Wednesday, January 9, 2013

A Little Russian History


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

19 comments:

  1. Have our elected Republican Congressmen figured out that they and the Constitution are absolutely being steam rolled? All I hear is SILENCE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that there are some actually many republicans that are only concerned with their position in the future and their pocketbooks today.... that is the reason for the silence ....

      Delete
  2. Can someone please explain why the perpetrator, the 2nd amendment followers or even the people who object to the private ownership of non sporting weapons have to fit into a political category?
    It does seem passing strange that the folks mostly affected by the actions of the gun toting idiot are not apparently asked which political party they support.
    It appears to an interested outsider that this debate is above party political allegiances.
    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Angie, thank you so much for posting this.

    Kingston, now that your government has confiscated your weapons I agree, you are an outsider from freedom.

    LiveStrongest, we of the Tea Party movement are not silent on the subject. The 2nd amendment remains non-negotiable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. William.
    There are many here in Aust who subscribe to the view that the government was wrong to curtail ownership of certain guns. There are many, including myself who obtained a license for my only firearm (a 410Cal single barreled shot gum). I handed it in to the authorities when I reached 70 years of age because I doubted my absolute ability to handle the thing in a safe manner; even though I had been a shooter since 1952,for a goodly part of the time as a professional camel, goat and kangaroo shooter for the government( not with a .410!!).
    My difficulty is understanding the NEED to make this discussion a matter of political allegiance. Is it because one party is generally red necked tally ho shooting everything and the other has a softer attitude? Whatever the answer to my question, there can be no valid argument for gun ownership based on the second amendment alone.
    A few days ago, Jean posted that she had no guns and saw no need to obtain any. I offer the opinion that Jean is also protected by the second by being free to choose not to bear arms. The second confers the right but not an obligation. With that "right" comes a responsibility to respect the right to life liberty and happiness within your society. Can you assert that this situation is likely to exist if every ragbag in the country has a firearm?
    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kingston,

      The NEED, if any, to make this discussion a matter of politics stems from the fact that, generally speaking, the democratic party platform is anti-NRA. But that's just my opinion, yes?

      And a minor and probably unimportant clarification: We do not, and quite likely will not, own guns, as is our choice, true. We do not hunt. We also live in a relatively safe area. If we lived in a more isolated setting, or in a different environment, that could change. It would take a bit to do that, but it could. Commuting alone, especially using public transportation, is an easy example.

      Always enjoy reading your posts.

      Jean

      Delete
    2. It's safe now, but what about when there are food riots and people flee the cities for their lives. Both criminals and law abiding citizens will do whatever they can to get food, shelter etc... I'm sure a home in the suburbs or countryside will look mighty appealing then and you won't be able to run out and buy a gun to defend yourself.

      Delete
    3. Read the response from livestrongest right above this Kingston. That's not what I would call a redneck response. This is a political allegiance battle because gun owners have been successfully driven to a terror state of thinking by those that want their votes. Angies quote up above is even more to the point. While the gun owners have been driven to frenzy, little has actually changed in the real world. Comparatively, both parties, after 9/11, signed off on opening the door to near completely unchecked power for the government to spy on it's own people. The PERCEPTION of loss rights due to reasonable gun laws somehow trumps the ACTUAL loss of freedoms under the patriot act.

      At political extremes, we have one train of thought that no one can be trusted and at the other end a belief that people will generally make "the right" choice if they are empowered to do so. At the moment, our political system caters to a belief that we can only have one extreme or the other.

      Delete
  5. King, I suppose I should leave it to the intellectual elites to decide who is and isn't a ragbag. Of course that would be against everything our founders passed down.

    Did you take the time to read the statement listed above? I know many eastern Europeans that lived it and have documented it.

    1773-2009 Just call me a red necked, tally ho, ragbag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Do not even argue with the foreign born trash as he is one of the useful idiots created by the left. He refuses facts as he believes that wishing for something is so much more relevant. You cannot logic with the illogical ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what it's worth, I don't think that was called for.

      Jean

      Delete
  7. ANGIE
    My thanks for the response. It saddens me to think that such ignorance is abroad in your country. I think your words perhaps provide the best evidence yet that America needs gun control.
    Perhaps I look at America through rose tinted glasses. It is a long time since I considered the possibility that Joe McCarthy remained as an influence and that the white robe and the pointed hood are abroad in the community.
    Having regard to the above, I do not at all mind the "foreign born trash" but I do strongly object to being called a creation of the left. I am proud to state I have been a member of the Conservative right, since arrival in Australia in 1952.
    William.
    Of course I read the article, pity it was not more carefully attributed or researched. My major problem is that the article is factually wrong. The guns and weapons referred to were in the main owned by the ruling class and the major landowners. They were therefore controlled weapons. The revolution changed the status quo when armories were broken open by the "people" and the end result is a fact of history.
    The Russian peasants, led by the ideological left, certainly had cause to rebel, serfdom held back the development of any form of egalitarian society.

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Having regard to the above, I do not at all mind the "foreign born trash" but I do strongly object to being called a creation of the left."

      Says the man who puts me left of Pelosi. How's that ideological scale working for ya Kingston?

      Delete
    2. Kingston, I find our conversations fruitful in general but have distaste for arguments the play the "McCarthy" and "KKK" cards. I expect that from our Marxist comrade Max but not from one who calls themselve a conservative.

      As for the Russian Whites and Reds the revolution was fought between to deficient ideologies. The monarchy of the Czar, and the other ultimate creator of slaves the Marxist/Communist/Progressives. Unfortunately the "people" were not exposed to a limited type of government to chose from.

      You often argue for the development of society. Development only progresses when the ideas are superior and not retreads of the failed ideas of the past. Timeless decisions made over centuries only grow from the natural state of man. Any other postulates must meet this standard. Fads at the end of the day remain fads, errors only errors, and experiments only experiments.

      Delete
    3. "I expect that from our Marxist comrade Max but not from one who calls themselve a conservative.

      And yet, that is not a card I ever play. You are fond of surface arguments William, and of course, your labels. You chide Kingston, and then go to your old stand by of calling me a Marxist.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Max

    Rather than taking umbrage at any or every attempt to classify your personal political philosophy; would you be prepared to classify yourself for the benefit and edification of the rest of us?

    Cheers from Aussie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not umbrage in this case Kingston. Human beings are complex and nobody is all anything. Calling someone left or right is generally done so in an attempt to avoid addressing whatever argument they are making on it's merits. Whether someone leans left of right should have little to no bearing in any single discussion. But, rather then continue a debate, it usually reaches a point where someone says, "Well you're far left or far right and are incapable of seeing truth".

      Being a smart ass, I can't deny it's entertaining to watch you the other two maneuver to lay claim to the title of true conservative, as if that somehow meant something important. As for me, my views have changed with time, neither side of center fits for me. In general, I believe inequality in the world NEEDS to exist in order for people to feel there will be reward for their hard work. On the other hand, when inequality becomes too great, I believe a government needs to step in to correct it in order to preserve the stability of society. Sometimes the wealthy need to be thrown a bone to get them to invest. Other times, when they just suck up money and withdraw it from the economy, an opposite reaction is required. If there is any label that I feel most closely fits me, it is utilitarian. These days, that word is likely synonymous with communism. 30 years ago, it would have meant something entirely different.

      Delete