Thread: Americans never give up your guns - Pravda

Americans never give up your guns

28.12.2012


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

The article reprinted with Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ruthe kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

Americans never give up your guns - English pravda.ru

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.

This is a very serious allegation that I have never heard before. Is there any evidence that the American government backed the communist revolution in Russia against the Tsar???

W

"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

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

This is a very serious allegation that I have never heard before. Is there any evidence that the American government backed the communist revolution in Russia against the Tsar???

W

It is an interesting statement. It seems that the usual globalist factions, Rockefeller, Rothschild,J.P. Morgan, etc provided the money. (See below) but some of official Washington was involved.

THE TUG-OF-WAR IN WASHINGTON¹¹
A review of documents in the State Department Decimal File suggests that the State Department and Ambassador Francis in Petrograd were quite well informed about the intentions and progress of the Bolshevik movement. In the summer of 1917, for example, the State Department wanted to stop the departure from the U.S. of "injurious persons" (that is, returning Russian revolutionaries) but was unable to do so because they were using new Russian and American passports. The preparations for the Bolshevik Revolution itself were well known at least six weeks before it came about. One report in the State Department files states, in regard to the Kerensky forces, that it was "doubtful whether government . . . [can] suppress outbreak." Disintegration of the Kerensky government was reported throughout September and October as were Bolshevik preparations for a coup. The British government warned British residents in Russia to leave at least six weeks before the Bolshevik phase of the revolution.
The first full report of the events of early November reached Washington on December 9, 1917. This report described the low-key nature of the revolution itself, mentioned that General William V. Judson had made an unauthorized visit to Trotsky, and pointed out the presence of Germans in Smolny — the Soviet headquarters.
On November 28, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson ordered no interference with the Bolshevik Revolution. This instruction was apparently in response to a request by Ambassador Francis for an Allied conference, to which Britain had already agreed. The State Department argued that such a conference was impractical. There were discussions in Paris between the Allies and Colonel Edward M. House, who reported these to Woodrow Wilson as "long and frequent discussions on Russia." Regarding such a conference, House stated that England was "passively willing," France "indifferently against," and Italy "actively so." Woodrow Wilson, shortly thereafter, approved a cable authored by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, which provided financial assistance for the Kaledin movement (December 12, 1917). There were also rumors filtering into Washington that "monarchists working with the Bolsheviks and same supported by various occurrences and circumstances"; that the Smolny government was absolutely under control of the German General Staff; and rumors elsewhere that "many or most of them [that is, Bolshevists] are from America."
In December, General Judson again visited Trotsky; this was looked upon as a step towards recognition by the U.S., although a report dated February 5, 1918, from Ambassador Francis to Washington, recommended against recognition. A memorandum originating with Basil Miles in Washington argued that "we should deal with all authorities in Russia including Bolsheviks." And on February 15, 1918, the State Department cabled Ambassador Francis in Petrograd, stating that the "department desires you gradually to keep in somewhat closer and informal touch with the Bolshevik authorities using such channels as will avoid any official recognition."
The next day Secretary of State Lansing conveyed the following to the French ambassador J. J. Jusserand in Washington: "It is considered inadvisable to take any action which will antagonize at this time any of the various elements of the people which now control the power in Russia .... "¹²
On February 20, Ambassador Francis cabled Washington to report the approaching end of the Bolshevik government. Two weeks later, on March 7, 1918, Arthur Bullard reported to Colonel House that German money was subsidizing the Bolsheviks and that this subsidy was more substantial than previously thought. Arthur Bullard (of the U.S. Committee on Public Information) argued: "we ought to be ready to help any honest national government. But men or money or equipment sent to the present rulers of Russia will be used against Russians at least as much as against Germans."¹³
This was followed by another message from Bullard to Colonel House: "I strongly advise against giving material help to the present Russian government. Sinister elements in Soviets seem to be gaining control."
But there were influential counterforces at work. As early as November 28, 1917, Colonel House cabled President Woodrow Wilson from Paris that it was "exceedingly important" that U.S. newspaper comments advocating that "Russia should be treated as an enemy" be "suppressed." Then next month William Franklin Sands, executive secretary of the Morgan-controlled American International Corporation and a friend of the previously mentioned Basil Miles, submitted a memorandum that described Lenin and Trotsky as appealing to the masses and that urged the U.S. to recognize Russia. Even American socialist Walling complained to the Department of State about the pro-Soviet attitude of George Creel (of the U.S. Committee on Public Information), Herbert Swope, and William Boyce Thompson (of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).
On December 17, 1917, there appeared in a Moscow newspaper an attack on Red Cross colonel Raymond Robins and Thompson, alleging a link between the Russian Revolution and American bankers:

Why are they so interested in enlightenment? Why was the money given the socialist revolutionaries and not to the constitutional democrats? One would suppose the latter nearer and dearer to hearts of bankers.

The article goes on to argue that this was because American capital viewed Russia as a future market and thus wanted to get a firm foothold. The money was given to the revolutionaries because

the backward working men and peasants trust the social revolutionaries. At the time when the money was passed the social revolutionaries were in power and it was supposed they would remain in control in Russia for some time.

Another report, dated December 12, 1917, and relating to Raymond Robins, details "negotiation with a group of American bankers of the American Red Cross Mission"; the "negotiation" related to a payment of two million dollars. On January 22, 1918, Robert L Owen, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking and Currency and linked to Wall Street interests, sent a letter to Woodrow Wilson recommending de facto recognition of Russia, permission for a shipload of goods urgently needed in Russia, the appointment of representatives to Russia to offset German influence, and the establishment of a career-service group in Russia.
This approach was consistently aided by Raymond Robins in Russia. For example, on February 15, 1918, a cable from Robins in Petrograd to Davison in the Red Cross in Washington (and to be forwarded to William Boyce Thompson) argued that support be given to the Bolshevik authority for as long as possible, and that the new revolutionary Russia will turn to the United States as it has "broken with the German imperialism." According to Robins, the Bolsheviks wanted United States assistance and cooperation together with railroad reorganization, because "by generous assistance and technical advice in reorganizing commerce and industry America may entirely exclude German commerce during balance of war."
In brief, the tug-of-war in Washington reflected a struggle between, on one side, old-line diplomats (such as Ambassador Francis) and lower-level departmental officials, and, on the other, financiers like Robins, Thompson, and Sands with allies such as Lansing and Miles in the State Department and Senator Owen in the Congress.

Footnotes:

¹Max Hoffman, War Diaries and Other Papers (London: M. Secker, 1929), 2:177.
²Z. A. B. Zeman and W. B. Scharlau, The Merchant of Revolution.. The Life of A1exander Israel Helphand (Parvus), 1867-1924 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).
³Z. A. B. Zeman, Germany and the Revolution in Russia, 1915-1918. Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry (London: Oxford University Press, 195, p. ????5.
⁴Ibid.
⁵Ibid., p. 6, doc. 6, reporting a conversation with the Fstonian intermediary Keskula.
⁶Ibid., p. 92, n. 3.
⁷U.S., Committee on Public Information, The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy, War Information Series, no. 20, October 1918.
⁸New York Evening Post, September 16-18, 21; October 4, 1918. It is also interesting, but not conclusive of anything, that the Bolsheviks also stoutly questioned the authenticity of the documents.
⁹George F. Kennan, "The Sisson Documents," Journal of Modern History 27-28 (1955-56): 130-154.
¹⁰John Reed, The Sisson Documents (New York: Liberator Publishing, n.d.).
¹¹This part is based on section 861.00 o[ the U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, also available as National Archives rolls 10 and 11 of microcopy 316.
¹²U.S. State Dept. Decimal File, 861.00/1117a. The same message was conveyed to the Italian ambassador.
¹³See Arthur Bullard papers at Princeton University.

Chapter III: LENIN AND GERMAN ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
How western capitalists funded Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the Soviet Union
-- by: Antony C. Sutton, 1974, source: Reformed Theology

MHP hypertext version for non-profit educational use only
Table of Contents

PrefaceAuthor's preface

The Actors on the Revolutionary StageMonopoly capitalists and revolutionary socialists as natural allies

Trotsky Leaves New York to Complete the RevolutionTrotsky returns to Russia via Canada on a U.S. passport

Lenin and German Assistance for the Bolshevik RevolutionLenin returns to Russia with help from Germany

Wall Street and World RevolutionWall Street bankers fund revolution in Panama, China, Mexico, and Russia

The American Red Cross Mission in Russia, 1917The Red Cross mission as a cover for the Wall Street financiers

Consolidation and Export of the RevolutionPromoting Bolshevism in Germany, France and America

The Bolsheviks Return to New YorkFormation of the Soviet Bureau in New York, with support from U.S. firms

120 Broadway, New York CityInterlocking organizations at a key New York address

Guaranty Trust Goes to RussiaGuaranty Trust, Soviet gold and the Ruskombank

J.P. Morgan Gives a Little Help to the Other SidePlaying both ends against the middle

The Alliance of Bankers and RevolutionCollectivism as a tool for elite control

"The Soviet experiement: A model for America?

..these and other American visitors to the Soviet Union typically came back impressed, and convinced the United States had much to learn from the great Soviet experiment. Books and articles poured forth, from Dewey's Impressions of Russia and Sherwood Eddy's The challenge of Russia to George S. Count's The Soviet Challenge to America and Maxwell Stewart's "Where Everyone Has a Job." These various trips by American intellectuals to Soviet Russia formed a major component of the ideology behind President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. According to Professor Lewis Feuer of the Univeristy of California at Berkley:

'The whole conception of a "social experiement," the whole notion of planned human intervention into social processes to raise the welfare of the people, had become linked in the minds of America's intellectual and social leaders with the practice of the Soviet Union. This transformation in American thought was largely the work of a small number of several hundreds of travellers to the Soviet Union during the previous decade. If there was not De Touquevile among them, the reports which they publoished affected the American political consciousness more deeply nonetheless than any other foreign influence in its history.'

Progressive educator John Dewey, in a series of articles for The New Republic in 1928, could hardly contain his enthusiasm for Soviet Russia. "I have never seen anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy, and intelligently occupied children," he recalled. Other progressive educators were euqally impressed; William Kilpatrick was flattered to see that his own writing on eudcation had been translated into Russian and used to train Russian teachers...."


"...Since late 1941, FDR had been guilty of gross ignorance, willful deception, or outright lying in his favorable remarks about the Soviet Union. In November of that year, for example, he claimed that freedom of religion was a fundamental right in Stalin's Russia, even though he knew that it had virtually ceased to exist under the violently atheistic Communist regime. When former U.S. ambassador spoke frankly to FDR about the true nature of the Soviet regime and of Stalin himself, just before the president was about to meet with Stalin and Winston Churchill at the Teheran Conference of 1943, FDR replied:..." that Stalin just wanted security for his country and ..."if I give him everything I possibly can and ask him for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."....


"....The White House's favorable view of Stalin went on longer than people realize. Roosevelt died in April 1945. He was replaced by vice president Harry Truman, who is usually thought to have been more skeptical of the Soviet Union than FDR. But when in 1946 Winston Churchill delivered his famous "iron curtain" speech in fulton, Missouri, noting that human freedom was being extinguished as a result of Soviet domination of Eastern Eurpose, Truman actually apologized to Stalin, and offered to bring him to the United States for a rebuttal..."

from the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D
Regnery Publishing, Inc.

I highly recommend the politically incorrect history series. As to the gun issue, FDR in giving all to Stalin didn't give a damn about the people that were annexed, and I have no doubt that our country's support of Stalin ensured their enslavement. And doesn't this sound like Obama?