I am once again thrilled to present another piece by Kulak. This is the second of three articles he’s written on gun control, and he is almost done the third. As always, the indent blocks are my additions.
In a previous article on the subject we examined how the current Liberal government, a mandate that was elected by the slimmest of minority margins, somehow managed to cram in a general gun ban, with a bill that was designed to limit the import and transfer of handguns, ostensibly in the interests of public safety. This new expanded gun ban classifies nearly all centrefire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that can accept a removable magazine as prohibited, and bans a bunch of rimfire rifles, hunting rifles and hunting shotguns as well. This despite years of erudite, evidence-based study on the matter, which has generally concluded and accurately predicted, in peer-reviewed reports, that stricter gun control has no correlated effect on the violent crime rate and may indicate the reverse in totally disarmed populations, where the people that can still get illegal guns—dindu criminals—actually increase the violent gun crime rate (ref. Chicongo). All this while removing mandatory minimum sentencing and reducing penalties for said gun violence enjoyers, all because they’re disadvantaged POCs suffering from systemic racism, or something like that.
I wrote about that myself. They even explicitly made it about “Black and Indigenous” criminals. Once again, they’re not soft on crime, they’re soft on coloured crime.
The opposition to this admittedly post-truth physical and political disarmament scheme, which is sold as an evidence-based public safety initiative, is underwhelming, to say the least. Sure, there are a lot of gun owners in Canada that are big mad right now, but that changes little. There is talk of mass non-compliance but I’m not going to hold my breath despite the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police either stating that they will not participate in federal gun confiscation or flatly stating that they won’t support it. Canada’s joke of a gun lobby is still grifting millions in funding from these goy schmucks and doing precisely fuck all, like they’ve always done. The political ‘opposition’, if you can call it that, hasn’t said a word, except for one boomercon MP from hicktown BC that looks like he’s about to stroke out. His take is factually correct, by the way, but facts matter little when this whole thing is designed as a red herring, a smokescreen for the Emergencies Act Inquiry and a way to increase flagging support for the Liberals and perhaps buy some votes from cityfags when their approval rating is circling the drain.
On a more sinister level, this whole scheme is specifically designed to disarm an identifiable racial group, White Europeans in this case, as a forerunner to some potential, future horror. The anons over at 4chan/k/ CanGen get this and speculated about a possible Tiananmen Square-level massacre in a few years, but I doubt our peacetime born-and-raised overlords, nor the general population, have the stomach for bugman-levels of humanoid ultraviolence in this day and age. This despite having earned their totalitarian chops with a 3-year lockdown. I am however, getting some distinct Rhodesia-South Africa vibes from this scene. This particular formula has been tried, tested and trued over generations by the (((International Communist))):
“Non-white immigration is about disarming Whites, politically.
Gun control, is about disarming Whites physically.
Censorship, is about keeping Whites confused and uninformed while the previous two get done.”
– VertigoPolitix—The Liberal Agenda in 60 Seconds
I do cringe at the implication that this is the “Liberal” Agenda, when the CPC is just as anti-White. Pierre Poilievre is promising to scrap the English language test so that he can bring over even more and worse non-White immigrants. As a matter of fact, I have to write a piece on that article, because it’s even more anti-White than you might naively think.
When that is accomplished, our benevolent rulers can turn their humanoid pets on us for a full dose of vibrant enrichment and diversity, Soweto-style. It will be flash bringing tacticool short-shorts back into style and Being a Man Among Men, though, even if it’s just for a short time.
Interestingly enough, disarming racial groups politically and physically is something that Canada has been doing for a very long time, it turns out, when said racial groups would get all uppity over some perceived injustice or mistreatment by the government. The dark secret Canada has been hiding this whole time, is that its gun legislation has a history of being explicitly racialist.
Needless to say, early White European settlers in what would become Canada, viewed firearms as an essential tool they needed to survive in the frontier. In fact, in England at the time, most households were almost expected to have a gun over their hearth or at their bedside, which was seen as a logical compromise to protect private property rights in the chaotic 1688 Glorious Revolution era, albeit gun ownership at the time was ostensibly the privilege of the landed gentry. That changed in 1689 with England’s Bill of Rights, establishing the right of citizens to bear arms for the defense of themselves and The State as one of the fundamental liberties of an Englishman. Whether you were trying to avoid being robbed and/or killed by Jacobites or Highwaymen in England, or dodging being scalped, raped and eaten by noble savages in the Frontier (generally referred to in Canada as ‘chugs’), it was without question that you would protect you and yours with a firearm. This state of affairs continued for some time until enough Catholic Irish had been imported or fled to the Canadian Frontier to work on important projects like forts, harbours and canals.
Due to some convenient political disruptions by the English (namely genocide and enslavement) in Catholic Ireland from about the 1500’s, there was excess Irish labour available, also known as navvies (derived from ‘navigation’ and their initial employment in canal projects). Whether they were purchased and shipped all over the British Empire as ‘indentured servants’—effectively slaves—or were emigrating (fleeing) to escape economic and political deprivation for the chance of a new life in the Frontier, is now a matter of some controversy and dispute and not the subject of this article. The fact that is within a relatively short period of time Irish labourers were being exploited across a huge geographic area by their English overlords, while the latter was oppressively laughing at them and their plight. So what the fuck do potato-niggers have to do with Canadian gun legislation and confiscation, you may be asking yourself at this point? Well, this is where it gets even weirder.
These navvies typically lived “with their priests” near the project site they were working on, in disease-ridden shanty towns or tents, drank excessively and were known for out of control brawling and other less savoury, leisure-time activities. Their pay packets were a sick joke versus the average wages of the day and they had a notoriety about them for rebellion and obstinacy, latter waves being the survivors and descendants of refugees from the incredibly violent and gruesome Irish Rebellion of 1798. Everyone generally treated them like subhuman wretched peasants, despite the fact they built a number of important canals, such as the Erie Canal, completed in 1825. By 1830, there were under half a million new immigrants from Ireland in North America, most settling in Upper Canada (a part of modern-day Ontario), Lower Canada (southwestern present-day Quebec) and the northern United States. As a full one-fifth of all immigrants to Upper and Lower Canada were living in poverty by 1837, and this group was largely Irish due to their reduced pay grade, perhaps up to 20% of ‘Canadians’ at that point were Irish (for a lack of census, from the era). This concentration of Catholic Irish would soon become a big problem for the ruling classes.
In 1837, a group of about 25,000 discontents who named themselves the Patriotes, rebelled against the Colonial government in Lower Canada, kicking off the Lower Canada Rebellion or Guerre des patriotes. Although possessing a distinct Les Habitants vibe to it, the movement included large amounts of Irish militia, who had been (likely easily) persuaded to join the violent fray to take another crack at the English. Later, in December of 1838, the Upper Canada Rebellion started in Toronto, with the Battle of Montgomery’s Tavern. Again, perhaps around 20% of this group of rebels were Catholic Irish. Regardless of the actual number of Irish rebels in Upper and Lower Canada, legislation was originally tabled in 1837 that specifically prohibited “…unlawful training of persons to the use of arms,” during an era in which the English-derived Canadians loathed the Catholic Irish and feared their rebelliousness.
I highly doubt it was as simple as English-derived Canadians disliking the Irish. This particular story, of capitalists bringing in cheap labour which causes ethnic/racial problem for the natural population is as old as time. Had we actually lived in a democracy, I doubt these Irish labourers would have been brought in. Then again, imagine having the worst problem be too many Irish people? What a blessing that would be.
To seal the deal, a series of raids known as the Fenian Raids in 1866 and again from 1870-71, were led by the Fenian Brotherhood, an Irish Republican group formed in the United States, in a vain attempt to establish the seat of the Irish Republic-in-exile and/or to pressure the British government to withdraw from southern Ireland. In true Canadian fashion, none of these raids were particularly bloody, or successful, but by 1867 it managed to trigger the Americans to the extent that they starting disarming the Fenian Brotherhood, inflamed already intense anti-Irish/anti-Catholic sentiment in Canada, helped unify the Provinces of Canada to seek Confederation (a more uninspired constitution hitherto unseen), and for the new Federal government to enact the aforementioned legislation from 1837. Except the legislation would almost exclusively be applied against the Catholic Irish, in the coming years. In practice, gun control would start in Canada as an uniquely anti-Irish measure, despite the fact that the French, Indians, English, Americans and the other Irish had all been having a go at each other—with firearms—in North America, for over a century, at this point.
Weirder still, the Prime Minister of the newly formed Dominion of Canada, the quelling of these rebellions, the seminal steps towards further gun legislation and an eventual future, post-truth gun confiscation regime, heavily involved the other Irish. Enter the Grand Orange Lodge of British America and the Orangemen. Canada’s first Prime Minister, albeit not Irish, was John A. Macdonald: a member of the Orange Lodge of Canada. The Orange Lodge had been founded in County Armagh in 1795 in what is now Northern Ireland. Most early members were Protestant Irish although future members included Scotsmen, English and other Protestants, as well as eventually Jews and chugs, predictably enough for a Masonic-style, fraternal organisation.
That is an interesting walk through history, albeit not a particularly surprising one. Like I said in the earlier block, it does not surprise me that a group of cheap labourers were brought in so that the natives, us, could be replaced with borderline slave labour. It also does not surprise me that the people in charge of our country, although technically this is pre-Canada, did this so poorly that the imported group didn’t just cause problems for the native peasants, but themselves as well.
It reminds me of Amazon recently having one of their warehouses get too Somalian. As a result, there was enough ethnic/racial solidarity and they all struck together. As a result, Amazon makes it a policy never to make one store too racially homogenous, for fear of this triggering unionization and organized political action by labour.