To quote from an article a couple of posts up:krenshala wrote:Aren't they actually the "Russian Right to Arm Bears" organization?the Russian Right to Bear Arms organisation
Americans never give up your gunsDiogenes wrote:To williatw re Russia: When everything else doesn't work, why not try common sense?
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column ... ns_guns-0/These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.
This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.
Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.
This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.
To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.
For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.
The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?
No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
Stanislav Mishin
The article reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
#2 Son lives in Russia and because of the current political situation there is not much I dare send him lest it trigger the watchers. I sent him that one. pravda.ru - how could I go wrong?Diogenes wrote:Another good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
I note on the sidebar "Policeman shot with own gun" and some text below it referring to Michael Brown and Ferguson.GIThruster wrote:http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/10/video-tw ... pens-next/
I dunno, smacks of history re-writes.Diogenes wrote:Another good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
A sadly misinformed or intentional change to history.If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently
ladajo wrote:I dunno, smacks of history re-writes.Diogenes wrote:Another good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Take this for example:
A sadly misinformed or intentional change to history.If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently
Who can name the U.S. Task forces deployed to Russia in support of the whites, one to the east, one to the west?
Who even knew that the U.S. military fought in the Russian revolution against the communists?
MSimon wrote:#2 Son lives in Russia and because of the current political situation there is not much I dare send him lest it trigger the watchers. I sent him that one. pravda.ru - how could I go wrong?Diogenes wrote:Another good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
I'm currently reading about a wonderful example of this. I highly recommend:Diogenes wrote:. . .and this does not address the fact that "Washington" has many hands doing many things and not all of them are of a like mind.
This is just from memory, but I recall that when the Czar abdicated it was in favor of Kerensky. Kerensky biggest mistake was he bowed to western pressure to keep Russia in WWI. WWI at that point was very unpopular with the Russian people, really bad miscalculation on Kerensky's part. This provided Lenin and the Bolsheviks the political/propaganda edge he needed; I promise you "peace, land and bread" or words to that effect. I do recall that when the revolution broke out we did send troops to Russia at some point I presume to support Kerensky. He proved too weak to garner much sustained support from us and the allies he eventually fled; the fact the Stalin later on didn't even bother to have him assassinated like Trotsky probably shows the contempt he had for him, wasn't even worth whacking. Wouldn't be surprised if there were financial backers of the "Reds" in the US; we do like to hedge our bets by supporting both sides of a conflict.choff wrote:You might want to read some books by Antony Sutton, he also claims the U.S. troops were actually helping the reds by protecting the trans-Siberia railroad for them. Karl Marx's brother in law was the Prussian Minister of the Interior, responsible for rounding up Communists and Anarchists, his wife and childhood sweetheart was named Von Westphalen. Do you think just anybody get's their political treatise wide distribution without major financial support. At the same time Lenin was on the train from Switzerland to Russia Trotsky was being hauled off the boat in Nova Scotia with $10,000 worth of gold in his pockets, a passport signed by Woodrow Wilson himself, and Wall St. financiers and lawyers in his entourage. After that the telegraph messages flew back and forth between Ottowa, New York, London and Washington, and you know how that turned out.
Another thing about Trotsky, I've heard that the Neo-cons started out as Trotskyites from when he escaped to Mexico and founded the political movement that kept changing parties through the years until it went from Communists to the white house. Ever hear of when Reagan was called Red Ronald way back!
He is probably more in trouble from my commentary around here than a link I sent him. But who knows?Diogenes wrote:I have pondered this for a bit. Perhaps i'm paranoid, but I'm thinking the ways that things can go wrong are not always obvious when we are contemplating them. :)MSimon wrote:#2 Son lives in Russia and because of the current political situation there is not much I dare send him lest it trigger the watchers. I sent him that one. pravda.ru - how could I go wrong?Diogenes wrote:Another good article with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Sending a link to Pravda from a possible dissident commentary about policy in Russia? How indeed could such a thing go wrong?
As to government backing both sides you might like to read The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy pdf about the war in 'Nam and the War On Drugs. And in light of that you might want to consider Drug Warrior Newt Gingrich backing the decrim of heroin in Calif. (it passed).GIThruster wrote:I'm currently reading about a wonderful example of this. I highly recommend:Diogenes wrote:. . .and this does not address the fact that "Washington" has many hands doing many things and not all of them are of a like mind.
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghan ... 0143034669
Coll is a Pulitzer prize winner for good reasons. Every page is crammed full of fantastic detail of what went on and how everything happened the way it did, with the US backing both sides of the war in Afghanistan. A remarkable read.
