It’s not uncommon these days to hear left-leaning public figures declare that they want to “have an honest discussion about” some current day, hot-button issue. Usually, the topic of interest has to do with guns, race, or sexuality, since these seem to be the most emotionally-charged controversies we face in the Current Year. It’s likely an artifact of democratic mass mobilisation, but the language being used suggests that they’re trying to incite a nationwide dialogue, one in which we all can rationally achieve a mutual consensus, a General Will if you please, that will satisfy everyone and allow us to move on to other things.
Of course, most of us out here in flyover country jolly well know that when a progressive says this, the last thing xe or xhe actually wants is a truly and genuinely honest discussion about the issue. In fact, you can be guaranteed that what they really want is the exact opposite, and that they’re merely looking for an opportunity to bloviate through a series of propagandistic talking points. Having an authentically honest discussion about issues is not at all what progressives desire, which is shown by the fact that they have been assiduously seeking to shut down open discussion on every outlet on which they can get their grubby hands. By bringing up a hot-button issue, progressives are simply signalling to each other the next target for their army of “change agents,” rather than trying to perform the public service of providing for an open and informed citizenry.
Such is the case with gun control and firearms ownership in America, issues that are fraught with misinformation coming from the Left.
Obviously, the usual polemics for gun control are both idiotic in reasoning and factually incorrect, and I feel no need to rehash the arguments against them in great detail. Needless to say, there is no evidence that gun control actually lessens crime; indeed, all evidence from crime rates in cities with strict regulation strongly suggests the inverse. Likewise, there is little evidence that “common sense gun legislation” would do much to prevent mass shootings since most mass shooters didn’t obey those laws anywise. Further, the prevalence of acts of mass violence are more likely due to the outworkings of demographic-structural theory than they are to the availability of firearms (which is why there were far fewer of such acts in, say, 1950 despite more widespread gun ownership).
Of course, the main reason to not take pro-gun control arguments seriously is because they are not being made in good faith. Progressives, frankly, couldn’t care less about crime or school safety. If they did, they wouldn’t be constantly trying to make these things worse.
Instead, the objective of gun control is disarmament of the population. More specifically, of the white, Amerikaner segment of the population. As an example, that is why the BATFE studiously ignores black and Latino gangbangers with illegal guns (or even sells them to them), but spends its undercover resources trying to smooth talk rednecks into sawing a shotgun barrel half an inch too short so they can nab them for firearms violations. The idea behind this, as well as various “procedural” implementations of gun control via things like “red flag” laws, is to create an ever growing class of white males who have been “legally” stripped of their gun rights. The same dynamic operates in the efforts to expand the definition of “mental illness” to include more and more maladies – the inclusion of PTSD seems intended to target combat veterans (who are disproportionately white).
The Left focuses its vitriol and resources on “right wing white guys” who, apocryphally, are thought to be solely responsible for mass shootings in the USA. However, it turns out that whites are underrepresented among mass shooters. Meanwhile, they ignore the disproportionately large contribution to the American violent crime rate that is made by blacks and Hispanics. Indeed, if you disaggregate out the portion of this crime rate that is committed by whites, their rate is roughly the same as that for the average western European country. This suggests that crime and (disorganised) violence correlate better with race than it does with rates of gun ownership. Some groups do indeed tend to be more prone to criminality (at least as defined within the paradigm of a white-dominated, rule-of-law driven civil society). This, of course, is another issue that progressives don’t really want to have an honest discussion about.
So, if the “white male gun owner problem” isn’t about crime and it isn’t really even about the danger of mass shootings, what is it about?
To put it simply, it’s about leaving the USA defenceless against Coudenhove-Kalergi-style displacement efforts using mass third world populations (which America’s indigenous black population functionally contributes to). Arguably, one can say that the USA is further along the demographic replacement curve than even western Europe in terms of raw non-white percentage of population. However, things seem worse in western Europe because of the relatively disarmed state of the people in these countries, which allows the third world interlopers to act more brazenly than they do here, knowing that they’re less likely to get shot by a homeowner or a CCW licensee.
The armed nature of the white American populace (again, whites make up an overwhelming percentage of gun owners) has thus far helped to insulate the USA from the worst effects of the demographic replacement movement, confining their ills to random street crime and non-violent incursions such as rampant abuse of the welfare system by immigrants.
To carry their replacement plans to fruition, the Cathedral needs to be able to establish for the state a complete monopoly on the use of violent force. Every homeowner who shoots a bad guy breaking in and avoids prosecution under self-defence laws is another small impediment to the implementation of that plan, not just in the sense that a (most likely) PoC street level warrior was taken out of action, but also because such things serve to counter the narrative by reaffirming the utility of armed self-protection. This is why the Left tries to downplay the number of cases of self-defence. It’s also why the Left has recently started making self-defence (e.g. castle doctrine laws) into a civil-rights issue, claiming that it is “unconstitutional” (because it “violates the due process” of criminals who get shot in the act of committing a violent crime) and seeking to make self-defence socially unacceptable. Protecting yourself from a carjacking could soon negatively impact your “social credit score.”
It is a truism that only bad governments have to fear an armed citizenry. Even in (or perhaps especially in) non-democratic systems, a government that stewards its people, a king who truly acts the father to his subjects, has little to fear from functional civic republicanism – the protection of the nation through the use of an armed citizen militia. A good king doesn’t fear the extension of the power to use violent force because the devotion of his people to his person and rule essentially binds that potential for violence into his hands.
Well, the cabals in the Cathedral trying to displace whites in their own countries know that they’re bad governments, and they want to be able to insulate themselves from the repercussions that might ensue once white populations in Europe and the Anglosphere start getting wise. I’m a proponent of the notion that, at least at the national and international policy levels, when governments or elements within them do things which appear completely stupid and contrary to common sense, it’s probably not accidental. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but there’s probably a real motivation behind seemingly off-the-wall, counterintuitive actions. Disarming their most productive citizens in the face of invading hordes of culturally and socially hostile foreigners certainly falls into that category.
Given the tendencies of modern “democratic” governments to ignore the desires of their constituents, the American government will sooner or later succeed in getting the disarmament that the globalists want. At that point, white Americans will be faced with a decision. Do they throw in the towel and disarm, or do they put all of the “from my cold dead hands” bravado into action and actually resist their own destruction? While I, like most other reasonable people, have no desire to see another civil war in America, at the same time, the only long-term hope for retaining high-level civil society in North America lies in the white population of the USA (as well as Canada) maintaining its ability to do the things that our European-derived cultures and genes allow us to do. One only needs to look at South Africa and Zimbabwe to see what happens when they don’t.
To do this, Amerikaners need to keep their guns for the likely eventuality of the Great Reset and its unforeseeable trajectories. While we can hope that the neoreactionary project of cultivating a thousand statesmen to peacefully guide the Restoration will be successful, the drive for demographic replacement may simply mean that there’s not enough time to see that project unfold as we’d like. Being ready for any contingency would seem the wise course of action.