Debunking a Bolshevik Myth

or
The Russian Revolution was not won by spontaneous peasant uprisings

I've made several threads in the past dedicated to understanding coup d'etats, revolts, and civil wars. In general, I specialize in asymmetric politics. Or politics by any means.
In the course of my threads, one weird idea has come up again and again and I intend to debunk it. That idea is that the February and October revolutions in the Russian Empire and then in the Russian Republic were "people's revolts" and did not involve the military establishment in a critical way.
On many occasions I would be talking about the critical importance of the military establishment in successful revolutions in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Iraq, America, France, Thailand, etc. and someone would say "Oh yeah? Well what about the Russian Revolution?" That didn't involve the military."
This is simply preposterous and based on nothing but communist propaganda. Both the February and October revolutions involved the military establishment at every level. They were critical to the success of both revolutions to the extent that they simply would NOT have happened without the military. Yet this silly idea has come up so often that I feel the need to debunk it.
I will try to give a brief outline of the events and explain how critical to the success of the revolts the military was.

This is important for two major reasons.
1. It's the truth and the truth is always important. This retarded myth that the February and especially the October revolution were spontaneous people's revolts is absurd and based entirely on Marxist propaganda. Only the dumbest of the dumb on Zig Forums don't know this.
Why it persists on Zig Forums is because most Zig Forumsacks are not as interested in studying the works of Lenin and Trotsky and tend to focus more on the effects of the Bolshevik regime than its causes. Its mass extermination of the best and brightest and the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians, Poles, and Germans. Thus many anons passively accept the Bolshevik narrative simply out of lack of a convincing alternative. We must stop doing this.
2. It is very important to look beyond the propaganda of the USSR and other revolutions to discern what makes a revolution succeed and what makes it fail. For are we not revolutionaries ourselves?
If we intend to transcend into the realm of revolutionary politics, it behooves us to let go of the myth of the spontaneous people's revolution and start noticing the mechanism of seizing power.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no revolution in all of recorded history has succeeded without elements of the military establishment switching sides and joining the revolutionaries. The idea that random civilians can overthrow the government (and that is to say the MILITARY defending the government) without soliciting the aid and support from elements within the military is an idea completely absent from recorded history. The sooner we understand this, the better.

Another thing that I must point out is that the role of the jews in all of these events is as all encompassing as bacteria. The jews played such a pivotal role in destroying Russia that they were involved in basically every single event I will mention. However I will be focusing on the military aspect alone for sake of clarity. To get a better grasp of the jewish infection of the Russian Empire, read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's "200 Years Together"

Attached: debunking a bolshevik myth.png (800x533 566.87 KB, 566.87K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volinsky_Regiment#1917_Mutiny
archive.is/USAdZ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The February Revolution.
One thing Bolsheviks intentionally gloss over is the fact that they had nothing to do with the actual overthrow of the Tsar. There were two revolutions. The first led to a center left government. Only afterwards was it safe for Lenin and Trotsky to form communist political parties and try to take over the government. In fact, Lenin was shipped to Russia by Germany and was on the pay role of the German government.
One thing that is well known is that in addition to the poisonous effect of jewish propaganda and destabilizing antics, the Tsar's own poor decisions were also to blame for his overthrow. Chief was his mishandling of the war, his wife's selfish and short sighted favouritism, and their bizarre toleration of jewish subversion and treachery. Russians are nothing if not sentimental. And though many knew of the poisonous effects of the jews, few were willing to contemplate the harsh measures needed to solve the jewish problem. However it is important to note that parasites don't infect a healthy host. The Russian Empire was a deeply flawed institution and the Slavs suffered greatly under the yoke of poor leadership. Though, the Tsar was not the bloody tyrant Bolshevik propaganda makes him out to be.

In 1917, after years of pointless bloodletting and severe food shortages, workers in Petrograd (St Petersburg was renamed during the war) began striking. This was not an unusual event as the situation in Russia was terrible due to the war. However it turned into a riot and after two days of rioting, the Tsar called on the military to suppress the rioters. The first day went largely as expected with the soldiers suppressing the rioters. However, socialists and Bolsheviks had been steadily winning over the hearts and minds of the soldiers. The next day, instead of suppressing the protesters, they joined them.
This stands in stark contrast to the loyalty of the military in crushing similar riots and protests.
Read this and bear in mind that had these regiments chosen to remain loyal to the government, there would have been no provisional government in St. Petersburg. The protesters would simply have fled and returned home to protest another day. But instead, by the days end 60,000 military personnel armed with artillery had possession of a major Russian city.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volinsky_Regiment#1917_Mutiny

The Tsar, ever indecisive did not heed the advice of the Duma to abdicate and instead tried in vain to hang onto power. However everywhere he went, regiments refused to join him. Under pressure from his generals and finding no support from the military, he eventually abdicated power and thus began the Provisional Government of Russia.

This is so critical that it must be reiterated. The Tsar was an absolute monarch. Yet the moment he lost the loyalty of the military, his authority evaporated.

Attached: b52dfb73bd845d93ca12ae9b12be01a4--russian-revolution-the-revolution.jpg (736x521, 72.2K)

The October Revolution
The October revolution was even more interesting.
The Provisional Government was a mess. They were headed by incompetent liberals. They should serve as a cautionary tale against trying to treat bolsheviks like humans. And they suffered dearly for their foolishness.
After welcoming Lenin and other revolutionaries back into Russia and being allowed to form revolutionary political parties, these termites immediately set about undermining and subverting the government. Soon however, the constant rioting got to be too much and it was revealed that Lenin was on the pay-role of Germany. The government attempted to arrest him but he fled and hid under a pile of hay for a few days before escaping to Finland. The hay-pile he hid under was turned into a communist shrine in the USSR. Communism is a religion.
However they did catch the jew Lev Davidovich Bronstein, better known as Leon Trotsky. But like most of the men who would later be executing them, the liberals failed to execute him while they had the chance.
Around the same time, Alexander Kerensky invited a general to restore order in the capital. However he inexplicably changed his mind and accused him of trying to stage a counter revolution. In desperation, he armed the bolsheviks and sent them to repel the commander. This act more than any other sealed the fate of Russia. And it is not because he armed the bolsheviks, though this was a really stupid move. This act destroyed Russia because Aleksandr Krymov, the general he accused of counter-revolution, was popular among the military establishment and by double-crossing him, Kerensky alienated the military from his own government. When the bolsheviks would rise up to stage their own counter-revolution, he would regret this.

The Bolsheviks were not idle in this period and had been winning over military units and organizing them within the revolutionary military committee, which was an organization under the Petrograd Soviet. Indeed, after the Bolsheviks helped stop the "counter revolution" of general Krymov, they made demands upon the government to release prisoners and these demands were granted.
Trotsky immediately began plotting to overthrow the government and through the revolutionary military committee, he solicited the support or ensured the neutrality of many of the high ranking officers and soldiers in and around the capital.

He launched his coup on the 24th of October. During the night, units loyal to the revolutionary military committee relieved guards around important infrastructure, bridges, and the communications center in Petrograd. In the early hours of the morning, a small fleet of destroyers and their marines arrived to support the Bolsheviks. The naval base of Kronstadt declared their support for the Bolsheviks. By midmorning, this bloodless coup d'etat saw the Bolsheviks in effective control of the capital. The Kerensky government immediately called upon the military to suppress the counter-revolution. Ironically, Kerensky called upon general Krymov to save the government. However he refused to come to the aid of a man who wad accused him of treachery only months before. The government fled the capital as more and more units pledged loyalty to the Bolsheviks.

It should be noted that the Red Army's officer corps was composed primarily of the same officers who served under the Tsar. Not by magical workers who spontaneously appeared. And it should also be noted that the Bolsheviks very first legislations expressly benefited the army in a thinly veiled ploy to win their loyalty.

What should we take away from this? First off, I want to kill the stupid meme that the Russian revolution was a spontaneous people's revolt that did not involve the military. There were protests to be sure. However, the February protests turned into a revolution only once military units switched sides and joined with the peasants. And the October revolution was a military coup against a civilian government that had lost the support of the military.
I do not want to discount the critical role that organized peasants played, as the protests certainly gave the military the democratic legitimacy to oust the Tsar.

Attached: petro5a.jpg (461x319, 46.02K)

If possible, I'd like to get a discussion going on political revolutions throughout history and how they are applicable to today's System.
As always, I'll add a disclaimer
DISCLAIMER! Zig Forums is a board of peace. Nothing here can or should be taken as an incitement to violence. Everything here is just a joke dude, honest gov'na ;-)
Seriously jews and agents, you need to chill out and have some calming tea in the case of the FBI and some nice relaxing blood in the case of the JIDF

I intended to post this earlier. However given the recent virtual coup on 8/pol/ and the ousting of imkampfy, I opted to wait until a new equilibrium was reached before retouching a complex subject.

Attached: petro4b.jpg (595x340, 37.14K)

Do your thing OP so I can save the info, but its pretty well known that it was funded by the BoE and Wall street after Trotsky and Lenin gallivanted across the globe to secure political and financial backing.

As I said. This idea has popped up so many times that I decided to make a dissertation debunking that idea.
Often, when I point out that no revolution in all of recorded history has succeeded without elements of the military switching sides, some ignorant user will say "Oh yeah? What about the Russian Revolution?"
It's such a preposterous response. I never want to hear this response again.

Attached: 1434052927981-2.jpg (435x737 200.94 KB, 237.14K)

And I forgot to add that the soviet union kept the lights on only because of massive cash infusions from those (((foreign investors))) previously mentioned.
There is a pretty good video series floating around that was made in the 90s that went into detail explaining all of what I've said.

Attached: Roosevelt - Schiff 3.png (1269x908 3.21 MB, 161K)

Good work, I'll save the thread when I come back later.

Attached: 1434051494523-0.png (1104x726 115.91 KB, 260.2K)

Attached: 1434051612691.jpg (836x502 342.85 KB, 125.02K)

Fine work

Attached: 1434052431440-1.jpg (836x677 568.01 KB, 158.4K)

Attached: Holocaust Justification, with Professor Richard Dawkins.png (1969x1191 262.82 KB, 526.68K)

That's why we need American military on our side. Redpilling the military is top priority.

Its a mess.

Attached: Military Demographics 2018 - (((Council on Foreign Relations))).JPG (2392x5192 128.94 KB, 2.76M)

Wait… What?

Attached: sheiiiit whitey.png (1908x423 4.24 MB, 235.17K)

Did Castro have military elements on his side in the Cuban revolution?

While I am not an expert on the current state of the US military and do not claim to be, I am far less optimistic that the US military is an ineffective fighting and suppression force. Remember, the US military and the US internal security forces are successfully maintaining order in one of the most disgustingly multi-ethnic hell-holes on the planet. The US is awash with weapons, drug cartels, and niggers. Yet for the most part, they have the populace locked down. This despite strong anti-government factions with tens of thousands of members collectively.
And the US military has historically performed very well in trashing conventional armies.

One can argue that the US has not fought an industrial power recently and I'll agree with you. However, I think any objective analysis of the way other countries deal with the US demonstrates that they take the US army very seriously.
The weak do not survive long in geopolitics. The US is basically the only thing propping up ZOG. Therefore, it is logical to presume that the US military is not as shitty as those stats suggest.
I suspect that those numbers are not distributed equally throughout all critical areas.

Fuck off with your slides cunt.

Pound for pound i believe that truly dedicated revolutionaries would be superior in a shootout with the cucked government forces. Most government soldier's are under trained, and un motivated to face a serious revolutionary soldier on equal footing. "Expect for special forces, who's specialty is fighting insurgents on equal footing" The problem is their force multipliers, drones, missiles, helicopters, planes, artillery, tanks, ect. Plus it is likely that the U.S military would outnumber any guerrilla movement by a massive margin.

Short answer; Yes.
Longer explanation;
The first thing you must understand about the Cuban Revolution is that Batista was not as secure in power as textbooks imply he was. In 1956 a general he promoted actually tried to overthrow him. The coup failed but Batista began a purge of the military to prevent further uprisings. Obviously this alienated the military establishment.
The other thing you must understand is that the US embargoed Cuba in 1958. Before then, Castro's rebel "army" was composed of something like 200 men. The embargo had the effect of convincing the already alienated miliary establishment that they had nothing left to lose in getting rid of Batista.
By the time Castro launched his offensive in 1958, many officers actually defected to his side and eventually the military high command ordered the entire army defending the capital to stand down.

In petty dictatorships like Batista's, the power players (generally the military elite) are often looking after their own bottom line alone. And the minute the dictator appears unable to effectively secure their own wealth, they will jettison him in favour of the stronger horse.

Interesting.

They aren't though.
Crime is rampant. Gang activity, rampant. Sexual violence, rampant. Drug abuse and distribution, rampant.
The inner cities are dens of depravity and vice, leaking slowly into the suburbs.

Not really though. They have the White populace 'locked down', sort of, but that's mostly apathy and alienation rather than solid policing.
Like who?
I am not aware of any thousands-strong 'strong anti-government factions' in play, at least, none that are 'anti-government' as a priority. I mean, sure, the cartels are massive, but their concern is AVOIDING conflict with US policing forces, not DEFEATING them.

Yeah, and?
Nobody fights conventionally anymore for exactly that reason.
Now, when you put the US military up against non-conventional means? They suck.
They suck HARD.
See: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
It would be much the same in Appalachia or the Rockies if they generated genuine anger, and it'd be worse than any of the aformentioned cases because they'd be up against mostly White folks.

Because its true?
Keyword: countries.
Sure, COUNTRIES - established civic entities governing over a populace - have every reason to take the US seriously. But the people?
I don't think the Afghanis are liable to be all that impressed after we've spent decades dropping money, blood and fire on their lands, to absolutely no avail whatsoever.

The US is weak.
It has lots of powerful toys, but the demographcis who employed them are rapidly dwindling - and, what is more, as demonstrated by the above graphic, there is not a single branc of the US military espousing more non-White men than non-White women.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Now look at basically-any-military in South/Central America. Corrupted, disheveled, under-funded, under-equiped, poorly-trained, poorly-vetted… A complete mess. Nevermind the African militaries, if you can even call them a gaggle of stoned niggers with AK's a 'military'.
Now think about how the US, with all its high-tech gadgets and such, is going to deal, militarily, with the demographic implosion transpiring in the US, and the US military, today.

It does not a pretty picture paint, my dear user.

No, no, no, you misunderstand the dynamic.
Allow me to be a pedantic cunt for a moment: The US is a civic entity. It governs over several nations, these nations each having conflicting interests and variable abilities.
Do you think the US Black population is meaningfully propping up ZOG? There are more sheboons in the US military than male niggers.
Same for the spics, and even the Asians.
None of them are propping up ZOG, not meaningfully - they are parasites feeding off the same host.
The White population is the host.
Without the US White population, the US flounders and dies, and Israel, and by extension the ZOG - barring realignment to Chinese-Russian alliance - dies with it.

The host is dying and the Jews cannot halt their own internal struggles to meaningfully coalesce an answer, because there is no answer.
The US is dying because of the very values and ideals that the Jews injected into it with amazing aggression.

Attached: US Military Demographics - Useless Twats.JPG (1251x607, 54.38K)

Hardly.
Those stats suggest the US military is almost-entirely carried by White men and, to a lesser extent, White women.
It is quite-literally the case that Black women compose a greater proportion of the US fighting force, across all 4 branches of military, than Black men.
Same is true for Hispanics and Asians.
The only racial group with more men than women in the US military in 2018 is the White population.

Doubtful indeed, otherwise we'd be seeing much much more disorder and chaos than we are seeing… I would think at least… But then again, how much do we in American ACTUALLY KNOW about military operations?
Its not like the US government, nor the US media (barring instances wherein they can use it to serve their narratives), are going to tell us about Jamalaquanda performing some basic-bitch fuckup that costs the US taxpayers 11 mil, right?
And unless foreign media reports on it, AND that report finds its way to the attention of foreign readers such as to reach the eyes and ears of Americans, and be believed, well… We aren't going to hear about it.

I wager the US military is the worst it has ever been, even if its military hardware is the most advanced it has ever been.
Talk up the gear all you like, an AK-47 is only useful in the hands of a man that can shoot it without turning it sideway, and a drone is only as effective as the guys piloting and maintaining it.

Former USMC infantry here. We had only one black guy in our whole infantry battalion. hey all go into supply or become cooks. Infantry is like 90% white.

Yes they are. By all logic, the US should be in a state of civil war right now.

Yeah. That's what happens when you make White Genocide your chief national priority.

There are hundreds of anti-government militia groups in the US.

Actually no. The US effectively suppressed Iraq for a decade. It was only after the US military left on its own that the country returned to chaos. And once again, the US should be in a state of civil war right now or at the very least, constant terrorist attacks.

Maybe not. However I have yet to see them drive the US military out of their country.

I never said that. What I am saying is that so long as White men keep the US military in fighting shape, it is a force to be reckoned with. As evidenced by the fact that Afghanistan has so far failed to drive the US military out even though almost all Afghans hate the occupation forces.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.
Granted, infantry is like less than 20% of the US military.

And I will agree with you.
However the facts remain that even a weak military is capable of putting down a rebellion if the whole military establishment stays loyal to the System.
By nature, any rebellion we could launch would be fantastically weaker than what the internal security forces could field against us.

So I do not see any way we could overthrow them without compelling defections from within the White military. Particularly from the airforce.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your thesis - it seems pretty sound.
That said…

By whose logic? Someone with no conception of the modern American reality?
That's an easy route to get into the weeds, in any case, and the point remains: The reason the US is not in a state of civil unrest at this point has less to do with the policing/military operations and more to do with psy-ops which were seeded decades ago.

Yeah. So, I'm right. Which means the inner cities and even suburbs are shitholes of crime and violence.
Which means the policing factions aren't doing an effective job, as you imply.

And?
None of them are individually and ''meaningfully' 'strong', they aren't capable of forming coalitions because they're distrustful (not to mention alienated) and hold different positions, and few-if-any are taking any significant action against the US policing/military forces/activities in the US today.

Actually, yes.

They don't need to - its a slow bleed.
How much does it cost the US, in treasure and blood, etc, to keep troops on the ground there?
And let's be honest - how much of the region does the US ''actually' control?
Huddling in a few highly-secured bases, with rare journeys outside the controlled zones without incident, isn't much as goes military operation, meanwhile, the enemy they're opposing keeps right on doing what he's always been doing, at far far less expense on all fronts. And that's not even getting into Vietnam.
Look, all I'm saying is, the US military seems REALLY SHITTY at winning wars against non-conventional forces, and any 'victory' on their behalf in such context seems to merely be temporary suppression followed by retreat.

I know you didn't, that's why I was asking you.
Which is physically impossible due to the demographic implosion transpiring on US soil.

Again, because its true.

Very true indeed sir, and I never questioned as much.
That said, I mean, come on now sir… We all know the score here.

The moment there is civil unrest in the US at the scale of 'rebellion', the US loses, handily.
Why?
Because White people don't want to kill White people, especially the military sort of White people.

Its exactly because of the dynamic in the case of the US, wherein any eruption of such conflict would, without question, result in MASSIVE levels of direct and indirect military revolt, that I don't think my commentary conflicts with your stated thesis.

The US military is shit, yes.
If a 'rebel group' tried to take them on via conventional mena,s they'd be wrecked, yes.
No such group would do that however, and the means via which they would act has, historically, been extremely effective in terms of long-term strategy against the US conventional forces.
Any conventional force action against US Whites would generate great discontent in the majority-White US military forces.
As a direct consequence of such action, and exacerbated by continuation of such action, military forces would shift allegiance, or rather, genuinely espouse their dutiful allegiance.

Mmmmmm, I disagree.

That's the key.
Again: Any initiation of such action on 'our' behalf directly translates to discontent in the military, and continued exacerbation of such leads to defections, direct and indirect (ie sabotage), on a massive scale, at an imperative level.
Again again: The US military is propped up by the US White population. If they turn in any significant number - and they would - then its game over.
Chair force is only as good as their hardware, and their hardware is only as good as their supply line.
In a country like the US, under such conditions, wew lad… You think the mudfolk IED shit in Afghanistan is bad? Imagine trying to police the Rockies or Appalachia, against White men, many of them former military.

REALLY FLICKS THE ALMOND

Attached: New-York-Times-article-predicts-Bolshevik-Revolution-1.jpg (1704x433 122.67 KB, 192.41K)

Bump for a thoughtful and thorough post


Communism being a religion is a good point.
It's part of why the "faithful" communists in the West are so deranged and blind to the idiocy of their chosen system. They are fanatics.
The ruthlessness of the jew bolsheviks is also a very good point. While I certainly hope for some sort of reasonably peaceful (but uncompromising) separation, if this shit show comes down to war then our hearts must be iron.
Never forget the 100 million murdered by the soviets.
Never forget the 15 million Germans murdered AFTER WW2 by the "allies."
Never forget that they WILL do the same to us if they get the chance. In fact, it is their plan to do so sooner or later.

Also, "the protests certainly gave the military the democratic legitimacy to oust the Tsar." This is something that the anons who say "protests aren't important" need to keep in mind.


This.
This is the "game over" time limit.
More browns or blacks, while awful, does not actually LOWER the number of Whites (for now, anyway). However, more non-Whites in the military means more soldiers who will 100% be opposed to White nationalism (perhaps lower quality soldiers, but soldiers nonetheless).
Right now most of the front line soldiers are White (according to what I've read), but the government is trying to change that as quickly as they can.
Not good.

I think it's also worth mentioning the John Adams quote about the revolution occurring in the hearts and minds of the American people before a single shot was fired.
Keep redpilling Whites.
The truth in on our side.
The ongoing genocide of White people must be stopped.


Gas yourself.


There are about 200 million White people in the US. Half are male, so 100 million. Maybe 50% are the right age and healthy enough to fight (with some physical training). So 50 million. If only 10% of us take up rifles that's 5 million. The US military is about 1.25 million active and maybe 800,000 reserves (all branches). The total army, marine, and army reserves is about 1.2 million. A White rebellion would have numbers, but would lack hardware and training. The REAL question is what percentage of the military would either join with White America or stay "neutral," especially among the 1/5 or so that are front line fighting men who are the real "teeth" of the infantry and armor.
I have no idea, but the ongoing genocide of White people will not stop unless and until we FORCE it to stop.


Good points.


Then all of those White men had damn well better start thinking HARD about where this country is going, and whether or not they are OK with their country being occupied by kike demons and transformed into a brown favela shithole.

Thanks for the thread OP. I'm personally taking you at your word here it's too much for me to read on a topic I don't care that much about. But it's got my noggin' joggin'. So enjoy the bumpo.

Oh shit I forgot my image.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1110x763, 460.78K)

...

Here you go anons.
THIS IS A MUST READ!
On page 282, he talks about how jewish militias would go to factories and try to get the normal russian workers to strike, but the workers would FIGHT THE BOLSHEVIKS.

The first pic in this post is severely underrated.
In 1866, the EVIL ANTI-SEMITE Alexander II, Tsar and Dictator of Russia (which at this time controlled much of eastern europe including the Ukraine.
Had an evil dastardly plan for the jews!!! He offered them the best farm land in the region, anywhere between 15-40+ acres per family, gave them interest free loans, tools, homes, training, etc. All he wanted in return is for them to stop selling alcohol on credit………

Here are some contemporary historical depictions of the Tsar after he attempted this EVIL PLAN OF GIVING JEWS FARM LAND!

Attached: Stop_Your_Cruel_Oppression.jpg (400x739 97.45 KB, 121.29K)

The Holodomor and other mass starvation's are approved of in the Talmud.

Part 3 for the Bolshevik rev

Was this before or after the Jews gifted upon him the absence of financial loans, the likes of which Schiff secured for the Bolsheviks and the Japanese before them?

Attached: 1434051208323-2.png (607x134, 13.12K)

Here is another bit that Two Hundred Years Together talks about. It talks about the origin of the Protocols!
Pages 513-514.

Basically the Protocols were made up by a Russian Official… Sorry guys, but the Protocols didn't come from jews. BUT, it gets better! The EVIL EVIL ANTI-SEMITIC Tsar Nicholas II let his Prime Minister, PA Stolypin, conduct and investigation of its origins, which showed it to be a forgery and fabrication.

Do you know what the EVIL EVIL ANTI-SEMITIC Tsar did?!?! He ordered them to be removed from circulation and told the courts not to use them in any trials……..

Attached: c00eca2a65.png (454x425, 36.1K)

Before, also the Jews that got the farm land reneged on their loans with the farms. Then they assassinated the Tsar by blowing him up in front of his son….

So what did Nicholas II do when a jew (Beilis) was put on trial for Blood Libel!? He let the courts work independently, they found him not guilty, and he lived a long life, moving to Palestine then the US, where he passed away at 60 of natural causes. Around the same time in the US, there was a trial of "Leo Frank" under the same circumstances, he was lynched.

But Russia is oppressing the Jews!!
And the Tsar is an EVIL EVIL ANTI-SEMITE!!!

Attached: DeathOfAlex2.jpg (569x393, 43.84K)

Kill yourself.

The peasants were not stirred by the bolsheviks. There were several smaller revolutions before the february one.

Fuck off faggot, what have you contributed to the thread? I post the FULL PDF WITH SOURCES and you just poke your limp castrated crotch in here with shitty green text?

You're a worm.

Even if you read the Protocols at face, it doesn't read like Jews wrote it. The context of the writing is off for a "Leaked Minutes of Secret meetings".

Do you even know what 'minutes' are in this context? Do you have any familiarity with the anatomy of historical literature? The Protocols aren't real. This doesn't mean the Jews aren't trying to take over the world in some other way. But we don't need to mention the Protocols to point this out.

Here, let me help you out.
last response, I promise, sage for off topic
Here is a PDF of a book called; "The King's Torah". It is an actual Jewish book explaining how Jews are better than non-jews, and advocates the manipulation / enslavement / murder of non-jews. Some other jews have condemned the rabbi that authored the book, but it shows a jewish conspiracy against non-jews.

Still reading but going to bump a quality OP.
Keep up the good work user. Your time is more than appreciated and threads like these are the most important.

How much were the British involved with this?

The US government is literally conducting genocide against its founding population. At the same time you have a media industry that pumps out nothing but hate and bigotry for political enemies. I have talked with dozens of liberals who have absolutely no compassion or empathy for their rivals as fellow human beings. Nevermind the non-Whites who want nothing but the advancement of their own racial interests.
You have Mestizos and blacks competing for living space in a country pumped with hatred by the media all while conducting a genocide against the majority racial group. It's a recipe for disaster. Don't you see it?

They're worse than you would expect in an all White nation. Of course.
However they're far better than one should expect if the US internal security forces were ineffective or irrelevant.
Put it this way, Baltimore, Detroit, and New York should be more like Sarajevo. Instead you or I could walk through those cities as White people and not be attacked.
If you think the US is disorderly now, you have no idea how disorderly a country can get.

You do realize that we are no better. If all Zig Forumsacks were to form local organizations and continued acting as we do online, we'd accuse everyone other than our own groups of being shills.
Like the French resistance, we'd spend more energy fighting each other than the System.

Indeed. And this proves my point. If the US security forces were weak, they'd be more courageous. The US government is one of the most hated institutions on earth. If they were not weak, there would be daily terror attacks, gangs would control territory outright and be charging us taxes to pass through, and the hundreds of anti-government goups would have FAR greater influence than they do now.

I wish you were right. If you were, I'd be out there right now fighting for territory.

I certainly hope you are correct.
Such a thing would lead to mass desertions of White security forces to the rebels. Essentially, William Pierce's battle of Los Angeles would have many of the cops deserting to the rebels as well as elements of the military.

I agree with your thesis. Your idea that the US military, in fighting a guerrilla pro-White movement, would be ordered to take repressive measures against White people is accurate. And if they were ordered to do so, many would have second thoughts.
Not on the first day to be sure, but afterwards in the barracks they might start talking to their White comrades.
I misunderstood your earlier comments as implying that guerrilla rebels could defeat ZOG on their own.


Never forget the White men, women, and children being tortured, raped, and murdered in South Africa.

In my analysis of civil wars and revolutions, all it takes is 20% of the garrison (police forces, national guard, whatever is being used to suppress dissenters) in ONE area to trigger a civil war.

Take control of nation, massacre competition. Rule over poverty.

Depends on what you mean by 'disaster'.

Hahaha, no. They're worse than you would expect, period. They're shit.
Not in the least.

They ARE like Sarajevo in many regards. Literally the only thing missing is the widespread civil unrest-tier violence, and we're very nearly there on that front as well.
Hahahaha, no. Dude, I'm sorry, but you haven't been to Baltimore, Detroit or New York in awhile if you actually believe that shit.
Hahahaha, no, I'm fully aware m8.
The point is not that it 'could be worse', the point is that, in its current state it represents blatant evidence that US military/policing forces are NOT EFFECTIVE in terms of curbing the rampant violence, criminality and vice.
The inner cities are hellscapes, and, while they could become WARZONE hellscapes, that doesn't change the fact that AT PRESENT they are hellscapes, and a hellscape does not serve as evidence of a functional policing faction. Hell, its just like in those other countries we talked about - temporary surpression, at best, and not even really that.

I never suggested otherwise.
Yep. That's why big-tent shit is a waste of time - its exactly because they don't share the same positions that they'll never truly be allies. Until they DO share such positions, until WE do, there will be no large-scale action of meaning.
No, it disproves your point.
That implies its 'fear' that inhibits them, and its not, we've been over this already - its apathy. These groups make all sorts of claims, but at the end of the day, they aren't taking action, and its not because they're afraid, its because they're comfortable, self-absorbed, and largely apathetic in terms of action (if not speech).
And the US is one of the most comfortable nations on Earth.
You keep repeating yourself in terms of this shit, but it boils down to you saying over and over again "The US would be a warzone if not for the security forces!" and my response is "The US is already a low-intensity warzone and the only reason its not worse is more because of psy-ops than security ops".

I am.
No you wouldn't. You're just as apathetic and self-absorbed as everyone else.

They could.
Keyword: suppress.
Which means constant conflict. Against mud people.
Now, picture that same thing, except its against healthy US White people, many with former military experience.
And any action against those White people generates more White support.
And now remember that Afghanistan has a population of only 35 million, which is about 17.5% of the US WHITE population.

If the US military could only manage surpression, AFTER A FUCKING DECADE, against a population that the US population thinks are a bunch of violent sandniggers, how in Gods' names do you think they're going to handle a much-larger White population, whom the US population view as their own (because they are)? My guess, not very well. They might 'surpress' it here and there, for awhile, but I think your point actually backfires, because killing mudpeople who you think hate you 6,000 miles away is a much easier prospect to sell to your population than killing upstanding White people in your own backyard.
Also worth noting in this context:

Exactly. That's my point. Stop that.

And my point is that any effort to overthrow the US government on behalf of White Americans actively neutralizes the US military in this context. I've already laid out how.

I don't think, I know.
I don't think they could 'get away with' doing it, I think the moment that actually starts happening in any appreciable amount, the US government is doomed as far as winning that conflict goes.

Agreed.

See above.

That kinda falls apart, because it wouldn't take decades for the US to not longer be able to maintain that conflict.
In fact, it wouldn't even take a decade, IMHO.
Again: Picture the aformentioned Iraqi conflict, but its happening in your backyard, and the people killing each other are all US citizens, most of the people in teh hills being White men, many former soldiers.
I mean, Christ, how much are you going to clamp down on the populace to be able to combat that?
How are they going to respond when their internet starts getting censored because combatants are uploading video thats 'bad optics' for the regime?
How are they going to respond to the fake news spewing stories about their families and friends being 'terrorists'?
How are they going to respond to curfews? Random searches? Etc etc etc.
All that shit you could and did impose upon the Iraqis to maintain that supression? The American people aren't going to like that anymore, in fact, quite a bit less, than the Iraqis, and the Americans are the people you rely upon to keep your war machine running - and how long before many many many of them turn against you, directly or indirectly, and make this conflict all the more unfeasible?
After all, they were apathetic narcissistic comfort-worshippers… And now you're degrading their comfort. You're killing their friends and family. You're invading their lives on every front because you HAVE TO in order to simply surpress temporarily the forces you're up against.
They aren't going to like it. Not one bit. And, as the government forces, discontent in their population directly equates to increased aid for your opposition.

He had like less than a 100 people on board, and he didn't actually do what I 'suggest' at all - he was robbing porn shops and banks and shit, not doing ANYTHING against the US security forces or even meaningfully trying to.
Again, robbing banks dude. FFS, they wound up getting fucked because the idiots were sending recruits to try and use their counterfeit bills, and the fucks kept getting caught, and one of them is who ended up betraying the whole deal.
You're conflating guerilla warfare with base criminal activity, and not even very intelligent or well-planned activity at that.
They weren't fighting the state military, they were engaging in comparatively low-level criminal activity to raise money, and doing it in a way that was EXTREMELY likely to draw attention.

I am.
I know!
I can't see any way in which such would not transpire.

Yes.
Double yes.
And again, it wouldn't JUST be the soldiers - the populace would start to turn. They'd be less helpful to the military, they'd be more prone to aiding the rebels, they'd be less opposed to sabotage and simple acts of revolt, etc.

That's the thing about policing your own populace - its one thing to act oppressively upon a people 6,000 miles away, whom your populace (which you rely upon from so many angles, not the least of which being supply) hates, but its another to try the same thing on the people whom your military forces rely upon to succeed, both as soldiers and as citizenry.

I do not believe they could, no… However, I DO believe they could probably hold out for an extended period, as has been seen in other parts of the world.

ZOG simply is not very good at wiping out a guerilla/non-conventional forces - they can surpress them, for a time, usually at great expense and gradually-diminishing support from the US populace, but eventually they will have to leave, and they usually don't have a meaningful 'victory' before doing so.

Okay. While I would love it if I lived in the world you describe, there are some serious discrepancies between what you describe and the real world.
In your analysis there are gross exaggerations, contradictions, and unreasonable expectations.

First off, you say that US cities are already like Sarajevo. You say that I have not been to New York or else I would know that you cannot walk around without being attacked by niggers or spics.
And it's true that I have not been in New York recently. The last time I was there was two years ago. Maybe things have changed.
Last time I was there, there were police and soldiers everywhere. They were well armed and seemed alert. However I do have family that live in that hellhole. And they have never mentioned the barricades and no-go zones like one would expect if the city is like Sarajevo. In Sarajevo, Serb, Croat, and Bosniak militias roamed the streets and enforced tribal law in their respective cities.
No such thing is occurring in New York, or even in Baltimore & Detroit. Just niggers being niggers.
It is true that White people are targeted by niggers. However the level of ethnic violence against us is not anywhere near the levels you would expect if the US security forces were in a state of collapse.

Which brings me to our next point.
You claim that the US security forces are incompetent, ineffective, and militarily weak.
And as evidence, you present the fact that violent mud-people act like violent mud-people.
However you are omitting a few important observations.
The internal security forces foil an average of one terrorist plot every two months. I suspect that the real number is higher than the stats they release to the public. I suspect it is two or three.
These numbers do not sound like an ineffective security force.
Due to these efforts, the US suffers an average of one significant successful terrorist attack every year.
Given the number of muslims in the USA, the fact that the alleged "ineffective, incompetent, and irrelevant" security forces have managed to keep order is astounding,

If the US security forces were as piss poor as you say they are, we should be attacked every single week.

Secondly, you point out that the civil unrest present in Sarajevo is absent from the USA.
And obviously this is correct. However, if the US security forces are as weak as you say they are, this is inexplicable.
Gangs and cartels are not magically more civil in America. If they can get away with something, they will press for more. And they do.
In a country with an actually shit military (and we're talking about multicultural ones, not racially homogeneous countries with weak militaries) you have ethnic and criminal gangs controlling streets, villages, and even entire regions.
Iraq had a shit military. And because of this, ISIS effortlessly drove them out of the Sunni Arab zones. Meanwhile, Kurdistan operated as a separate country with its own, much more effective military.
Thailand, Burma, and Cambodia are countries with slightly above shit tire militaries. And even with all their modern weaponry and in the case of Thailand, strong military tradition, there are regions where there is no law and the government has no authority. Particularly in Burma but also in Thailand.
If the US security forces are really so shit tire, why has no one noticed?
Oh sure. You can say "It's apathy." but that doesn't reflect reality. There are millions of highly motivated, ambitious people in America. Why is it so easy to travel in America if the US security forces couldn't prevent an armed gang from charging tolls to pass through their territory?
Why have ambitious governors failed to take advantage of the collapsing US military to take on dictatorial authority? This always happens when a country's security forces fail.
You know, Greece has a security force comparable to Thailand's. A little better in my opinion.
And because of the general shittyness of the police forces, civilians turn to Golden Dawn to provide the services that the police do.
Yet this is not the case in America.

And finally, you say that Bob Matthews failed because he robbed banks instead of attacking police stations, military bases, and air ports. Did it never occur to you that the reason why terrorists don't attack police barracks is because they're not the shitty, weakling, third world tire security forces you think they are?
If the security forces are really so weak, terrorists shouldn't fear them. Gangs shouldn't heed them. And militia organizations should be partnering with ambitious politicians to seize the countryside.
These are the symptoms of a weakling military and they are simply not present here.

Maybe Muslims in the US really are peaceful. Maybe gangs here are content to sell drugs. And maybe politicians don't want that much power.
Maybe. Or maybe the security forces aren't as shit as you think they are.

You know, I want you to be correct. You accuse me of apathy. Which is pretty funny because I have said over and over again that I don't believe that I could survive long if I opted to start bombing police stations.
And I think you also know this, despite what you say. Or maybe you're knowingly apathetic and self absorbed.

If the US security forces were really so weak, then the USA is a vacuum right now. And nature hates vacuums. They do not last.

They send white guys like you to the front lines while the POCs get to be POGs. Hmmm

Great Thread OP. You said at the beginning of the thread you have made made others on the general topics of revolution. Could you link to an archived thread and or give some books for further reading on the subject?

We leafs had one of those once.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-05-25-at-2.46.54-PM-e1527278629836-600x283.png (600x283, 124.76K)

TL;DR: it was a kike revolution

Sure thing.
archive.is/USAdZ

Also, one thing I should point out (after you read my Thailand story) that I failed to mention in the thread I linked is that Yingluck Shinawatra had the support of the majority of people. Without a doubt.
In my time in Thailand I talked with many people openly before the coup and Shinawatra easily had the support of most people outside the capital.
Yet for all her assets, her public support, her rich brother, her own wealth and connections (she was pretty corrupt, so they say) her power ended without military support.

If she had been really clever, she would have tried to infiltrate the military with her cronies. Sort of like Tayyip Erdogan has done. I'm not saying that would be guaranteed to work But it would have been smarter than getting overthrown.

pic related

They draw idealist kind white blue eyed German stock into the army on purpose: because they are competent AND pose a threat to the (((NWO))).

Attached: 66923834bc572aae9e3dca78c9af307606e31b903afb6ea72229fba7b36c8a27.png (650x900, 169.71K)

Just to add to OP, I can remember circa 2000 another bloodless revolution happened in Eastern Europe somewhere, only after the soldiers defending the presidential palace against non-rioting "rioters" just gave up and stopped guarding it.

For better or for worse Euromaidan happened and now Ukraine has a crypto-Fascist government with a right wing paramilitary. Ukraine is a hellhole but at least they follow the 14 words to the fucking letter.

I once saw an image titled "How Jewish was the USSR?" which showed what fraction of each level of leadership was heeb.

I can't find it anymore, but I would hope some kind user would post it again

Found it.

Attached: 1471983785359.png (480x441, 70.63K)

Yea its been updated to be merged with this quote, they go good together. Dont forget these other two, also.

Attached: jews run the world.png (650x994 1005.04 KB, 600.04K)

Oh, and this one too.

Attached: jewish-ritual-sacrifice.png (1664x5472, 731.26K)

inb4 tankies come praising Stalin for "ridding USSR of the Jews". What does it matter that a communist state no longer has any actual Jews under its helm? It's a system that fundamentally can't function even with a purely European leadership.

Well it were the (((Americans))) and their (((British))) friends.

The Tzar was a hindrance for the US entry into the war. It was difficult to explain to the American people why exactly they should shed their blood for the benefit of a European despoty, that of the Tzar.

Another reason was that (((American banker))) like Schiff wanted to get rid of the Tzar. He spend some 20 million dollars (according to his son) in undermining the Russian monarchy.


Lenin was as much „at the pay“ of Germany as the Finish Jaeger or the IRA. In contrast to the „Czech legion“ in Russia which was wholesome and legitimate liberation movement.


The reason for the overthrow of the Tzar were his allies.
Britain and the USA wanted to get rid of the Tzar and they informed their partners in Russia that continued support depended on the removal of the Tzar. Remember, the Tzar found no asylum in England because the British government retreated the over of the king for reasons of interior politics.

Russian military was just incompetent, brutal and ruthless.

Initially Russia invaded Germany at the first day of the war, made great gains in Habsburgian Europe due to the treason, espionage of the homosexual Oberst Redel before the war.

After the German pushback, the Russian military was practically destroyed, German troops were very close to the Russian capital St. Petersburg, which was not taken because it would take too much man power to guard it.
Russia had enormous looses in men and territory, couldn’t equip and feed its men on the front, famines were ravaging the country.


The Russian people had no wish to bleed further for Tzarist extravaganza, megalomania and imperialism.

Time to make peace!

The Allies didn’t wanted that. They wanted Russia to bind German armies, who would came after them if there was no longer a danger in the east.

Here comes Kerensky.

There's a line in that book that I can only imagine was put in by some cuck translator where he denies that Jews had anything to do with communism and anyone who thinks so is some dirty conspiracy theorist because a guy who literally worked under entire institutions literally conspiring to kill dissidents would say something like that.

Kerensky, the Provisional Government wanted to continue the war against Germany, following the interest of their wester allies.


Lenin was as much at the pay of Germany as Kerensky was at the pay of Britain.

The Russian people wanted peace and Lenin promised it them.

Kerensky wanted and did continue the war.
Kerensky ordered a final offensive against Germany, which was utterly crushed by the German army.


Trotsky was an (((US))) agent send from New York under US/British protection to Russia to topple the Tsar.
Trotsky wanted to continue the war against Germany and opposed the peace with Germany. Lenin prevailed, but the British made several attempts to his life, so the war party could continue the war against Germany.

After his fallout with Stalin, the mass-murderer Trotsky retreated to the safety of the USA and finally Mexico.

The reason why the Bolsheviks could take power is Kerensky’s and the Provisional Government continuation of the war, absolute refusal, in the interest of the western allies, to make peace.
Kerensky went to exile in the USA.

Oh look it's in jew runes, great. Until this thing gets a translation, I trust the protocols more.

Fix your pic, whoever made it has fallen for one of the most insidious psyops going on right now.

OP, your thread is very insightful. As is your one about Venezuela. You clearly know a lot about "asymmetric politics" as you put it.
What's your opinion about a coup in America?
Is it likely? Unlikely?
And if it happened, what do you think we as individuals should do?

If it weren't for the anti-military shills, I think this knowledge would be more prevalent. I have known it for a long time and done what I could to make it known. Have a bump for a worthy info thread, OP.

Not him, but wanted to give $0.02. The 'deep state' has to be the focus. Stability is what people crave and a coup is not the way to do that.
Leftists have already been radicalized while the right wing is still catching up.

I suppose most anons who are well versed in history have studied the Russian revolutions and unrest in great depth. The real lesson is to seize the capital, as in capital city/cities.

This. It was the anglo-american establishment that carroll quigley warned us about.

How on Earth do you stop them? They are so subtle and skilled. If someones are superior by their intelligence compared to lower intelligence ones, the lower one will NEVER, I mean literally NEVER have any clue of that he ever was deceived.

I'm not even blaming particularly ANY GROUP, not even "(((them)))", how do we even know all the layers and stratas there possibly could be?

I have lost all trust to any leader. They all are among the deceive, even AH was. They are tricksters and doers, people have blind belief for good authorities. This is so sad, the state of human civilization. We are just cattle.

That's a separate matter to the fact that it was secured through a military coup, not a "people's revolution".

How come I only have like 360 pages of 200 Years Together?

Exacly.

People with low-IQ who think they are high-IQ would immediately think it's real. If I were a perpetrator of such book I would never ever ever mention my ethnic or any other thing that could reveal myself to recognising in a fucking book. Yeah but like you said that doesn't mean that there could have been and there are some major takeovers going on right now.

Low-IQ people just couldn't figure out they are fooled. It's like playing with a dog, the dog can't outsmart you no matter it does. It's not possible!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bolshevik’s took over after Russians removed the Whites in power.

...

Faggot known as OP, do you want us to visit you and your boyfriend on /leftypol or something? If not, get this Commie faggotry out of here.

Thankyou.
Wew. That's a heck of a question, user.
I can't really answer the question
because there are a thousand different circumstances and caveats that are critically important in such a hypothetical situation.
Who could predict the motivations of coup plotters?
Odd are they'd be neo-cons though.

As for your first question, it is very unlikely at this moment. There's just nothing for them to gain by risking a coup. And the economy is too good, the public too comfortable to accept a coup.
Such a disruption would destroy the country and if there is one thing neo-cons in the military establishment hate, it is instability.


In the past, yes. However the reason why capitals were important were twofold.
1. They represented the population in question.
In Russia, Petrograd was 99% Russian. IN Bangkok, the city is mostly Thai. So if one seizes the capital, which is also the most important economic center, you have a great deal of real and implied power.
Not so with Washington DC. It's mostly non-White and it's not much of an economic center.

2. Capitals tended to be the centers of communications and transportation systems. In other words, propaganda and trade.
Today, the propaganda institutions are more dispersed. Though, I'd recommend an immediate neutralization of NYC by any means necessary in the event of a civil war. Either by capture or… otherwise.
And as for transportation systems, the US is so built up and decentralized that control of any one trade hub is relatively less important. However, I would recommend the immediate capture Memphis, Chicago, and Eastern Texas ASAP as these areas will be vital for the war effort.

Good shit OP.

Tsar was their friend. Not the communists, saying communists and WallStreet cooperated is too streched.

The Bolsheviks crushed actual peasant uprisings.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

You do.

Yep, contextually.
Yep.
They must have.
And yet, crime, everywhere. Violence, everywhere. Etc etc.
Its not so blatant, but its there - the barricades are invisible, but the tribal enforcement remains; the no-go zones are delineated, but if you're White, you better fucking believe they're there.
Which generates the aforementioned.

Talk about gross exaggerations… They're shit, that doesn't mean they're in a state of collapse.
That said, what sort of violence would you expect? You're basically you're saying it would be worse, but if it were any worse, we'd be in a state of civil unrest, and we've been over that.

Context. You're ignoring it again.
And the security forces, huge and well-funded, are completely incapable of keeping them meaingfully in line.

According to whom? That sounds like a state-issued statistic, or else derived from some 'anti-terror' think tank.
I suspect its lower, that is to say, I suspect terrorist plots - an EXTREMELY vague notion - are common, however, I suspect a lot of it simply isn't reported upon by the media, and thus the populace remains largely ignorant.

Because they're issued by the security force, and you buy into them.

Again, they do. They also charge tolls to operate a business in many places. Its just not as visible as your obviously-naive ass thinks it is.
You're also, again, falling into this accusation of stating I think the US military is about to collapse - which I don't think I've said. What I have said, is that its functionally shit, cannot effectively combat asymmetric tactics and unconventional means - all it can do is achieve a state of temporary surpression, which itself represents constant threat of violence and ever-souring mood of the populace, increasing in direct proportion to your activity.
When the security forces fully fail, you mean. And when that happens, you're beyond a point of civil unrest, you're at national collapse.
And you can be DAMN SURE several of them would attempt it in such scenario, especially with someone like Trump - or 'worse' - in office.

There's several groups like that in the US as well, albeit, few if any of them quite like Golden Dawn.

Yes.