Category: Enemies Foreign and Domestic

I simply look on it as pre-stocked supply depots

---

Leftists want war, but they’re the Stone Age fighters

Leftists want a make-or-break revolution in America, forgetting that, when it comes to weapons, they’re the Stone Age tribes and conservatives are Europe.

I had an epiphany, albeit one that ends with blood. John Kerry has threatened all of America by announcing that if Trump is elected president, there will be a revolution. He’s not making a scholarly prediction; he summoning the troops.

When I read that, my first thought was, “Well, conservatives (i.e., Trump supporters) are the ones with the guns.” Leftists in America may be violent, but except for Antifa, some of whose members are armed, the lefts’ anti-Second Amendment stance means they’re armed with bricks and sticks.

And that’s when I had my epiphany. The leftists are the Stone Aged tribes of America. They paint themselves funny colors, make lots of noises, and do ritualized “violence dances.” They look scary but, just like any Stone Aged people, when the more advanced civilization’s guns come out, the Stone Aged people are done for. It’s not complicated: The side with the better weapons win, and conservatives are on that side.

The famous gun versus sword scene in the first Indiana Jones movie is a cute, graphic representation of this problem. Cute — but surprisingly accurate. Europe successfully colonized Latin America, Africa, North America, and the Caribbean because the Europeans had guns and the indigenous people — all of whom were Stone Aged in the technology, didn’t. In North America, Native Americans fought valiantly against European colonization but they were never going to win against the better armed Europeans.

Leftists would know this if they studied actual history, as opposed to made-up history.

The only thing that could change this dynamic goes back to the Obama administration’s weapon buying binge in 2013. In a recent American Thinker post, John Watson remembers how Obama went crazy arming his administrative agencies. (Watson speaks of the last two years of the administration, but I happen to know it began in 2013, so the purchases may be even more significant than Watson documents):

During the last two years of the Obama administration, some unusual purchases were made.  Large quantities of ammunition were purchased, as were firearms, mostly for somewhat obscure agencies or agencies with no real need for such weaponry.  Estimates are that over 1 billion rounds of ammunition were ordered, which resulted in making ammunition scarce for the normal civilian market.

Also significant was Obama’s troublesome statement made during his campaign, as follows

We cannot continue to rely only on our military … we’ve got to have a civilian security force just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.  We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.

Moreover, Watson reminds us that it wasn’t just ordinary guns and ammo these agencies got. It was serious stuff for agencies that had no possible use for that kind of thing (emphasis mine):

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, 7.62mm caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.

[snip]

$426,268 on hollow-point bullets, including orders from the Forest Service, National Park Service, Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Fiscal Service, as well as Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  The latter three, sure, but the Forest Service, National Park Service, and Inspector General’s Office?

These agencies are filled with Democrat denizens of the Deep State. It’s not impossible to imagine them using those taxpayer-funded weapons as an arsenal for the leftist side should John Kerry’s threatened “revolution” take place.

Of course, you can give Stone Aged fighters modern weaponry, but possessing them is not the same as knowing how to use them. Nevertheless, if the Deep State is the armory, we’re in trouble. If not, it will be a bloody war, but a short one, and history tells us that the Stone Age fighters will lose.

Antifa Planning Flag Burning at Gettysburg on July 4th

According to a Facebook page called Left Behind USA, Antifa domestic terrorists are planning to desecrate the Gettysburg National Cemetery and set the American Flag ablaze on Independence Day.

Gettysburg, the site of the bloodiest battle of the Civil War and on American soil, is respected and revered by every sane American. As they have demonstrated since 2016, and in particular since Antifa and BLM have fused into a violent rage mob, the modern progressive and leftist movement has lost all sense of decency and sanity.

The Seattle Soviet
The tragicomedy of Free Capitol Hill, CHAZ, and CHOP

“What,” Marx asked, “is the Commune, that sphinx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind?”

In 1871 the Commune was the revolutionary government of Paris, a revolt against the newborn Third Republic of Adolphe Thiers. The communards, drawn from the ranks of city-dwelling laborers, overthrew the republican army and replaced it with an armed guard. The police were disbanded—or “defunded”—and reconstituted as an agency of the Commune. “It aimed to expropriate the expropriators.” Churches were closed, judges were disestablished, and offices redistributed among the masses of the people.

“In a rough sketch of national organization which the Commune had no time to develop,” Marx wrote in “The Civil War in France,” “it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service.” The Russian word for the form of social organization exemplified by the Commune is “soviet.”

The Commune was crushed when Thiers organized a new regular army from the French provinces and retook Paris. Recent events in Seattle, though, drew me back to my Marx-Engels Reader. On June 8, after days of violent clashes with protesters, Mayor Jenny Durkan ordered police to abandon the East Precinct headquarters in the crunchy neighborhood of Capitol Hill. The demonstrators quickly established an “autonomous zone” within a six-block area devoid of police and governed, if that is the word, by decentralized and rotating groups of social justice warriors, anarchists, and armed men. The Seattle soviet was born.

It, too, has tantalized the bourgeois mind. To the left, Capitol Hill is, as one entranced New York Times correspondent put it, “now a homeland for racial justice—and, depending on the protester one talked to, perhaps something more.” To the right, it symbolizes anarchy, danger, mob rule, and the breakdown of civil order. “This is no different than ISIS taking over cities in the Middle East,” said the lieutenant governor of Texas.

Yikes. The truth, writes Seattle radio host Jason Rantz in National Review Online, is somewhere between utopian hopes and conservative fears. Rantz says that the neighborhood is “at times a street fair and at other times a social-justice workshop, with an unhealthy dose of violence and intimidation mixed in.” It is a problem for a left-wing municipal government, not a prelude to civil war.

What is happening in Seattle also has a fantastic, satirical quality, a frivolity that illustrates the differences between earlier periods of upheaval and our own. Both activists and officials seem to be playacting, inhabiting the roles of revolutionary Jacobin and timid liberal, even as they haphazardly work to resolve the situation, in a tragicomic script written by Tom Wolfe. The occupiers have no leaders—”They’re treating me like I’m the f—ing mayor!” says recording artist Raz Simone—and can’t even decide on a name. First they rechristened the neighborhood “Free Capitol Hill,” then the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,” or CHAZ. Recently, though, they seem to have dropped the call for autonomy, perhaps because authorities have been so accommodating. Thus the designation has been changed to the “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” or, depending on whom you ask, the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” (CHOP).

It is not clear what CHOP wants. Walter Duranty’s successor in the Times noted that one petition listed three demands, another five, and an online manifesto thirty. The consistent theme is abolition of the police.

But this is an issue on which CHOP and the city of Seattle may wind up agreeing to disagree. The autonomous zone is shrinking. On June 16, city transportation crews placed concrete barriers around the empty precinct, subtly limiting the space available to activists. They met no resistance. “Minor changes to the protest zone,” wrote the mayor’s office, “will implement safer and sturdier barriers to protect individuals in this area, allow traffic to move throughout the Capitol Hill neighborhood, ease access for residents of apartment buildings in the surrounding areas, and help local businesses manage deliveries and logistics.” That is not how Thiers would have handled things.

Nor are the leaders of CHOP as stalwart as the communards. They are negotiating with city officials for the return of police to the precinct. Until then, according to city hall, “The Seattle Police Department will dispatch to respond to significant life-safety issues in the area,” including but not limited to “an active shooter incident, an assault, a structure fire, significant medical emergency (i.e., heart attack, stroke, trauma) and other incidents that threaten a person’s life safety.” What type of rebellion allows the sovereign to peaceably supply materials, and to respond to criminal complaints? Not a very serious one.

Old Karl would be disappointed. “This is not a party,” a local NAACP official scolded the CHOP the other day. “This is a mission and we have a mission to accomplish.” But it is becoming more difficult to draw the line between carnival and campaign, especially when the mission of the campaign is so ill-defined. CHOP seems destined to go the way of Occupy Wall Street as revolutionary energies dissipate, boredom sets in, local property owners lose patience, and protesters’ grievances are coopted by legitimate political structures. Enjoy the show while it lasts. Because the Seattle soviet, like its predecessors, is doomed to fail.

Tucker Carlson Rips Left-Wing ‘Rage Mobs’ After BLM Cancel Culturalists Add Him to the Growing List

Tucker Carlson, who is a frequent target of cancel culturalists like the left-wing provocateurs at Media Matters, found himself this week on the receiving end of yet another campaign to end his Fox News show by way of “rage mob” leftists who accused him of “racism” for pointing out some inconvenient truths Monday night about how Blacks Lives Matter and related organized social justice warrior mobs are motivated by the desire for absolute “power” and the intent to silence opposing voices in order to advance their radical agendas.

Here’s what Carlson said Tuesday in response:

Minutes after we said that, the mob came for us — irony of ironies. They’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to force this show off the air for good. They won’t succeed, thankfully. We work for one of the last brave companies in America. They’re not intimidated. We’re grateful for that. But the whole thing did get us thinking that we should be more specific about who this mob is, and what they’re doing. Who are the people trying to take over the country, cancel our rights, eliminate our centuries-long tradition of tolerance, yes tolerance, and free expression? And the truth is, we often don’t know their names. They’re mostly faceless political agitators who exist primarily online. They are trolls who thrive on cruelty. And yet suddenly they have immense power. Weak leaders now reflexively bow to their demands, no matter what those demands are.

[…]

“Who we are.” It’s a good question, actually. Who exactly are we? At this point, we’re becoming North Korea. We now believe in bloodguilt. We punish people for the sins of their relatives. We don’t allow individuals to have private thoughts. We hurt anyone who disagrees with orthodoxy. We demand that the innocent plead guilty to things we know they didn’t do, and then read their confessions in public, to prove they’ve been re-educated. And then we brag about doing it.

Obviously, something terrifying has descended on America. It’s easy to see what’s happened: terrible ideas suddenly have free reign. Why? Because no one pushed back. They’re met with supine weakness. You’ve seen it happen a thousand times — Some professional activist says something crazy and destructive because that’s what professional activists do, always. “Defund the police!” What’s changed, what’s brand new, is that no one in charge has the stones to disagree. So the rhetoric gets even crazier and more destructive — “Kill the police!” OK, what next?

Carlson has been in rare form lately. Make sure to watch the full segment below:

Antifa doesn't oppose police. What Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization, opposes is police who are accountable to elected officials and the laws they pass. Antifa's model is the Soviet Stasi of East Berlin: a secret police state run by totalitarians. https://t.co/UOUfiVB2SS

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 10, 2020

New Video Exposes the Armed Antifa ‘Militia’ Who Want to Abolish the Police

On Tuesday, Project Veritas released the third of its antifa video exposes. This undercover video exposes the armed branch of antifa who want to abolish the police and identify as the leftist movement’s “militia.”

“Redneck Revolt,” also known as the “John Brown Gun Club,” identifies itself as the “militia wing of antifa.” A Project Veritas journalist infiltrated the North Carolina chapter in 2018.

While Redneck Revolt supports gun ownership, local leaders condemned the National Rifle Association.

In the video, a Redneck Revolt leader insists, “I hate the NRA. The NRA is a white supremacist terrorist organization.”

“This particular group sees themselves as armed revolutionaries. They’re all about the working class,” the Project Veritas journalist explains. “So they share these communist, anarchist ideals that the working class should run the country with no government and they believe in total abolition of everything, including the police.”

She reported that Redneck Revolt was also part of the riots in Charlottesville, Va. in 2017. “Charlottesville was comprised of your typical Antifa black bloc measures. There were also Black Lives Matter. There were multiple chapters of Redneck Revolt that went to Charlottesville and acted as the militia wing of the anti-fascist movement,” she said.

Following the example of John Brown, the abolitionist who led the raid on Harper’s Ferry in order to arm the slaves for an uprising, Redneck Revolt aims to arm black Americans.

“One of their missions is to arm minorities. They feel that black Americans and minorities are disenfranchised by gun laws and permit fees,” the Project Veritas journalist reported.

The journalist recalled going to the gun range with Redneck Revolt, calling the experience “especially stressful and scary” because “they had guns” and because “I was wired with a camera, so the entire time that I was there at the gun range, especially while we were shooting guns, I was constantly worried that something would come unattached or a wire would show.”

Ultimately, the undercover journalist found herself booted from the group because she posted on Facebook her support for a candidate for sheriff. “That’s where they said to me, that’s where we fundamentally disagree. We don’t believe in reform of any kind. We believe in complete abolition of the system itself, including police.”

……………

The revelation of antifa’s armed “militia” should terrify Americans — but it also reaffirms conservative opposition to gun control. The Redneck Revolt is correct in its suspicions that restrictions on gun ownership trace back to a desire to prevent black Americans from being able to defend themselves. It seems ironic that so many leftists who insist police are racist seem opposed to the idea of black people arming themselves for defense against them. Redneck Revolt is at least ideologically consistent in supporting black gunowners even as it is utterly inconsistent in demonizing the NRA.

In advocating the abolition of police and presenting itself as a militia, Redneck Revolt seems to be making a play to replace the police and become a form of private security force. I’d take the police — with all their faults — over antifa militants any day of the week.

Antifa is Heir to Germany’s Red Army Faction, Daughter of Terrorist Ulrike Meinhof Says

The only real difference between Antifa and the old Baader-Meinhof Gang of West Germany is that Antifa has no prominent leader and its members hide their identities, says German historian Bettina Röhl.

Of all people, she should know. Röhl’s mother was the notorious German terrorist Ulrike Meinhof.

“The militant Antifa only lacks the prominent faces compared to the RAF” or Red Army Faction, which the Baader-Meinhof Gang became, writes Röhl in Zurich’s influential Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Meinhof, whose activism started as a “peace” activist in opposition to rearming the West German army and building American nuclear weapons, grew more extreme and defended the 1972 terrorist massacre of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich.

Röhl writes about Antifa in Germany, where the movement began. The Center for Security Policy’s Kyle Shideler gives a quick study of Antifa’s German origins in The American Mind.

Antifa is a coward by comparison, in the eyes of Meinhof’s daughter, a strong critic of terrorism. Says Röhl, “Out of cowardice, it practices covering its [members’] faces and keeping their names secret.”…

NY Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigns amid staff fury over Tom Cotton op-ed.

The New York Times announced Sunday that Editorial Page Editor James Bennet is resigning — amid reports of anger inside the company over the publication of an op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton about the George Floyd unrest last week.

Bennet had apologized late last week after previously defending the piece, titled, “Send in the Troops.” Cotton, R-Ark., called for the government to deploy troops to help

---

He was fired for publishing the *wrong* opinion.

And think about this: It was *news reporters* at the Times who muscled management into this. Which means the wall between news and editorial is completely gone over there. https://t.co/zau31fZWAk

— David Martosko (@dmartosko) June 7, 2020

The Real History of Antifa.

With riots and civil unrest metastasizing across the United States, the president declared he intends to designate Antifa as a terrorist group. Predictably, the talking heads rushed out to declare that Antifa doesn’t really exist, and even if it did the president couldn’t possibly target it using that legal designation. They argue Antifa is an amorphous blob of discontents, not a functioning organization, and certainly not one which could be designated and targeted for concentrated counterterrorism enforcement.

As usual, the Twitterati don’t know what they are talking about. Reality is both simpler and more complex.

To begin at the beginning: Antifa—real name: Antifaschisitsche Aktion—was born during the street-fights of the 1932 Weimar Republic. It was founded by the Stalinist Communist Party of Germany (KPD), although various Communist “anti-fascist defense” units were associated with the KPD much earlier.

Anti-fascist Action’s sole purpose was to help the KPD combat other political parties for control of the streets in the revolutionary politics of the rapidly failing Weimar Republic.

And yes, they fought the Nazis.

But they also fought liberal parties, conservative parties, and anyone and everyone who got in their way. While these early antecedents were short-lived, it is useful to view Antifa in this context. More than anything, Antifa exists to serve as a tool of revolutionary politics in a failed (or failing) state.

“Consider Destroying Your Enemy”: Project Veritas Infiltrates Antifa, Insanity Ensues

Didn’t we already get an exposé of extreme action and militancy from Antifa by Project Veritas this year? Oh no, wait — that was from among Bernie Sanders’ campaign workers. At least they’re keeping busy these days.

This time, Project Veritas really has infiltrated Antifa, or at least one of its cells in Oregon. Their undercover operative managed to get some video and audio of training sessions in which extremists were urged to gouge people’s eyes, assault them and to “consider like destroying your enemy.” The operative has since “retired” from Rose City Antifa, the video notes at the end, but he’s still doing “blacklock” to keep his identity hidden:

 

• Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Practice Things Like an Eye Gouge, it Takes Very Little Pressure to Injure Someone’s Eyes.”
• Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Police Are Going to Be Like: ‘Perfect, We Can Prosecute These [Antifa] F**kers, Look How Violent They Are.’ And Not That We [Antifa] Aren’t, But We Need to F**king Hide That Sh*t.”
• Nicholas Cifuni, Rose City Antifa: “Consider Like, Destroying Your Enemy. Not Like Delivering a Really Awesome Right Hand, Right Eye, Left Eye Blow You Know. It’s Not Boxing, It’s Not Kickboxing, It’s Like Destroying Your Enemy.”
• Ashes, Rose City Antifa: “The Whole Goal of This, Right, is to Get Out There and do Dangerous Things as Safely as Possible.”

For an organization that’s supposedly not organized, their op-sec is … pretty impressive. The meetings apparently manage to mostly protect identities, so Nicholas Cifuni might have some griping to do after this video release. Or perhaps he might have some talking to do, either to the FBI or to his attorney. Someone in law enforcement is bound to take an interest in this tape, and perhaps in determining the identities of a few others who appear in it. At any rate, it’s clear that the group is organized enough for strategic planning sessions and training, and like PV’s undercover operative says, this suggests some money behind the organizing, too.

Unlike other PV projects, it doesn’t appear that they have more in the can on Antifa. That may not matter long, however, because the Department of Justice has now started to look into their involvement in the unrest sweeping cities this week:

Wray says the feds are pursuing "anarchists like Antifa and other agitators"

— Betsy Woodruff Swan (@woodruffbets) June 4, 2020

For the past couple of weeks, there have been plenty of people trying to deny any real organization behind Antifa and even their involvement in rioting, despite a long history of violent street action across the country. In the Twin Cities, our leadership tried pinning it on “white supremacists” from outside of the state, only to end up with egg on their faces when the data from arrests started coming to light. Even the SPLC ended up calling shenanigans on that claim. The DoJ’s focus on anarchists and Antifa will likely have a lot more success than attempts to shift the blame away from the extreme-leftist orgs that routinely conduct such operations, only not to this level of success.

Ocasio-Cortez Explodes Over Tom Cotton Op-Ed That Features Ideas Supported By Majority Of Americans

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) lashed out at The New York Times for allowing Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) to publish an op-ed in the newspaper that features ideas that are supported by the majority of Americans.

Cotton’s op-ed accurately describes the violent riots that have rocked Democrat-controlled inner cities across the country over the last week in response to the death of George Floyd, who died in police custody last week.

Cotton then describes how the violent riots are harming the most vulnerable communities and suggests that the solution to fixing the problem would by to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy the military to highly unstable areas that are not doing what it takes to fix the problem:

One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.

The pace of looting and disorder may fluctuate from night to night, but it’s past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority. Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”

This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to “protect each of them from domestic violence.” Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder. Nor does it violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which constrains the military’s role in law enforcement but expressly excepts statutes such as the Insurrection Act.

Ocasio-Cortez, along with leftist reporters at The New York Times, called James Bennet, Editorial Page Editor at The New York Times and brother to Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet (CO), for publishing the op-ed and made numerous false suggestions in doing so.

Ocasio-Cortez posed the following questions for Bennet:

• Can you explain why you chose to publish misinformation in your pages in service of an “opinion” for state violence?
• Can you explain your choice to publish it on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square?
• Do you believe your Black colleagues saying your choices have put them at risk?
• Other Qs: Did you consider the author‘s explicit call for violence (“no quarter”) when you chose to run this piece?
• Is it your belief that you are not responsible for the factual integrity of what you publish?
• Do you believe calling for violence is an “opinion”?

Ocasio-Cortez was unable to list off any of the “misinformation” that she claimed was contained in the piece…………

Ocasio-Cortez falsely claimed that the op-ed, which was published on June 3, was published on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square massacre, which took place on June 4th and 5th in 1989.

Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion that Cotton’s idea somehow puts blacks “at risk” suggests that only blacks are responsible for the violent riots and looting that is taking place.

Ocasio-Cortez’s claim that Cotton explicitly calls for violence is also false.

Cotton correctly noted in his op-ed that the majority of Americans, including nearly half of all Democrat voters, support deploying the military to stop the violent riots.