Politics, n. From Greek poly-, “many,” and ticks, “small bloodsucking arthropods.” – Ed.
First, the good news: Fidel Castro is still dead, getting the guided tour of Hades from Che, and his “revolution,” which yielded a primitive absolute monarchy in all but name, is at death’s door. His elderly, sickly brother is soon to check out himself, and the next generation’s pampered family members being weaker of character than the crowned heads of Europe in 1914, Cuba may soon be a republic in more than just name.
Second, the bad news: the brothers Castro have no end of admirers in the Western elite, probably for their raw and brutal exercise of power rather than despite it. There are no end of fawning articles, to the point where they make the groveling Justin Trudeau look skeptical; we were reading one about “Fidel Castro and the Jews” that proclaimed him the great protector of Cuba’s Israelite diaspora, despite having driven over 90% of them into exile, the remaining handful into poverty (like everyone else), and sponsoring and arming anti-Israel and anti-Semitic terrorism globally. But the (presumably Jewish) author of the piece seemed to think he was great for the Jews. By that standard, you might as well call Hitler “rabbi.”
Just ’cause a guy hates Christians, doesn’t mean he’s good for Jews. That’s not how atheistic Communism works, kid.
Anyway, now that we’ve established (or really, a half-century of other, better writers have established) that Castro was bad for believers, unless the godhead they believed in was him, we might as well do like all those Woody Allen type New York nebbishes do, and write about, “Was he good for us?” By “us,” of course, meaning the People of the Gun. And the answer, of course, is, “Hell, no.” Here’s Larry Pratt at GOA, eight years ago (bold is our emphasis):
A look at the history of Cuba should make us run screaming in terror from anything smacking of socialism. Brain surgeon Miguel Faria has laid it all out for those who will check out his book Cuba in Revolution.
Faria is a refugee from Fidel Castro’s socialist “paradise.” He still has family trapped inside that socialist island prison — a prison that has imposed draconian gun controls throughout the island. Any prison will attempt to achieve total control of guns and restrict their possession to just the guards. Well, it turns out that the most effective tool for gun control in Cuba is the poverty spawned by socialism. Nobody can afford a gun.
Communist Cuba offers an interesting parallel to Nazi Germany. Both Hitler’s Germany and Castro’s Cuba were preceded by regimes that imposed gun control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In both cases, gun control failed to keep the bad guys from getting all the guns they wanted and using them to consolidate their grip on power following seizure of the reins of government.
Hitler took several years to disarm the populationusing gun registration lists, but Castro moved against private gun ownership the second day he was in power. He sent his thugs throughout the island using the gun registry lists — compiled by the preceding Batista regime — to confiscate the people’s firearms. Different tactics, same objective. A defenseless people don’t give the all-wise leader any lip.,
So, perhaps you see American gun controllers as potential Castros, who lust for power. Some of them certainly are (Charles Schumer, come on down!). But many of your opponents in this are people of good will who happen to dislike guns and find blaming the firearm more psychologically comforting than facing the unpleasant fact that real evil walks in the world. It is no accident that there is a strong correlation between gun control and atheism, because true evil is more easily and clearly understood by people with a theistic viewpoint. (That is not to say that all atheists are anti-gun, not by a long shot. A pro-gun position can be reached by pure reason).
But while thinking gun rights supporters believe that opponents may ave committed an error of reasoning, gun rights opponents, often deprived by their atheism of any ability to understand true evil, reach a conclusion that our opposition is somehow the product of paid activity. So professional career left-wing and anti-gun PR executive Shannon Watts, a paid agent of Bloomberg,, often accuses her opponents of being paid by the NRA (dang, where’s my check? I pay them) and the NRA being paid and controlled by the gun manufacturers, because that’s the only way that they can understand people being so “wrong” as we are. Alternatively, they use the rubbery terms of the squishy semi-science of psychology to suggest we’re ill.
It so turns out that, in that, too, the psychological denormalization of dissent, there’s a parallel with Castroism. Pratt again:
Another parallel between Cuba and Nazi Germany is the prostitution of psychiatry. Psychiatrists were willing tools of the Nazi regime to “diagnose” opponents as mentally ill. Cuba is no different. And the mental hospitals are horror chambers where victims of the Castro thugocracy are drugged into submission. Alternately, they are electro shocked into compliance.
Of course, if you’re a religious believer, you probably already are using a handy bin your faith provides — “evil” — to classify folks like the billionaire brothers Castro.
But their motivations matter only to the extent that understanding them is useful for defeating them. Because their defeat is a necessary precondition to the survival and success of that greatest of human conditions, liberty.
¡Viva Libertad! ¡Viva Cuba Libre! ¡Viva Brigada 2506!
Kevin was a former Special Forces weapons man (MOS 18B, before the 18 series, 11B with Skill Qualification Indicator of S). His focus was on weapons: their history, effects and employment. He started WeaponsMan.com in 2011 and operated it until he passed away in 2017. His work is being preserved here at the request of his family.
17 thoughts on “Poly-Ticks: Castro’s Record on Guns”
You’re obviously racist, misogynistic, homophobic and just plain deplorable. Go take a blue pill and relax. Your neighbors from the blue end of the gene pool will take care of you, just like we do the folks on our south side plantation in Chicago.
I’ve never understood the opposition to firearms ownership. The facts are right there, gun control doesn’t work. Harvard, CDC, etc. all agree that gun control produces no effects on crime. For people who scream “common sense”, it’s quite the contradiction to disregard facts for what amounts to blind dogma. (As a side note, common sense technically doesn’t require evidence, so it’s rationalist, rather than empirical, so it isn’t scientific.)
Clarence, you are reasoning, or as Aristotle would put it, using dialectic, trying to understand your opponents’ minds.
They, however, are using pure rhetoric, making decisions based on emotion. They are in a place where reason and dialectic cannot reach them. People like that must be countered with countervailing rhetoric.
non sentient left vermin cant be reasoned with
closest thing that can be done is a coup d’etat against them.
hence why in Chile we needed one to prevent another cuba or worse,another Camboya,
god bless the CIA that helped us on that,otherwise this would be just another failed state,quite like the current shape of Argentine after socialism and such.
to think that we used to go to Argentina to buy stuff like pens,precision tools and car parts make my spine shiver as now they come here to buy such basic items as diapers,modern electric tools and electronics,with a mostly worthless currency that they must exchange for ours to buy anything.
A wise man said “You cannot reason a man out of position he didn’t reason himself into.”
Thank God for the electorate that we dodged a howitzer barrage that was sure to come if Haligula had been elected. If she had come to power she would have been the real-life embodiment of “The Walking Dead’s” Negan, although some say she had a vagina.
Unfortunately, one party has decided that the best way to market to this part of the population is to use emotion rather than reason. I offered to take an anti-gunner shooting, and I received some sort of response of “never done it, never want to”. But wouldn’t you like to know what the fuck you are talking about before you condemn it? “No!”
Now they are all terrified that Trump is going to round up all the Muslims and He/Shes and such and do who knows what with them. Emotional, not rational. But there’s no getting through to them.
Their opposition to gun owners ship as zero ( 0 ) to do with saving lives or stopping crime. Its not even an emotional reaction from them. Not from the upper echelon anyway,
its about power and control and they, ( as in the state, which is what they want to ultimately be and be in control of) want to make sure everyone understands who has the real power. An armed people usually may not be as easily forced to obey the state at gun point when what they want is taken to the logical conclusion,
Many on our side do not understand, that they are not just some over emotional, reacts by feelz, well meaning though ghastly stupid type.s, The are cold blood in their push for total control of our lives by the state and have a long reaching plan calculated in the most cold blooded manner,
>Harvard, CDC, etc. all agree that gun control produces no effects on crime.
No no no no no! The overwhelming majority of folks at HSPH (School of Public Health) will tell you that is flat out wrong, and we have no good data because evil Republicans have blocked funding for REAL research into gun violence (sic). Academic physicians tend to be anti-gun and generally left leaning, and Harvard Medical School and HSPH people are tautologically academic.
Andrew Branca has an article up about some new JAMA paper, which I have not yet read (the paper that is) about what is essentially anti-gun propaganda wrapped up as a research article. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, is one of the leading medical journals in the world (in terms of prestige and influence) and is published by the AMA. There is a long record of vehemently anti-gun people associated with both the AMA and JAMA, so this latest outbreak is no surprise to me. The Massachusetts Medical Society may be even worse. As but one example, they hold a webinar on “How to talk to patients about gun safety” which I actually signed up for, just to see what they were about. I’d hoped, very foolishly in retrospect, that it might have been something of an intro to basic safety principles and responsible storage of firearms, so that MDs with no experience with guns might not step on their wedding tackle when asking the now-mandated “do you have firearms?” question to patients. Nope, of course not. It turned out to be 90% anti-gun propaganda, with social justice, community activist type speakers, and shades (you’ll pardon the expression) of “it’s all because of racism” thrown in for good measure. Needless to say, the “Join Now” mailings I get from the AMA and the MMS go straight into the recycle bin. Not one penny for those people.
It’s not about science, or about safety. It’s about control, ego, and demanding that the world be as they claim it should be, despite copious evidence to the contrary.
I believe that the paper Andrew teed off on came from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins. Yes, that Bloomberg.
In other news, the RJ Reynolds School of Public Health at UNC recommends filterless Camels for infants to help their lungs develop.
I bit long and not specifically about gun control research, but this is an excellent article about what your saying Mike. About how when a scientific field (sociology, psychology,climate change,) is dominated by left leaning scientists, confirmation bias runs rampant and the scientific method goes out the window.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html
The “just be cause the hate Christians does not mean they…” comment is spot on. I once saw an absolute naturalist declare Islam as the best religion for anti-theist scientists. He wanted to kill a bunch of babies for use in stem cell research and reasoned that Muslims (and their legal system by extension) would be cool with it provided the butchery was completed before the point where the fetus receives a soul. By contrast the Christians “running the west” won’t let him kill unborn children no matter when he wanted to do it. Or at least they make a big fuss about it even if they cannot actually stop him.
You would probably call me an atheist of one one type of another, though that is not quite true I am certainly not religious. That is not to say I am anti religion . But It will work for the purposes of this response. and I find abortion horrific immoral and just simple murder
I consider everything by a simple calculus. “Does X violate a person’s rights” A fetus is a person. therefore, killing it violates its rights, right to life, liberty. etc etc.
atheism is just an excuse to behave with out restraint or morality and has become its own religion in recent times.
I can only speak for myself, but I am an antitheist.
Evil is inherent to man, and some men are inherently evil.
I choose to do good of my own accord, and not out of fear of punishment. To characterize atheists as a whole is an injustice. We are not a group, nor should we be. Atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack thereof. People like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins certainly don’t speak for me.
When my time is up and the cards are laid flat on the table, I am not afraid. A Just god would know that as I am made, I cannot believe. I certainly cannot believe men who say they know the words, the mind, or the intent of god. An Unjust god is a god I would never serve, and thus I would be damned regardless.
Castro lived far too long, and far too comfortably. It is unfortunate that many men like him have led and do lead similar long, comfortable lives. May the tyrants still living get what they deserve.
You spend a lot of time justifying yourself before a God you claim not to believe in.
-John M.
I don’t recall justifying myself before anyone. I respecfully addressed Hognose and the fellow posters on this site as a way to promote understanding. I do not often have occasion to contribute my thoughts, but this I felt was important.
I think your own response was dismissive and disrespectful.
‘First, the good news: Fidel Castro is still dead, getting the guided tour of Hades from Che, and his “revolution,” which yielded a primitive absolute monarchy in all but name, is at death’s door.’
Respectfully, Hognose, the Castro communist regime only resembles an absolute monarchy to those who have been sucking on the teat of democratic propaganda from their infancy. (Take it from one who sucked on that teat himself.) You have to go to the worst of the inbred Hapsburgs to find absolute monarchs who damaged their countries the way a typical Communist has. And even then, the damage was done unintentionally. (Who would argue intention on the part of poor Carlos II of Spain?)
Why is that? What is it about the nature of authority that brings about responsibility? And what is it about the nature of egalitarian regimes that brings about degeneracy and ruin?
-John M.
Quite of few of our hospital workers went down to Calle Ocho in Miami to celebrate the death of Fidel Castro.
I hear there was a conga line in the street until dawn
They sure looked terrible at work the next day!
To Loose Rounds, you are 100% correct that gun control has nothing to do with with crime and everything to do with statist control of citizens
Crime serves the interest of an entire industry of Lawyers, Judges, Cops and prisons
They do not want to stop crime at all
The ruling elite liberals want to disarm the citizens in order to control us.