Category Archives: politics

What’s going on?

Posted on by
26

I’m trying to understand what I’m seeing.

Yes, another month, another Muslim terror attack in France. This is becoming a regular thing. What bothers me is that those things were obviously allowed to happen, and not only that, but the order came from America. The order to allow the hordes of Muslims into Europe and America, where they will do what they are best at – murder and rape – came from America. There is no other explanation for it.

What I’m interested in is “why”.

You see, the Paris, Brussels and Nice attacks are utterly unsurprising and predictable. The only ones shocked by that are those who are so fucking stupid they actually believe the leftist bullshit about all people being the same and all cultures and civilizations being the same. The main result of this officially sanctioned invasion of unwashed Muslim hordes from the Middle East will be the awakening of Europe and America to the true nature of Islam. It will remove Islam’s carefully designed and implemented trickery of the “religion of peace”, and people will see it for what it is: that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not some “heretics” who “misinterpret” Islam. They in fact practice it literally and diligently. It’s the “moderate” Muslims who are not practicing that thing properly. That’s the truth of Islam. Islam is the religion under which Europe was robbed, plundered and raped throughout the Middle Ages, and it only subsided once Europe industrialized and developed power sufficient to crush the Muslims militarily and turn them into colonies (which, if I may add, was the perfect state of things, because allowing those shitholes to function as sovereign states is a bad idea).

The consequence of letting the Muslims into Europe en masse is so predictable, and it is so certain that those giving the order knew what would happen, the only remaining question is “why”. What are they trying to accomplish?

My working hypothesis is that guys in Langley are very smart. Those in Washington are usually stupid and corrupt idiots, but there are some very smart people in the CIA, who basically think the same way I do, only they have more information and resources. So I can assume that they know the demographics of Europe, they know what a strategic error it was to give the Muslims the monetary equivalent of the entire energy expenditure of the Western civilization by allowing them to profit from oil and thus influence the Western civilization without actually needing to rise up to the challenge and attain the civilizational level necessary to participate in it. They know who actually ordered and financed 9/11. They know it’s the Saudis, they know what it’s all about. They know more about those bastards than I do. I’ve seen some public documents; those were written by smart people. So CIA is in the know about Islam, they know the same things Geert Wilders knows. It’s just that they don’t talk about it in public; rather, they prepare contingency plans, they develop options for dealing with the problem.

If we look at the entire recent history of events in the Middle East, America has been intervening there in order to decivilize and deindustrialize countries, basically removing from Islam everything that was obtained by oil money, and reducing them to their natural state of medieval savagery of ISIS. That is actually a good thing, because ISIS is not dangerous. An Islamic state with modern weapons and technology is dangerous, but if you remove the industrial layer and reduce it to the technological level Islam would naturally have if not for oil, the danger level is that of the Somali pirates – you need to watch them with some minor naval force, but they are harmless to the West. It looks very much like America has been going through the list of Middle-Eastern countries, sorted by hostility to America, descending, and crossing them with red ink, one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria. The next one on the list is Iran, but since this one is the most difficult, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might rise closer to the top of the list.

So, if America is trying to get rid of the threat posed by Islam that was empowered and enriched by oil money, why are they importing Muslims en masse into Europe and America? Well, you can’t really get rid of the Muslims if people in Europe and America have an idealized, unrealistic picture of Muslims as some kind of innocent victims of colonialism and Israel. Muslims need to be seen for what they are, and no amount of propaganda would do it. What is actually necessary is to allow the Muslims to show, in several controlled instances, what they want, what they would do if unchecked, and what they truly are. People need to see them for what they are, and it would be utterly incredible and unbelievable if shown to the peoples of Europe and America in any other manner but through the blades and guns of Muslims. So, what we are seeing here, the terror attacks, it was allowed in order to awaken us to the evil of Islam, and to show us what Europe will look like if we allow that to immigrate and breed here, financed with our own tax money, because the Muslims are simply incapable of functioning in our civilization on merit while remaining Muslims. And the Leftists, whose ideology allowed it all to happen, they will utterly discredit themselves now and will also be seen for what they are: blithering idiots who think “good” means “different from Hitler”.

And I can expect the next steps. Turkey will descend into Islamism. Saudi Arabia will openly spite America and some serious shit will take place there. Iran will soon obtain nuclear capability, and then Israel will act. They will wipe out all Muslim centers in the Middle East, and by then people will be prepared to see this not as an evil act, but as something that, finally, someone actually had the guts to do, for the good of all. Islam will be banned everywhere, the Muslims will be dealt with in some way in both Europe and America, problem solved.

What I don’t understand is why America is simultaneously poking at Russia and China. I also don’t know if it is all actually a result of someone’s careful planning, or if some degree of chaos and uncertainty played a role. What I do know is that the likes of Obama and Hillary are puppets on someone else’s strings. That much is obvious; they are someone’s creatures.

Ideologies and group identities

Posted on by
22

I’ve seen an interesting way of thinking in the Western jurisprudence, a sort of an extreme individualism which sees every possible guilt only on a personal level, disregarding even the very concept of collectivism.

And yet we constantly see how people act in groups, with group bonds of belief and emotions, which create common thoughts and joint actions. When you have thousands of football fans breaking each other’s heads, your problem doesn’t exist on the individual level. It’s not individuals performing those actions, it’s the groups. Individuals are just instruments which the abstract group entity uses to assert its dominance, attitudes and beliefs. In that sense, nations really do exist as entities with emotions and willpower. Football clubs really do exist not only as administrative entities and players, but also as an idea that binds the fans into a group entity, connected on some very basic common denominator.

It’s very easy to get sucked into binding your personal identity with some group. When you do, it’s important to understand that you don’t become more than yourself, you become less. You don’t become something larger than yourself by identifying with a group, a group becomes something larger than it was by increasing its membership. You, yourself, simply ceded parts of your identity, and replaced your individual, personal thoughts with collective thoughts, collective emotions, beliefs and goals. It then becomes possible for you to attack people you don’t personally hate, but you hate them as part of your group identity.

For me personally, it’s interesting how I became capable of truly understanding some things about biological conditioning and inclusion of animalistic mechanisms in spirituality only after I chose to stop self-identifying as human. I literally stopped seeing my identity as part of that of human race, and started seeing myself as a separate species, that is still close enough to human to reproduce with humans, but no closer than a dog is to a wolf. I started seeing through social and reproductive strategies that were usually seen as spirituality, and my entire perspective on ethics changed. For instance, humans have no ability to tell good from evil if you separate it from what’s good and bad for humanity. For instance, if somehow some other species evolved on Earth which was far superior to humans, and the absolute karmic law would demand that humans go extinct like the Neanderthals before them, the humans would view that as evil. If an absolutely better species needed to go extinct in order for humanity to go on, humans would choose themselves. That made me think: what if all other ethical opinions commonly held by humans aren’t what God would want, but what the self-serving humanity wants? God would want sat-cit-ananda to manifest. Humanity wants there to be more humanity. That’s all there is to it.

As I said, it becomes interesting when you dissociate yourself from the group you implicitly belonged to since birth. You start noticing things, the same way you’d notice things if you dissociated yourself from some more obvious social identity, only with more profound, more liberating consequences. One of the most important things you notice is that people aren’t very interested in the truth, they are more interested at “being right”, being on the right side, and the right side is the winning side. It’s just an animalistic instinct of wanting to be on the winning side, because those on the losing side are traditionally either killed or sold into slavery. Also, if one side offers no advantages to you if you pick it, you pick the other side. Truth, reality, that doesn’t even show on your instinctive mind’s radar. Truth is what the winning side tells. Reality is that the winners live and consume resources. That’s what mankind is about, not God, not truth, not manifesting sat-cit-ananda. It’s about who gets to live, reproduce and have resources. God is what is invented to rationalize the winning side’s right to do what it does, and to allow it to keep what it had taken. If a real, true God existed who would question the order of things, he would not be acknowledged as their God. Essentially, if you had a-prefixed deities, where “a” stands for “absolute”, aGod and aSatan, and humans could choose which one is God and which one is Satan, what do you think, how would they do it? Using rational philosophy, metaphysics and transcendental ethics? Or by the criterion of being allowed to live, reproduce and consume resources?

What do you think what Allah or Jehovah are, in the absolute sense? aGod or aSatan? An entity that lets your tribe kill, plunder and rape, own sexual slaves and demands blood sacrifices, does that sound like the sat-cit-ananda Absolute that created the dual Universe in order to manifest His fullness as a multitude? From where I see it, from my non-human position, it’s either completely fabricated, made up as a sick fantasy of warlords and madmen, or it was inspired by Satan as a system of belief that will bind humans into groups that are most useful for his goals of keeping souls bound in ignorance and sin, and leading them to perform sinful deeds that will propagate their enslavement to this place.

I once heard an interpretation that a division between God and Satan is within religions and not between them; between individual ideas and concepts and not so much between whole ideologies. But I wonder. Some ideologies, as a system, seem to be consistently promoting beliefs that are conducive to ignorance, bondage and resistance to any change from that status, and people assume group identities based on those ideologies, aligning their destinies with the group vector.

So yeah, think about that the next time you cheer for your country on the football championship, when you identify with others based on what OS runs on your computer or a phone, when you identify with others based on your species, race, nation, religion or other stupid bullshit.

The only thing you actually are, is what you are when you stand naked before the spirit of God, in His light. Every other identity is a descent into some illusion or another, promoting and propagating bondage and suffering. And guess from which perspective your actions are going to be seen and evaluated when you die?

Live your life in such a way that you can stand before God, stripped of any kind of collective identity, and have God see your life as his own, something that was His manifestation in the relative world of duality. Because where you’re going, there are no football clubs, nations, races, genders or religions, and the only true judgment that is passed on any action is whether it is of God, who is sat-cit-ananda.

The flowchart of madness

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking about hierarchy of belief and how it can cause apparently unrelated problems.

Let’s illustrate it with a flow chart which shows how a terrorist attack at a gay club becomes possible:

flowchart

Basically, you end up with very bizarre beliefs and behaviors that are a logical consequence of accepting previous, apparently logical and sensible steps. That’s how you get people who believe that Earth is flat, that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans and that Earth is some 6000 years old, but that’s also how you get people who get to believe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old. They just follow a different hierarchy of belief: for instance that the world is real, that its laws are constant, that it isn’t a simulation that’s running on some astral computer, that it all behaves linearly independent on existence of observers, etc.

If at least one accepted belief in the chain proves to be false, the final conclusion will be worthless. So when we see a terrorist who takes an AR-15, goes into a building and shoots people (whether they are gay, Jews, workers in an abortion clinic or audience at a heavy metal concert is irrelevant), we naturally think he’s fucked up in the head because his beliefs and actions are contrary to all reasonable and accepted behavior, but the thing is, you can’t just dismiss his internal flow chart. There is some decision-making process he went through and came up with those conclusions. It doesn’t happen at random. Also, people don’t just happen to join cults at random. There’s a flow chart: is there a God, are there people who know God and can lead others to God, is this guru one such person, how should one act when he meets such a person, and you end up shaving your head, wearing a saffron robe and chanting 16 rounds of Hare Krishna a day. The conclusion sounds ridiculous when you’re unfamiliar with the particular flow chart, but when you think of it, people are usually lead down the garden path of consistency with all previous steps taken, where one thing follows from another, until you get something that appears to be completely irrational.

That Muslim shooting 100 gays, he wasn’t irrational. He just accepted that there is one God, he’s called Allah, he sent a prophet called Mohamed who revealed the perfect and authoritative scripture called Qur’an, and there are also the Hadith about his life and sayings that clarify matters further, this is all authoritative and if one wants to be saved for eternal life he must adhere to those instructions.

That those internal flow charts exist is obvious; the true question is, what is yours, and what if it contains faulty premises that result in fatal errors?

Back in the cold war, or heading to a hot one?

Posted on by
13

There’s been lots of talk about whether we’re back in the cold war between NATO and Russia. Let’s clear this up a bit by defining what made the cold war so bad, what made it end, and then let’s see where we are now.

The cold war was defined as a non-friendly but not openly hostile political situation, aggravated by the possession of nuclear arsenal by both sides, and further aggravated by the advances in rocket technology which reduced times from launch to mutual destruction to cca. 35 minutes.

What made this especially dangerous was aggressive political posturing which made a nuclear attack possible, forcing both sides to implement a hairline trigger on the nuclear arsenal, with short reaction times making the system dangerously sensitive to false positives. Essentially, it’s like the situation where you are constantly harassed by burglars and thugs to the point where you respond by arming yourself to the teeth and responding to every suspicious noise during the night with gunfire, which eventually results in killing a family member who forgot to turn on the light.

The cold war stopped being a credible threat when Americans stopped their political posturing, Reagan agreed to meet with Gorbachev and they signaled to the Russians, in no unclear terms, that they don’t intend to nuke them. Once the political hostilities stopped, the nuclear war stopped being a credible threat, regardless of the fact that both nuclear arsenals were barely reduced; as with handguns, the weapon itself is not a danger, but the mindset of the owner.

When the cold war ended, the Soviets decided that since the outside threat has ended, it’s now time to deal with their economy because standing in lines for bread and everything else during peacetime makes no sense whatsoever, and in their hasty and poorly devised reform attempt they wrecked their own country. Americans then decided to interpret this as their victory in the cold war, although the cold war itself ended several years earlier.

This resulted in a very dangerous change in American mindset, where they stopped viewing the Russians as an equal power, and instead started seeing them as some sort of a failed country of a defeated people, with decaying military that is a threat only to the local ecology. This was actually true for an entire decade, but since Vladimir Putin came to power, he implemented powerful and effective measures which stabilized the country, repaired the economy to the level that is far better now than it ever was, even during the best of times. He also worked on reconstructing the industry and the military functionality. As a result, the Russian army is now not as massive as it was in the Soviet times, but is much more effective. The nuclear functionality was rebuilt, and nuclear deterrent is now completely functional on a level superior to that of the Soviet Union. Very accurate tactical and aerospace-defense rockets were also developed in the meantime.

So basically, the reason why the cold war was bad was because Americans were actively performing hostile propaganda against the Soviet Union, which was armed with strategic nuclear weapons, and political hostilities made it a conceivable supposition that the purpose of the political propaganda was to justify a nuclear first strike against the demonized enemy.

The situation we have today is that the Russians have fully functional strategic nuclear weapons and the Americans are in the middle of an unprecedented military-political campaign of putting thousands of troops on the Russian border under the guise of “military exercises”, they apparently attempt to weaken the Russian nuclear deterrent by activating an Aegis Ashore station in Romania, building another one in Poland and placing Aegis warships in the Baltic sea, they already politically destabilized Ukraine and are trying to provoke Russia into responding militarily, and they are actively and consistently implementing a propaganda campaign against Russia, ever since the Sochi Olympics. The Russian president, who is an extremely calm, moderate and competent politician, is portrayed as a Hitler-like psychopathic dictator who needs to be stopped, which looks very much like all American recent justifications for war, where the attacked country is first exposed to strong propaganda which portrays it as a prison-country that is held hostage by some Hitler-Satan hybrid of a dictator and his ridiculous henchmen, and needs to be invaded in order to free the people, who will then magically proceed to follow a natural human tendency to form an America-like democratic paradise, where you don’t have just one party to vote for, but two, and it’s not like you have to go through a complicated vetting process where the elites check out or even propose the credible presidential candidates, and where you have free economy, not like other countries where the government regulates the economy by bailing out failing banks and businesses. Oh wait…

But I digress.

We actually passed the point of being back in cold war and we are on the very brink of hot war. NATO tanks are on the Russian borders, which was never the case before. American anti-ballistic defenses, which were the crux of the “Star wars” crisis of the Reagan administration, which provoked the Soviets almost to the point of losing their cool and starting to take out the Pershing II intermediary-range silos in West Germany, are surrounding Russia. Russian fighter-bombers are performing close warning runs above American Aegis ships in the Baltic and Black Sea. Also, America is provoking China in the China Sea. Turkey, a NATO member, actually shot down a Russian fighter-bomber in Syria, where the Turks had no right to be. This is all almost identical to the war games from the 1980s, where a realistic political and military escalation leading to a nuclear exchange was modeled. The only reason why this didn’t escalate further is that Russian president is one very cool and calculated person.

The problem is, the Russians are pissed off right now, and I mean the entire people, not the government. They didn’t like being insulted, they didn’t like being lied to, they didn’t like their allies being taken out systematically, they didn’t like the former Soviet republics and Warsaw contract countries being recruited into NATO, they didn’t like the surrounding countries being infiltrated by CIA and their minions under the guise of “promoting democracy”, and they certainly didn’t like the greatest president they had since Peter the Great being portrayed as some Hitler-like maniac. They also didn’t like America sponsoring the Nazis in Ukraine, they didn’t like the fact that openly anti-Russian governments are installed in the former Soviet bloc despite great popular support for Russia in those countries, they don’t like the fact that all the journalist in Europe work for CIA, that the Russian opposition is briefed by the American embassy and paid either from the State Department budget or by CIA-sponsored “NGOs”. They don’t like America artificially reducing the price of oil on the world market and introducing sanctions against Russia in order to weaken its economy, and they are basically completely disappointed in America, after initially having embraced the American values in the 1990s. Americans think that their “democratic” pro-western puppets are the opposition to Putin. No, they have zero popular support in Russia and if not for the State Department financing they would already have starved. The true opposition to Putin is the Communist Party, and compared to them, Putin is incredibly calm and moderate. The problem is, if the Communist Party wins the parliamentary elections, this will reduce Putin’s ability to respond calmly and rationally to further American provocations, and if he is forced to respond in a way that will be demanded by the people and the parliament, he will be forced to take down the threatening American assets, and take further initiative to secure their immediate borders. From there, it’s nuclear exchange in several predictable moves, and no credible alternative.

The situation could be immediately resolved by removing idiots from power in America, and disbanding NATO, for whose continued existence there is no valid reason anyway, and it’s merely a bureaucracy that tries to create problems for which its continued existence would be the solution, at the cost of degrading the actual security of the world to the lowest point ever outside of open world wars. Also, America would have to remove their military installations from the former Soviet bloc, and you’d be surprised to know how many of those there actually are, including concentration camps for extrajudicial detention and torture of “undesirables”.

The problem is, I just don’t see America stopping the thing it’s doing, because it thinks it’s winning, which is the most dangerous state of things because that’s how the wars start. The even bigger problem is, I don’t see how America can be shown it’s not winning in ways that don’t include hundreds of nuclear mushrooms sprouting over American cities. So yeah, how dangerous is it? Very. It’s as dangerous as handling a deadly poisonous snake without being aware that it is poisonous. If you know it can kill you, you’ll be careful. It’s the absence of this awareness that makes this current crisis so much different than the ones before. Before, the Americans were aware of the fact that the Russians had the amount of nuclear weapons that is enough to turn Earth into Mars. Today, they seem to think that those nukes for some reason don’t count, as if they’re props made of plastic, and you can play with tanks and planes and it will somehow magically stop there because you brainfucked yourself into believing that nobody will ever use nukes, even when his existential interests are threatened. It reminds me of the bullies who get shot because when faced with an armed person, they act as if the gun doesn’t exist and actually continue bullying the person until he pulls the trigger, and then they act surprised as if nobody could see that coming. One such fucktard actually won the Darwin award by daring his 10 year old son to stab him with a knife, repeatedly, until the distraught kid actually stabbed him in the chest, to which the fucktard responded with “I can’t believe the kid actually did it” and died.

I can see the nuclear war coming for over a year, and so do the American experts on Russia. The Russians were refurbishing the fallout shelters in Moscow year ago. Anyone who doesn’t see what’s going on is either blind or delusional.

The only real question is, are the Americans doing this on purpose or are they just incredibly stupid?

Does owning guns make sense

Posted on by
3

I’ve been watching videos with Americans discussing guns. You know the drill: they want to be armed in order to protect their life and liberty, blah blah.

My question is: what is your opponent going to use to shoot back?

Let’s imagine several scenarios where a gun might be useful.

The first scenario is home defense against a burglar. Someone breaks into your house, is possibly armed, will possibly take your family hostage or harm them in some other way. Maybe it’s a personal enemy who decided to take revenge, maybe it’s a drug addict trying to steal your things in order to sell them. In this scenario, a gun is very useful. You’re not a victim, you can fight back and since you’re fighting from your known territory, the chances are you’ll win. In this scenario, the advantages of having a gun are so compelling, it should actually be obligatory to own a gun, and of course keep it locked in a safe so that your children can’t shoot themselves by accident or stupidity. The pros of owning a gun and being trained and prepared to use it for home defense so heavily outweigh the cons, it’s not even an argument.

The second scenario is personal defense in a public space. You carry a gun on your person in the street, at work or in a bar. If you’re attacked, you are not limited to your physical strength, and for women and weaker men this is a difference between being humiliated and beaten up in every physical confrontation, and being able to preserve your dignity. This is a strong reason for always carrying a firearm. However, if we imagine a realistic scenario, you’re not the only one who will carry a gun. If carrying a gun becomes the norm, it will be like the Wild West, where everyone wore a revolver like they wore pants. Altercations were very likely to turn deadly, and the fact that they were armed didn’t necessarily make people more careful, and they in fact got drunk quite frequently. So the problem is, you’re imagining a situation where you’re facing an arrogant bully, and if you have a gun, you can prevent him from assaulting you. The problem is, in a gun-friendly society a bully will always carry a gun, and a bully will practice with a gun the most. So you will basically only have normalized the escalation of violence, where you won’t have a fistfight against a stronger bully, you’ll have gunfight against a better marksman with a faster draw. In both situations you will be humiliated, but if a situation includes firearms, you’ll also be killed. Also, since the possible confrontation isn’t taking place inside your home against an invader, but in open territory, your actions will be scrutinized by a court of law even if you win. If the situation wasn’t clear, you may end up in jail. So realistically, the cons actually outweigh the pros, which is probably why American society migrated away from the Wild West model. However, there’s one situation where it’s good to be armed, and that’s a terrorist attack, of the “active shooter” variety, where you have one or multiple shooters who are indiscriminately killing civilians. If everyone is armed, this will completely discourage this form of terrorism, because it will look like an attempt of robbing a doughnut shop filled with cops. Not the brightest idea. However, have in mind that drawing a gun in an active shooter scenario makes you the prime target for the terrorists, if you’re the only one with the gun. That’s where my original question comes into play: what is your opponent going to use to shoot back? The San Bernardino shooters used AR-15 rifles and 9mm pistols. The Paris attackers used AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades and suicide vests. Realistically, you’re going to have a pistol with you. It’s better than not having anything if you know what you’re doing and you’re lucky enough not to be killed before you can do anything or while attempting to draw the weapon, but you are still likely to be killed. If everybody is armed, your odds improve, but in that situation the terrorists are more likely to simply use the element of surprise and detonate a bomb. The better armed the target, the more likely the terrorists are to use stronger force. The worse protected the target, the more likely the terrorists are to deploy an improvised attack with light firearms or even knives. So basically, being armed and careful will help, but it will not solve the problem, because then you won’t have an active shooter problem, you’ll have a suicide bomber problem.

The third scenario is a temporary collapse of civilization due to some disaster, like hurricane Katrina, where the city infrastructure collapses, help doesn’t come quickly enough, and there’s massive looting and unrest. All the looters can be assumed to carry a handgun. Yes, if you don’t have a weapon, you potentially have a problem. However, if you do have a weapon, you will be very likely to become a looter yourself, or be mistaken for one, and killed. Also, your main problem isn’t looting, it’s having access to clean water and food, maybe medications. When you think of survival gear, think of water purification tools, not guns. The most likely thing to get you killed is diarrhea from drinking impure water, or infection from cutting yourself on something nasty and not having access to antibiotics. Here, again, the important question is what are you actually fighting? It’s lack of infrastructure, lack of essential resources, poor hygiene and looters. It might be more important to think about ways of bartering for things you need to survive than to think of survival in terms of repelling physical threats, although it’s useful to have a weapon.

The fourth scenario is one of the commonly mentioned ones, and it’s civil war against tyrannical government. Americans like to imagine it as a scenario from their war of independence, where some tyrannical force will take over, and some George Washington will assemble the freedom-loving gun owners who will start a guerrilla war against them and eventually prevail, because freedom supposedly always prevails. However, let me illustrate my point with some images.

This is Vukovar after its fall, in 1991. The Serbs are parading the streets of the fallen city, singing about their leader needing to send some salad because there’ll be meat, they’ll slaughter the Croats. All men of fighting age were either immediately shot or transported to concentration camps in Serbia where they were tortured, killed or exchanged for Serbs. The freedom loving men took up arms against the evil force, and they lost.

This is Grozny, Chechnya, 1995. The country was taken over by separatists who declared independence from Russia. The Russians were in a difficult situation, realizing that if they allow the Chechens to secede, their country might disintegrate. The Russians decided to win at all cost and, with a lot of help from pro-Russian Chechen forces, they won.

In American civil war, the South declared independence and tried to secede from the Union. After more than a million casualties and a country destroyed, the South surrendered.

If a civil war breaks out after totalitarian government takeover, there will be two realistic scenarios. Either you will be part of a small band of “terrorists” who will have little or no resources at their disposal and little or no support in the apathetic population, or you will be a part of a massive rebellion that will include a serious part of the armed forces, police and the national guard. In first case, you’re dealing with a Ruby Ridge or Waco scenario. You’ll be killed, regardless of how many guns you have. In the second case, you’re dealing with the American civil war scenario. You may win or lose, but having a gun of your own is of limited importance because if a wing of the military is on your side, you’ll be recruited into the armed forces of the rebels and you’ll be issued a rifle and other military equipment.

However, if you think you’ll be dealing with a George Washington kind of rebellion, that’s out of the question, that’s completely unrealistic. If a tyrannical government is in charge, the first thing they’ll do is create propaganda according to which owning guns is dangerous, and owning guns that are useful for military purposes is criminal, something only terrorists have a need for. They will have lists of guns and their owners, and they will send a SWAT team to your house to confiscate your weapons. You will be alone, facing an overwhelming force, and unless you run to the forest in time and become a fugitive from the law, you will be either disarmed or killed for resisting the law. The law will be what the fascists in power decide to make it. Nobody will ask you. The general population will obey the law, as always. They obeyed the Nazis in Germany not because they loved them, but because that’s was the law and that was the government. Most Americans will do the same.

I’ll tell you what the Yugoslav government did in Croatia as part of the preparation for Serbian takeover. They confiscated the weapons of the territorial defense, the guns that were supposed to be at the disposal of the people in case of war. Essentially, Croatia was disarmed. Then they began the process of the political takeover where all the power would be centralized in Serbia and dissent wouldn’t be tolerated. Nevertheless, Slovenia and Croatia declared independence and one of the first things we did was to capture the army barracks on our territory, with the little small arms that we had. We also bought weapons on the international black market. Essentially, we had to act like terrorists because the Serbs had complete control of the military. The police forces, however, changed sides, as well as some important military officers of Croatian nationality. We had to build an army almost from scratch; in the meantime, the enemy had everything from tanks to airplanes and warships. We were disarmed, but we had the advantage of every person being able to handle weapons, in Yugoslavia it was taught in schools as part of the normal curriculum, so the entire male population was able to fight as soon as they were issued a weapon. The fact that we were disarmed was a problem, but only initially. Very quickly, that problem was overcome and we crushed the Serbs militarily. So basically, it’s better to allow yourself to be disarmed initially, then bide your time, organize with a few friends, steal weapons so that they can’t be traced to you and form or join opposition forces. The initial attack at your freedom will succeed; your enemy will know what he’s doing and you won’t. He will come at you with overwhelming force. If you resist, you will lose. However, being armed isn’t the same as being prepared. If you’re prepared, you can allow yourself to be disarmed and still retain initiative and strike back later, when opportunity presents itself. Getting yourself killed in the initial power grab doesn’t help anyone but your enemy, so essentially, all those AR-15s that you Americans have at home because you’re “prepared”, be prepared to give them up, without a fight, peacefully. However, also be prepared to lay a siege on a police station later, steal the weapons and organize an armed resistance cell. That’s what civil war looks like, and forget being seen as a hero. You’ll be seen as a home-grown Bin Laden, and the general population will hate you. If this dissent manages to get support from a significant wing of the military, you have a chance.

So basically, that’s my take on owning guns with a purpose of being prepared. It sometimes helps, that’s true, but it’s perfectly useless against being dominated by a tyrannical government, because any such government will know perfectly well how to pull your fangs out. Again, ask yourself what will come for you. If it’s a burglar, no problem. If it’s a heavily armed SWAT team or a platoon of regular soldiers, what will your AR-15 accomplish beside making you a legitimate target and your death perfectly justifiable?