View Full Version : Americans, Never Give Up Your Guns!

01-02-2013, 5:57 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze ,_MMA-NYC,_1851.jpg/300px-Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze ,_MMA-NYC,_1851.jpg
By Stanislav Mishin

These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare 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 lieing 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 to 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

01-02-2013, 6:56 PM
Who wrote this thing?
This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar.
If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

I'm not going to go deep into this, but needless to say that the above statements are controversial at best.

A quick google search on this guy's other "articles" reveal likewise reckless statements. For example, he also believes America is one of the biggest offenders of human rights. I'm not even going to dignify that with a serious response.

He constantly talks crap about America and the west to further his own agenda. Even if there were speckles of truths in his writing, I have little respect for these kind of irresponsible and manipulative diction.

01-02-2013, 11:32 PM
He's talking about the Russian Revolution, circa 1918.

White Russians (Tsarists) versus Red Russians (Commie bastards).

He's expounding on the similarities between now and the former period.

01-03-2013, 2:38 AM
I realize he is talking about the Bolshevik revolution.
But note the statements that he has made. That Russia was "freer" under the Czar (not really true, particularly the era just before the revolution, and this isn't even taking into consideration of the rights and freedom of women in Russia). To imply that "freedom" under the Czar is preferable is amusing.

And then you get the usual "blame the west" remark of "Washington" secretly supporting the Bolsheviks. I am well aware of the conspiracies regarding Bolshevik's supposed western support (as in the implication that certain western countries did their share of pot stirring, which I consider insubstantial. Look, WWI was happening, the West had bigger issues to deal with, especially in light of Russia's "withdraw" from the conflict), but to imply that "Washington", as in, the American federal government, is somehow largely responsible for the ultimate success of the Reds due to their support is extremely revisionist. Russia was already discontent with the Czarist rule during World War I, and in 1917 a provisional government formed under Prince Lvov forced the abdication of the Czar. This provisional government did not satisfy the needs of the people for peace, giving the opportunity for the radical Socialists to overthrow the provisional government. The Bolsheviks seized St. Petersburg (then the Capital/government center of Russia, not Moscow) later in 1917 because the local military contingents did not support the provisional government. As for how "Moscow fell"...who was there to defend it? Not the Whites, considering they never had Moscow in the first place. Not the Provisional Government, considering they didn't have the support of the Army. Not the "people", because the people of Moscow welcomed Socialism. Thus Moscow was under the control of the Bolsheviks shortly after St. Petersburg, also in 1917. For several years after 1917, Russia was in a state of chaos, because the Bolsheviks has not solidified their power, and all sorts of domestic and foreign conflicts were taking place. Its economy collapsed, paper money was worthless, there was no food and no industry. The American Relief Administration was, in fact, allocated substantial funds (20 million dollars, equivalent to about 250 million dollars today) to feed starving Russians, of up to 10 million people a day.

The Bolsheviks did despicable things, and I have no fondness whatsoever about the ilks of Lenin. As for the author of the article - I'm more than open to entertain conspiracies, but I'm not willing to entertain liberal distortions of history and unmerited hatred towards America. It is even more blatantly obvious in his other articles. This man is no friend of Americans. Allow me an excerpt from one of his other articles:

From the US funding and supporting the overthrow of the Tsars and the murderous Soviet take over in the Civil War. To the US monetary support of the Soviets after they went bankrupt (why the SU owed $48 billion to the US in 1990), to the out right theft of everything not nailed down to the continuous Jihad on our southern borders sponsored by those same American elites.

And in return?

In return we offered aid and support, to those who have hated us, murdered us, stolen from us and continue to threaten us from every angle, not just with nuclear mass murder but with the slow genocide of Jihadism...

...And for all this, we are treated as the enemy, our allies are overthrown, bombed, murdered. We are ridiculed. Our women portrayed as whores. Our Church as somehow not Christian, even though it is the font of all Christianity. Our culture as that of wanton drunks and Neanderthals.