Politics

Meet the Violent Communist Insurgent Group That Wants to “Annihilate” Conservatives

Published

4 years ago

August 22, 2018

No, this is not about a group of communist rebels in a banana republic and you have not in fact somehow stumbled upon a news story from 1976.

This is happening now, in our country, and you should be very, very concerned.

While many of the most far-left voices in the nation right now are openly plotting ways to limit the Second Amendment rights of millions of law-abiding citizens, right under everyone’s noses, violent anti-Trump insurgents are arming themselves and openly avowing to use violence to stop “fascists”.

One might argue using violence to voice opposition to your ideological enemies is far more fascist than standing up for the right of every citizen to arm themselves against the threats of tyranny and crazy neo-communist leftists, of course, and that would be perfectly valid.

Never have I heard a better reason to arm oneself in 2018 than what you’re about to hear.

Big League Politics explains:

Red Guards Austin, a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist violent antifa group, has called for the formation of a “Red Army.” The group itself is based out of Austin, Texas, but works in tandem with Red Guards Kansas City, Red Guards Pittsburgh, Red Guards Los-Angeles, and Red Guards Charlotte to “annihilate” those they believe are “collaborators” or “fascist.”

Here are some of the group’s stated goals, from their website:

“…we encourage the formation of paramilitary organizations on two levels. The first being those who are mainly unarmed but are prepared and trained to carry out fist fighting or using blunt weapons like axe handles or flagpoles as well as shields and basic armoring. The second level is the more advanced embryo of a Red Army, which is trained militarily and operates as soldiers all the time, engaging in production and mass work among the proletariat and the oppressed nation’s people.”

“It is time for Austin to stand up, to shake off bad leadership trying to impose itself on antifascism and come together under a better model of actual resistance and not token performance. When we organize and lead actions the fascists do not march every step they take is met with physical confrontation and they are bombarded from all sides.”

“On the basis of our principled united front work, fascists and their collaborators can be drowned out, run out, routed, beaten bloody, and even annihilated. These are our principles and we aim to hold them to the very finish.”

Um…isn’t this highly illegal? Or at the absolute very least, shouldn’t this group be kicked off social media?

No, of course not. We are unaware if they’re under investigation by the FBI as they absolutely ought to be (can you think of a better example of a “hate group”? Somehow, I doubt they’re on the SPLC’s list), but they’re definitely not only active on Facebook, they’re recruiting on Facebook.

Big League Politics explains:

Social media is essential to the Red Guards Austin’s ability to not only recruit, but also radicalize and mobilize other far-left extremists. With almost 8,000 followers on the Austin cell’s Facebook group page, and constant posts calling for other angry and violent masked individuals to join, why is a group such as this able to continue using the platform to recruit and insight violence?

…they’re openly calling to form violent militias, trained and ready to physically attack others based on what their idea of fascism is, while conservative accounts are being censored and shadowbanned for posting things these social media platforms don’t want to gain any traction that have no mention of violence or hatred. How can any of these social media platforms claim there’s no bias with a straight face??

Absolutely insanity.

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

Up Next

Trump Speaks Out About Cohen Guilty Plea, Trolls Him on Twitter

Don't Miss

Authorities on The Search For a Man Who Threatened President Trump

Opinion

In Georgia, Pence Makes Ugly Dig Directed at Trump

It’s safe to say these two won’t be on the 2024 ticket together.

Published

3 hours ago

May 24, 2022

Andrew West

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

The race has been billed as a bit of a 2024 preview, if only vicariously, as former President Donald Trump has endorsed Perdue while former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp.

As the primary election neared, Pence wasn’t shy about taking some not-so-subtle shots at the former Commander in Chief, either.

On the eve of Georgia’s primary election, former Vice President Mike Pence had a forward-looking message of support for renominating Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.

“When you say yes to Governor Brian Kemp tomorrow, you will send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future,” said Pence, speaking to a crowd of a few hundred in an airport hangar north of Atlanta on Monday.

Pence’s appearance was an implicit rebuke of former running mate Donald Trump, who has endorsed Kemp’s primary opponent, David Perdue. Pence did not make a direct mention of the former President nor respond to the relentless attacks Trump has leveled against Kemp. But his appearance at the rally the day before the election spoke volumes.

And then:

“When Brian Kemp called me and asked me to come out here and be with all of you, I said yes in a heartbeat,” Pence said.

Pence has been a bit coy, (and rather vague), about his potential plans for a 2024 campaign, and Trump has been quite vocal about the possibility of running against his former veep.

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

Tonight, the race for the Georgia governor’s office will continue, as incumbent Republican Brian Kemp faces primary challenger and fellow Republican David Perdue, in a contest with implications far beyond the Peach State. The race has been billed as a bit of a 2024 preview, if only vicariously, as former President Donald Trump has endorsed Perdue while former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp. As the primary election neared, Pence wasn’t shy about taking some not-so-subtle shots at the former Commander in Chief, either. On the eve of Georgia’s primary election, former Vice President Mike Pence had a forward-looking message of support for renominating Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. “When you say yes to Governor Brian Kemp tomorrow, you will send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future,” said Pence, speaking to a crowd of a few hundred in an airport hangar north of Atlanta on Monday. Pence’s appearance was an implicit rebuke of former running mate Donald Trump, who has endorsed Kemp’s primary opponent, David Perdue. Pence did not make a direct mention of the former President nor respond to the relentless attacks Trump has leveled against Kemp. But his appearance at the rally the day before the election spoke volumes. And then: “When Brian Kemp called me and asked me to come out here and be with all of you, I said yes in a heartbeat,” Pence said. Pence has been a bit coy, (and rather vague), about his potential plans for a 2024 campaign, and Trump has been quite vocal about the possibility of running against his former veep.

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

Opinion

USA Begins Planning to Send Troops to Kyiv

Interesting…

Published

3 hours ago

May 24, 2022

Andrew West

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

Furthermore, US President Joe Biden has been clear: There is no desire to have American troops squaring off with Russians directly, at the risk of conjuring World War III.

Yet still it appears as though some US troops will be making the journey to Ukraine…at least in a very limited manner.

Plans to send U.S. forces back into Ukraine to guard the recently reopened American Embassy in Kyiv are “underway at a relatively low level,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that officials are mulling plans to send special forces to Kyiv to guard the U.S. Embassy. The effort is a delicate one, as it requires balancing the safety of American diplomats while avoiding what Russia could see as an escalation.

“Some of the things that may have been out there in the media, those are planning efforts that are underway at a relatively low level,” Milley told reporters at the Pentagon, seeming to refer to the Journal’s report.

There was no definitive timeline for the move.

Such plans “have not yet made it to [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] or myself for that matter, for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” he noted.

Milley would go on to suggest that any such move would require the approval of the President himself.

Facebook Twitter Gettr Gab

For weeks now, the world has been forced to sit back and watch the atrocities occurring in Ukraine with little to no recourse. This was due largely to Vladimir Putin’s continued threats of a nuclear strike against anyone who might decide to interfere directly, including the United States, NATO, or other western powers. Furthermore, US President Joe Biden has been clear: There is no desire to have American troops squaring off with Russians directly, at the risk of conjuring World War III. Yet still it appears as though some US troops will be making the journey to Ukraine…at least in a very limited manner. Plans to send U.S. forces back into Ukraine to guard the recently reopened American Embassy in Kyiv are “underway at a relatively low level,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that officials are mulling plans to send special forces to Kyiv to guard the U.S. Embassy. The effort is a delicate one, as it requires balancing the safety of American diplomats while avoiding what Russia could see as an escalation. “Some of the things that may have been out there in the media, those are planning efforts that are underway at a relatively low level,” Milley told reporters at the Pentagon, seeming to refer to the Journal’s report. There was no definitive timeline for the move. Such plans “have not yet made it to [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] or myself for that matter, for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” he noted. Milley would go on to suggest that any such move would require the approval of the President himself.