"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty."
by:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
[Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov] (1870-1924) First Leader of the Soviet Union
Source:
"The Beginning of the Revolution in Russia", Selected Works, Vol. I, International Publishers, New York, 1967
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Now, define your style of liberty, please. Mine can be found in a de jure representative republic (where the individual sovereign is represented, not some democratic oligarchy.)
 -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 7
    		•  
    This sounds like a Republican Congressman and member of the NRA rather than a communist!
     -- Rob Bell, Cottingham, UK     
  • 5
    		•  
    A crazed mob mentaility... time to set aside your toys and grow up.
     -- Anonymous, Reston, VA US     
  • 1 5
    		•  
    See, the socialists know what they are doing -- and why! They do not value liberty, only control (in their favor).
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 5
    		•  
    Reston, how dare you disagree with your hero, mentor and spirit guide??!
     -- helorat, Milton     
  • 4
    		•  
    "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer [for Hitler], our police more efficient [for Hitler], and the world will follow our lead into the future [follow Hitler]!" - Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany...............Crazed mob indeed. Both Lenin and Hitler knew what an armed people meant-liberty. That's why totalitarians everywhere want to disarm loyal, law-abiding citizens.
     -- Ken, Allyn, WA     
  • 7
    		•  
    This is so not true... what about Gandhi, and his fellow Indians?
     -- Anonymous     
  • 2 2
    		•  
    Sounds like a Tea Bagger.
     -- Slinky     
  • 1 1
    		•  
    " Popular Liberty " coined by the Roman revolt of the slaves. No wonder Lenin would use that term, seeing it was so close, to his homeland.
     -- Ronw13, USA     
  • 1
    		•  
    "Popular Liberty?" No doubt Lenin meant by that comment the popular liberty of group thought and control through Mob Rule .. and not by any means the basic necessary liberty and sanctity of the Unalienable Rights of the Individual.
     -- Mary - MI     
  • 1
    		•  
    Remember that  Lenin also said that liberty had to be rationed.
     -- Y A Stepanov, Pleasanton     
    		•  
    The "A" from Reston — hahaha / lololol, all while shaking my lowered head. Even Lenin knew, only in a society of liberty is where you will find supporting well armed sovereign individuals. That is why Russians were denied guns, so they could be slaughtered by the millions and have any semblance of liberty denied to the enslaved people. The crazed mob mentality took defensive "toys" so that millions never had the chance to grow up.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  

    The weapon carrying fools only defend violence and delusion.

    Only the educated can be the true defenders of liberty. The educated informed formulas will lead to practical and realistic solutions.


     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sillik, I have to agree with your first sentence as far as you went. The new Woke socialists infesting this land have perpetrated a sick, violent, delusional society of fools (such as all the mass shooting perpetrators of recent year). As to educated, who are the lying dog faced pony soldier's 17 Nobel Laureate economists that have brought about practical and realistic solutions to anything? OR ! ! ! why is Amerika getting less educated in/from the ecclesiastical seminaries (government schools) with IQ's dropping while emphasizing theocratic socialism's dogmas.

    Again, liberty is: “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control.  The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.  Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.). Clarifying original fact, natural law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson) “The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution) “Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987). Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – natural law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason)

    From among academia's educated — who do you say are defending liberty? Did Lenin, one of your educated socialist gods defend liberty? 
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mike Norwalk: From my prospective I observe no one defending liberty other than myself. This fellow Lenin, and I don't know much about the fellow, to defend armaments in my perspective does not support a very effective position  to bring about a civilized circumstance. I believe a responsible Socialist brings with him an alternative to violence of any kind. The Soviet Union was a money making machine for the wealthy of that body to foment a fearful and confused situation to secure their continued advantages of controlling resources. My vantage point offers no opposition by Lenin to the wealthy's advantages position.  You Mike Norwalk want an advantaged position as observed by everyone on the planet, other myself, among your goals. Sorry to reply so late.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sillik: Socialism is any of socially organized various systems (fascism, communism, woke theology, etc.) in which religion, property, the economy, resources, the means of production and distribution of goods and services is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Socialism is a theocratic mental illness by force. Any other definition of socialism is a lie by the mentally deranged. Socialism in all its many forms is a theocracy, - antithetical to individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, freedom / liberty, nature’s laws, justice, peace, prosperity and the advancement of the noble sentient being.

    Sillik, by my supplied definition of liberty above, what advantaged position have I attained or am seeking. Please, from your godly vantage, PLEASE ! enlighten me as to my quest (be detailed and specific — don't do the socialist's ad hominem, off topic, miss-direction or changing the meaning of well established definitions in a meaningless word salad)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    		•  
    Fascism and Socialism are the polar opposites. The fascist is sexual deviate who wants control over others to quench their sick desires. Everything is sex and the accompanying alcohol and drugs. Socialism is controlling our desires to a positive end. You realize that sex is only to bring forth a child you are prepared for both financially and educational.  Alcohol and drugs are completely ruled out. Your follows condone deviate behavior calling yourself such items as "transgender" and impregnate two females your are doing jail time with. The advantage you want is no responsibility or anyone proposing responsibility.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    (-; (-; (-; Sillik, hahahaha / lolololol WHAT ? ? ? Fascism IS a form of socialism. Fascism, communism and woke theology are all forms of socialism with a mere differing form of administration. Can you point to a study where it proves fascists have a greater problem with sex than other socialists?  I have seen studies that show homosexuals have sex more often than heterosexuals. Are you saying homosexuals are fascists? Sillik, your empty ad hominems can only be made up by the mentally ill with no clue as to reality.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
    		•  
    Hello Mike Norwalk: My personal observations are quite unbiased, more creditable than any biased study you're going to find in our conventional world Mike. Homosexuality is mental illness. It produces no positive result. Fascism is a mental illness and produces no positive result and the correlation between fascism and homosexuality is positive. Socialism is a mental healthy action based scientific critical evidence. I am not a sexual person. I prefer to be called heterogeneitous.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mike Norwalk Fascism is a selfish, self centered approach. This mentality is unproductive. Homosexuality is the same selfish, self centered unproductive attitude.
    Heterogeneous individuals bring the complimentry forces to bare a positive result. The social person is unselfish, selfless individual who produces a positive result, which are the required characteristics for a positive result. I call this individual the Socialist. The heterogeneous individual and Socialist both produce positive results and correlate positively.

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mike Norwalk: The fascist wants an advantage, she's a politician.  The Socialist wants fair and equal distribution, he is a social engineering scientist. The fascist is a loser looking for losers. The Socialist has a winning attitude and knows there is goodness and strength in every individual.  The fascist is always looking for a weakness of some kind in his fellows. The Socialist is always trying to access that strength that is available in every situation.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  

    I think I'm beginning to see the mental splinter in Fred's mind.  His description of socialism more resembles the Universalist Church, only without the Christian concept of God and the Creator.  The basic principles are there, only their application is guided by some who claim to be unbiased and educated while the common folk need to be led.  This is the collectivist aspect.  This is not freedom.

    While a person should do good, compelling them to do what others say is good is ripe for corruption.  The rulers benefit tremendously when the people are convinced that they must obey the dictates of the do-gooders rather than decide for themselves what cause to donate time and money to.  

    All that mankind needs to do to 'save' ourselves is to take responsibility and remember who we really are.


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    Social engineering is definitely fascistic.  And it is definitely socialist/statist.  Your definition of the socialist has a Hitler-esque ring to it — the super man.  The Nazis rounded up homosexuals, too.  Hitler was a vegetarian, didn't smoke or drink, and would agree with your definition of socialism, Fred. Delusions of grandeur.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
    		•  
    Mr Archer: I claim to be no superman, just the average adult. The only superiority I claim is a superior morality by being better educated then you but clearly the Educator wishes to pass on the valuable information. No one in the right mind, and I'm in my right mind, wants to be the only one who can love.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: I desire to oppress no one. Homosexuality, religion, and all the other deviances will be treated humanely in accordance with the refined mental health procedures to bring about personal esteem and social respectfulness and the accompanying responsible behavior.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: You maybe interested to know, amazingly, that I was informed at the University of Northern Iowa where I went to most of my college that Nazism is synonymous with middle class America. Your lack of self awareness is the mental illness we need to address. Proof, also, you are also a projectionness.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: A characteristic of your mental condition is you make up conditions as you go, 
    " I made it up as I went along." Being "Hilter-esuque" as you are, you really know nothing about the fellow. And none of conventional fellowship buddies would dare never to question anything your say.  The advantage of mentally sick in mentally sick world.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: The biased mentally ill run the world.
    Lunacy is not on the "fringes." It's the very heart of your conventional arrangement. I am the soul representative of mental health because I simply  have  a sincerely different opinion.  No one in the world, other than myself,  sincerely supports equality.  Your strange idea that we can all be equal in the perpetration of crime is pure lunacy. We can only share responsibility, equally.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    There's a big difference between making accusations and making an argument.  Please debate the arguments, not the man.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    You know nothing of my education, Fred.  And you have not been claiming to be an average adult, and an average adult is not like you, as you admit to have superior morality and education 'than' (not then) the rest of us.  This sounds more like arrogance than educated...
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    "Deviances will be treated humanely" WOW!  Straight up fascism!
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Holy crap!  THAT is the (public) education you got from University of Northern Iowa?  The American middle class are Nazis?  What a load of commie BS.  Talk about mental illness...
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    "No one in the world, other than myself, sincerely supports equality."  Who is biased and mentally ill?  Talk about lunacy (narcissism, arrogance, ignorance, delusions of grandeur).
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Fred seems to share some Conservative values and is having trouble categorizing them into socialist boxes. What to do with the biggest socialist group of all LGBTQI+ — call them fascists?  I do not disagree.  But Fred's definition of socialism is just another flavor of totalitarian governance 'for our own good.' The Catholic Church of old was the same.

    I agree with a good portion of Fred's ideals and goals for humanity, but completely disagree with the HOW they are to be achieved.

    The battle against evil is primarily with oneself, within one's own heart, to not become like the evil doers while in defense of goodness, truth and love.  That means having a thinking mind and a compassionate heart.  Watching my fellows go down a road to perdition is heart wrenching.  I must find a way to reach them without coercion and force.

    Fred, in your world, how are your ideals to be achieved?  How to get the people to go along?  Do they have a choice?  Will you be a leader of some sort?  What place does Freedom have in your world? 

    Please answer the simple questions, not another distraction on how uneducated I am (a politician's trick to not answer a straight question.)  These are not gotcha's.  If you are going to impose your vision on the rest of us, we will have to know the rules.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: l know of two types of individuals, myself and those who wish to control me.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: one should not trust your biased history to much, however, my impression was Mr Hitler did not have the best of intent. I have do have the best of intentions. I think you will find a rare similarity with me and Mr Hilter. You will find, my guess is, countless similarities with Mr Hilter and Mr Roosevelt, not to forget Mr Churchill among these foolish players.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    For such an 'educated' man, you do not write well.  'Myself' is not a type of individual (unless you are a narcissist).  If there are only 2 types of individuals, and one is of those that wish to control me, then the other type does not wish to control me.  Or there may in fact be more than two types of individuals in the world.  Or perhaps there is more than one way to categorize myself and others — maybe LOTS.  In fact we may ALL be different in some ways.  That is the very essence of being an individual.  So there are many, MANY types of individuals.

    It's like: "There are two kinds of people — me and everybody else.  I am in a class by myself."
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: you're right about one thing, I would have say I leave a lot to be desired as a technically skilled writer. I don't believe I'm a very technically skilled writer. Nonetheless, as far as the depth and quality of original literary content I would humbly have say I have no rivels.



     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer Webb and Sherman: Schools and American Society 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  

    Correction: You're right Mr Archer. I leave a lot to be desired to be a technically skilled writer, nevertheless, as far as the scope of depth and quality content, I humble assert I have no rivels.


     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer: The ideals will be achieved by the ideas. Who ever has the ideas will be the leader.  Despite all the the political process, the leader is going to be the individual with the inspirational motivating directions. Politics, sticks around because, like sports and Hollywood, all the kids want to see a show.   Its not the idea of choice that matters, its reaching the stage of the sound healthy course and following that course that matters.  Life is not that complicated. The mission for the mentally healthy is to raise the consciousness of the populous.  I would say you have no choice between death and life. Life's the winner.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Mr Archer I don't much about this conservative idea. There is no inertia. You move backwards or forward. For example heterosexuality is knew notion. If you comb the ancient historical accounts of Greece and Rome you tend to ask yourself, weren't their any heterosexuals? True their must have been some mixing of the genders because we're all here, all 8 billion of us.   The sad fact is that our race historically has just been a bunch homosexuals associating together to make more homosexuals, apparently holding their noses. Recently I foolishly approached a couple of girls who were "associating." I felt fortunate I got away with my health intact. Girls typically so it seems, carry dangerous devices. I  was accused of predation, but really what happening was these girls were preying on each other. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Correction #2: I'll try this one more time.
    You're right Mr Archer. I leave a lot to be desired to be a technically skilled writer, nevertheless as far as the scope of the depth and quality of  content of my literary contributions, I simply have no rivels.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Can you please check your posts before sending correction after correction.  No one else here takes such liberties spamming this blog.  You are neither technically skilled nor literally skilled, nor skilled in political science nor on any science.  Quantity and repetition do not make quality content.  Therefore, you have no rivals (not rivels). 

    Sorry, but you got an indoctrination not education, and you want us ALL to have gotten the same programming.  What do you produce for society?  What value do your services bring?

    You still won't simply answer the simple questions posted above.  This is tiresome.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    		•  
    Mr Archer: About thirty one years ago I began opening up my mind. I was changing and for fun, probably,  a several individuals told me I sounded like a Socialist. Being a red blooded American I was on the verge of apologizing. At some time later combing the University of Northern Iowa library I found a passage by a fellow named Albert Einstein. It went along the lines that we should work first for passivism, a then later socialism. I was forever changed, probably coming out of that library yelling to everyone I'm a Socialist. 
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
    Sorry Mr Archer: You're the indoctrinated.  Sex, drugs, and the military to protect this decadent style.  I want nothing to do with it. I want to live as a human being. I want to live with intelligent beings not a bunch of idiot bums making up diseases that don't even directly exist like Coronavirus. You creatures go around making up absurd symptoms of absurd illnesses for progressive individuals, as my self, who are trying to create an atmosphere that supports life.

     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
    		•  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    		 Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    Today's Quotes
    More Quotations
    Most Popular
    Recent Comments
    • paul, lincoln
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Editor, Liberty Quotes
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Mike,, Norwalk
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown
    • ABBY
    • ABBY
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca