging, while logical in theory, relies on the same outdated perspective (see “Think Again Turn Away,” the State Department’s failed attempt at targeting ISIS Twitter accounts with direct rebuttals). It’s like hearing your parents tell you that drugs are bad. What we need are the cool kids to say it. We need the net-states to say it.
So, nation-states, adapt. And don’t just acknowledge net-states; work with them. Incorporate information-era savvy alongside military campaigns. The risk of not doing so is to lose the faith of the people. Worse, failure to adapt to the information age unwittingly nudges the population ever closer to “reject kings and voting”, to instead embrace “rough consensus and running code.” In other words, forget the anointed powers—put your faith in the general approval of the people and whoever’s actually getting things done. Honestly, when faced with the question of who gets the will of the people today, how many of us would really say “the United States” over “Google”?
In sum, the US can’t keep just shooting terrorists; ideas are the gun in this knife fight. And the keepers of ideas—the places people turn to set them free and watch them spread—are the net-states; not the nation-states. Nation-states ignore our non-state, net-state world order at all our peril.
Great news out of violence-plagued Chicago’s South Side: A growing number of black women are buying guns, getting trained in their proper use and receiving concealed-carry licenses. So far this year, 1,368 carry licenses have been issued to black women in Cook County, surpassing the total number of 1,358 issued for all of 2016—which was up substantially from the year before.
What is responsible for this rise? The crucial first step was a federal appeals court decision nullifying Illinois’ unconstitutional refusal to issue concealed-carry licenses.
In December 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a statewide ban on private citizens legally carrying concealed weapons. At the time, Illinois was the only state in the country to still have such a prohibition. The Illinois State Police, who now issue the licenses and maintain demographic data on licensees, proudly proclaim on their website, “On July 9, 2013, Public Act 98-63, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, became state law (430 ILCS 66). This law requires an Illinois Concealed Carry License to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois.”
Two years after the ruling, the state began to issue licenses for concealed carry—and black women have taken the new freedom to heart. In 2014, the inaugural year of concealed-carry permit licensing, 800 permits were issued to black women. Since then, the number of CCLs issued to black women has risen dramatically, with more than 4,000 issued in Cook County alone. While licenses to men and women of other races still outpace the number issued to black women, the consistent year-over-year rise for black women is remarkable.
Black women aren’t unique in wanting to feel safe outside the home. Getting properly trained to handle firearms and then carrying concealed is an excellent way to do that. Being prepared can promote confidence and even be exhilarating!
One source of carry permit applicants is JMD Defense and Investigations and its Ladies of Steel Gun Club. While the business opened just this year, members report seeking out safety through gun ownership because of an increase in crime in their neighborhoods. Upon receiving their permits, women in the club reported feeling a new sense of confidence as they go about their daily commitments.
Black women in Chicago are getting carry licenses to defend themselves in a violence-plagued city
The Chicago Tribune interviewed the owner of JMD Defense, Javondlynn Dunagan, and her enthusiasm is contagious. She started the venture out of a desire to see more women trained to use guns for self-defense. Dunagan, who was previously married to a police officer, said that after her divorce she “felt kind of naked in a house without a firearm.” In her desire to acquire a gun and get the training to use it safely, she created an environment in her community for others to do the same.
Dunagan saw a need, as there is little firearm training available on the South Side of Chicago. Her story of desiring a greater sense of public safety for herself and her community—then doing something substantial to provide it—isn’t unique, but it is worth celebrating.
At a time when the media deceptively portray gun ownership as a sign of racial animus, seeing more black women getting licensed to carry concealed firearms, practicing regularly and joining gun clubs provides a dose of reality to the narrative and shows what’s really going on in the gun community. What will the media say if crime in Chicago begins to decline? They surely won’t give any credit to the presence of more legally armed women, or to the change in the demeanor of potential victims from a state of fear to one of empowerment.
No, it will likely go unnoticed by them. But at this point, what difference does it make? More firearms freedom is great, regardless of the media’s interpretation. To the women of Chicago who now carry concealed firearms, we say: “Welcome to our tribe. We salute you.”
THE WORLD VS. VENEZULA – World leaders are turning on the regime. Only aggressive states such as Iran, Palestinian Authority and Russia and still aligned and only because of military or business interests.