I had really been utterly amazed when I read the message the Russian government has allowed its citizens to carry firearms for 'self-defense'.
This comes from an in Moscow on Tuesday published government's decision.
So far were Russians, who have a gun license allowed to carry their weapons only while hunting, at sporting events or at shooting exercises.
A great act of faith of the Russian government in the citizens.
Parsifal, November 19, 2014 image top: Why carry a gun ? Because a policeman is too heavy.
But, but I thought that this Putin is a very evil dictator and oppressed his people.
This tells us all the time the West-Media and West-Politicians.
How to fit a complete liberalization of the firearms legislation with this picture together, Russia would be an authoritarian dictatorship ?
A total contradiction because an anti-democratic or totalitarian regime would never permit citizens to carry weapons, but rather disarm all of them.
So like right after the national socialists seized power in 1933, as first the Jews and then the other 'enemies of the people' were disarmed or under the flimsy reason 'weapons search' raids and house searches took place.
In general, was prohibited all groups of which the NaZi regime regarded as the opposition the possession of firearms, including stabbing weapons and batons.
This setting that the German government trusts its citizens not, is valid until today because in the international context is the German weapons law one of the strictest.
But in all the so-called Western democracies, citizens are systematically disarmed.
After the Brits were disarmed should now be on the British island even the kitchen knives be banned, well, if the British citizenry like this development ?
Now wants the government on the British island even the kitchen knives be banned, well, if the British citizenry like this development ?
The monopoly of force should have only the state and the citizen is supposed to be defenseless, against the illegitimate state and the criminals.
What an illogicality.
Criminals have weapons and always have access to weapons, but innocent people should not have.
Therefore, a tightening of the firearms act and further patronizing of legal gun owners is nonsense.
It just shows the true intent of the authority, to have a defenseless people with which they can do what they want.
Peaceful citizens are allowed to be shot defenseless.
The few accidents and all leap years a school shooting is as an excuse for the disarmament of the whole population.
It's not the weapon's fault, but the person's.
Then but go forbid cars.
According to the WHO more than 1.2 million people around the world are killed by car accidents.
If you compare the dangerousness of weapons and automobiles, one comes to the factor of 2000.
What does this say about the oh-so-democratic Federal Republic of Germany ?
A completely disarmed and thus defenseless people.
The Germans were so utterly brainwashed, they even find this defenselessness still desirable, just as the violation of privacy by the snooping-state would not bother at all. Up to the Peasant's Wars it was figure of speech in Germany:
Only an armed man is a free man.
That was 500 years ago !
Today, Germany has the strictest (and most inconsistent) gun laws in the world.
It must even fundamental rights be surrendered; constant menace of house-search is possible. The question then arises, will give us the West-Media a totally false image of Russia ?
We are constantly being lied to ?
It is not exactly the opposite Russia is a democracy, and Germany a dictatorship ?
In many ways, Russia is actually a democracy, because there is the President directly elected by the people.
Putin has much more democratic legitimacy than any other state leader in Europe.
And this for the third time.
In Germany, neither the chancellor nor the president are directly electable.
There was no ballot where it was asked do you want Merkel as chancellor or Gauck as President ?
To power these types only come by party-arrangements, shuffle, machinations and hanky-panky.
Also, the prime ministers of the federal states are not eligible. How is this supposed to be a democracy ?
Not to speak of the EU as the Command, because there no one can elect the leadership, neither members of the EU Commission, the president of the european council, the president of the european commission.
Who has Herman Van Rompuy elected ?
Who has Jean-Claude Juncker elected ?
These figures were plonked the citizens of the EU just in front.
These not elected and not legitimate figureheads in Europe but have the audacity to constantly pointing the finger towards Russia and have the impudence to refer President Putin as 'Hitler'.
Such as the kingpin of the German criminal politicians, Wolfgang Schäuble, in April 2014 compared Putin with Adolf Hitler and the entry into the Sudetenland by the Wehrmacht in 1938, with the result of the referendum on the Crimea.
For Schäuble, Merkel and all the other anti-democrats is the expression of the unique and overwhelming will of the inhabitants of the Crimea, to separate from the fascist coup regime in Kiev and become again a part of the Russian Federation an 'illegal' annexation by Russia.
How can any referendum be illegal, if the populace is the highest sovereign ?
In Russia, it looks as if in fact the Government and the Parliament put themselves lower than the people and not above as here.
Democracy comes from dêmos: people of the state and kratos: power or rule
Thus 'reign of the people (of a state)'.
Only way to explain is that is newly allowed to the Russian citizens to carry weapons for self-defense.
Something like this is unthinkable in the West.
Here is another exploitation which the dictator Putin burdens the Russians, namely, an income tax of a whopping 13 percent, and even as a Flattax !
A tax rateof13%, very close tothein all religions andphilosophiesprovidedproverbialTenth.
Yes, the Western portmanteaus of 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' can't keep up and tax their subjects with more than 50 and up to 70 percent after possible deductions.
This is what I call total enslavement and rape of the hard-earned money.
Unleaded 95 cost about 80 Euro-cents a liter in Russia.
It is really, really bad there / Satire Stop.
The fear-mongering against any form of possession of weapons in Germany has led to hysterical conditions.
Young mothers raise their children to believe that weapons are something fundamentally bad.
Each ability to put up a fight - a law of nature - is systematically driven out the children.
Later, the son joins the army, and has to face so-called terrorists in Afghanistan.
Mentally weakened, he is confronted with tribal warriors that have no problem with defending their own rights in their country.
These unspoiled natural people were not weakened in their education, and without hesitation is the head of the wuss from the West separated from the body.
The mother is then allowed to pick up the zinc coffin from the airport as a reward for her political correct education...
'Those who out of love to peace turn their weapons to plowshares be used for the plowing by those who have not'.
Ronald Lee Ermey, known by the role of the Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Stanley Kubrick's anti-war movie Full Metal Jacket, makes advertising for the Austrian company Glock, and for the possession of firearms:
It’s something that is hammered into our heads by (most of the time) well meaning people from the time we are a child: “Drink your milk… it’s good for you!”. But, it it? Is milk bad for you? That’s a question that has started to creep onto many people’s minds and it was the catalyst for a massive new study. According to an article by The Collective Evolution:
Milk seems to be making its way through various stages of truth, especially within the past couple of years. Like many other examples, what we once thought to be healthy for us to consume is turning out to be the exact opposite.
A large study coming from researchers at the Uppsala University in Sweden found that drinking milk led to an increased mortality rate and actually made bones more prone to fracturing, not less.(1)
The study was recently published in the peer reviewed British Medical Journal, and was specifically conducted to examine whether high milk consumption is associated with mortality and fractures in both men and women.
The study took place across three different counties in Sweden, and used data from two large Swedish cohorts, one with 61,433 women aged approximately 39-74 years old and one with 45, 339 men aged approximately 45-79 years old. They were all administered food frequency questionnaires. The study used “multivariable survival models” that were “applied to determine the association between milk consumption and time to mortality and fracture.
The results were as follows:
“During a mean follow-up of 20.1 years, 15 541 women died and 17 252 had a fracture, of whom 4259 had a hip fracture. In the male cohort with a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, 10 112 men died and 5066 had a fracture, with 1166 hip fracture cases. In women the adjusted mortality hazard ratio for three or more glasses of milk a day compared with less than one glass a day was 1.93 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 2.06). For every glass of milk, the adjusted hazard ratio of all cause mortality was 1.15 (1.13 to 1.17) in women and 1.03 (1.01 to 1.04) in men. For every glass of milk in women no reduction was observed in fracture risk with higher milk consumption for any fracture (1.02, 1.00 to 1.04) or for hip fracture (1.09, 1.05 to 1.13). The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios in men were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.03) and 1.03 (0.99 to 1.07). In subsamples of two additional cohorts, one in males and one in females, a positive association was seen between milk intake and both urine 8-iso-PGF2α (a biomarker of oxidative stress) and serum interleukin 6 (a main inflammatory biomarker).” (1)
The study concluded that high milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women. It also concluded:
“Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended.”(1)
This Is Not The Only Study That Suggests Milk Is Not Good For Our Body
n a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, Harvard pediatrician David Ludwig emphasizes that bone fracture rates tend to be lower in countries that do not consume milk. compared to those that do, also noting that there are many other sources of calcium. (source)
Another study published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that dairy consumption might actually increase the risk of fractures by 50 percent. (2)
Studies have also shown that calcium isn’t as bone protective as we thought. Multiple studies on calcium supplementation have shown no benefit in reducing bone fracture risk. In fact, vitamin D appears to be more effective when it comes to reducing bone fracture risk. (3)
Studies have also shown that dairy products might increase a males risk of developing prostate cancer by 30 -50 percent. (4)
The list literally goes on and on.
It’s also interesting to note that approximately 65 to 75 percent of the total human population on our planet have a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy. (5)(6) In some countries, over 90 percent of the adult population is lactose intolerant, think about that for a moment.
Lactose intolerance is an impaired ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk and other dairy products. Lactose is normally broken down by an enzyme called lactase, which is produced by cells in the lining of the small intestine.
Keep in mind that the milk we have so much trouble digesting after infancy is cows milk, not our mother’s natural breast milk. In fact, we are the only species on Earth that consumes the milk of another animal.
Since lactase’s only function is the digestion of lactose in milk, most mammal species experience a dramatic reduction in the activity of the enzyme after weaning. Lactase persistence in humans has evolved as an adaptation to the consumption of non-human milk and dairy products consumed beyond infancy. Our diet has changed a lot, and as a result some of our genes have adapted, but it’s not an easy process. This is why most humans are lactose intolerant.
Every other species weans and then never drinks milk again for the rest of their lives, and because of that they don’t have an enzyme to break down the sugar in milk. But during human evolution, some humans experienced a mutation in the LTC gene, the lactase gene, these mutations allow us to process lactose as adults. With approximately 65- 75 percent percent of humans on the planet unable to properly process it, it is evidence enough that we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies.
Below is a video of Katherine S. Pollard, a PhD at the University of California, San Francisco going into more detail from the above paragraph.
Milk/Dairy Is Not The Only Source of Calcium
This list is extremely long, here is a very small list of non dairy/vegan sources of calcium, many of them out there provide a healthier source and even more of it. It’s important to do your research, there are so many foods out there that contain a healthy and abundant source of calcium.
Kale: One cup of raw kale is loaded with calcium, approximately 90 mg to be exact. This means that a 3.5 cup of kale salad provides more calcium than a one cup class of milk Oranges: One Naval Orange contains approximately 60 mg of calcium Beans Green Peas Chickpeas Quinoa Seeds Hemp
(2) Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Public Health. 1997 Jun;87(6):992-7.
(3) Feskanich D, Willett WC, Colditz GA. Calcium, vitamin D, milk consumption, and hip fractures: a prospective study among postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Feb;77(2):504-11.
(4) Tseng M, Breslow RA, Graubard BI, Ziegler RG. Dairy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes and prostate cancer risk in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Epidemiologic Follow-up Study cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 May;81(5):1147-54.