➡ The text discusses the importance of self-preservation and the right to defend oneself, arguing that these are fundamental human instincts. It criticizes the increasing militarization of the police and the potential for governments to misuse power, especially when citizens are disarmed. The author warns against the dangers of giving up personal freedoms and rights, even if it’s for seemingly good reasons, as it can lead to totalitarianism. The text also emphasizes the need for preparedness and the ability to protect oneself, and criticizes the confiscation of guns, arguing that it doesn’t necessarily reduce crime and can leave people defenseless.

➡ The text discusses the importance of self-preservation and preparedness, especially in terms of owning firearms. It criticizes those who dismiss ‘preppers’ as paranoid, suggesting that these critics are actually afraid of their own unpreparedness. The text also warns against the abuse of authority and the potential for totalitarianism, arguing that gun ownership should not be a political issue. It ends by endorsing Pierre Poliev for the next leader of Canada, due to his stance on repealing gun legislations, and encourages support for the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.

Today is the day where I, for the first time ever in this channel’s history, openly endorse a political candidate. Something I’ve refrained from doing for 10 long years. I’ve always thought it was very divisive and polarizing to bring politics into the conversation about preparedness. And I’ve prided myself on the ability to maintain universal appeal in a market that tends to be cornered by the right. I’ve never wanted to alienate either side of the political spectrum because for me, preparedness is something that should transcend political affiliation. We all just want to survive. And even if the other side of the political spectrum is motivation for you to prep and you fear them, what is that old Abe Lincoln quote? Something to the extent of you kill your enemy when you make them your friend.

So I’ve always prided myself on that philosophy of being inclusive when it comes to preparedness and making it accessible to everybody. And I still am going to uphold those values to the best of my capability. However, I’ve now been reduced to being a single issue voter here in Canada. And that’s because of this issue right here. Now this may come as a surprise to people because I may have expressed in passing my support for candidates who are more pro gun, or maybe pro gun is not the term, but just more pro liberty than otherwise. But I’ve never officially and resolutely supported anyone.

And that is what I’m doing today in my endorsement for Pierre Poliev, the Conservative leader in Canada for the next Prime Minister of this country. I officially and openly endorse Pierre Poliev. This is the first time I’ve ever done anything like this on the channel. Perhaps I’m sticking my neck out there, I don’t know. At this point in time, I’m sure that the majority of my audience is still conservative and they’re happy about this. But. But understand what this means. This doesn’t mean that I’m going to succumb to all the party politics and wedge issues. This is strictly because I believe that self preservation is an inalienable human right and the primary means of upholding that is through the right to bear arms.

That is it. I don’t want people to think that I’m going to start throwing out right wing talking points on this channel. It’s not going to happen. When it boils down to it, for me personally, one of the most, one of the cardinal privileges and rights that any prepper should seek to defend is your ability to have to defend yourself. Once they can take that away. They can basically take anything away. So if you’re on the left and you watch this channel and you’ve always supported my political agnosticism, I don’t want you to think that anything is going to change above and beyond my supporting Pierre Poliev for that simple reason that he has agreed to repeal all of these inefficacious laws that are being put forth by the liberals.

Some people say it’s a wet wedge issue. I think it’s something more malevolent. But we’ll get to that in just a moment because I want to talk about the philosophy of firearms ownership and how they’ve tricked people into thinking that this is actually a political issue. It is not. Just like most issues, they’re really not political issues. Like the entire alignment of political platform talking points really makes fundamentally no sense whatsoever when you think about it. But just because you support a party, it’s presumed that you support everything that party does. Nothing can be further from the truth when it comes to myself personally, and I’ve been very reluctant to get involved in this conversation because I find that politics is polemical and it causes people to dig their heels in on the other side.

Even if you do some long winded disclaimer like this, there’s going to be somebody who’s hair triggered and reactionary in the comment section who mistakes exactly what I’m getting at here. But if you’ve made it this far into the conversation, maybe you’ll hear me out. Now we’re entering an age of turnkey totalitarianism. Turnkey totalitarianism is a concept that things might be great right now in these technologies that enshroud us. From the surveillance based technologies to the wide range of digital double edged sword technologies that can be used against us when the time comes. It’s widely believed that right now we still are able to indulge and enjoy with a relative amount of civil liberties.

But you get to the point where you’re in a situation where all they have to do is essentially turn a key and then suddenly all of those things that you are leveraging in order to enhance your life suddenly become weaponized against you. Okay, the self driving car thing is one of the best examples. You know, it’s one of these things that’s amazing. I’ve had a Tesla for years. Full self driving is. It’s out of this world and until you experience it, you don’t know what you’re talking about. That said, that very technology can be used to lock up your car, seize up your vehicle, maybe get the car to drive you down to the police station or whatever the case might be, it could be weaponized against you.

There’s always a catch 22, okay? And what they’ve done in Canada, very well meaning people who are unfortunately conduits for malfeasance have convinced people that self defense is actually a bad thing. In Canada, contrary to popular belief, you can defend yourself using a firearm. However, it’s as far as I know, and this might not be completely accurate in terms of how it’s litigated, but it’s actually, it’s not considered a justifiable reason to own a firearm for self defense. However, if there is a demonstrable threat of grievous bodily harm and you have a firearm that just so happens to be loaded at the time, you can use it to defend yourself.

Now, again, don’t walk away with this with any sort of legal advice because it’s a sticky issue and, and it’s one that is still widely contested in the courts to this day. But understand that the first goal of any country who is on a trajectory towards tyranny is to convince people that self defense is actually the essence of evil. And you guys know I’m not religious either. I’m an agnostic through and through, politically and religiously. But if I was the devil, just to give you an easy analogy to understand, if I was the devil and I wanted to take over the world, the first thing I would convince people of is that it’s bad to defend yourself, that it’s someone else’s responsibility who is more knowledgeable than you.

Okay? Now, a lot of liberals who subscribe to firearms confiscation, a lot of them virtue signal in this way, and a lot of them are actually well meaning, believe it or not. I can tell you that most liberals who want guns to be taken away from firearms owners, they genuinely mistakenly believe that these guns are a threat. Now, there’s a reason why, and it goes deep, and I don’t know how deep I want to get with this, but here’s the gist of it. When you live in a high rise building downtown and you have to have water pumped up 50 floors and electricity, and you rely on a very, very fragile and intricate global supply chain in order to feed that city that you live in, in which you are the uppermost part of that, you are the most dependent on that system, you are going to, whether you like it or not, whether you’re aware of it or not, you’re not going to be conscious that you’re doing this, but you are going to view any sort of self reliant person who potentially poses a threat to that system as anathema to that system.

Understand what I’m saying here is that most people who are heavily plugged in and dependent on the system, and this is going to sound very morpheus like in the analogy, but they are going to have a knee jerk reaction against anyone or anything that is a potential liability to that system. And what is a liability to that system? It’s anybody who has self reliance skills, not just firearms, but anybody whose backyard chicken farm might pose a threat to mass agriculture that they depend on. Again, these people won’t consciously acknowledge this, but their knee jerk reaction is going to be one of aversion towards any issue which actually empowers individuals.

They’ll say, I want to buy organic and save all the chickens and stuff like that, but they don’t actually understand what it genuinely means. So there’s a aversion to anybody who can take care of themselves because in taking care of yourself, that’s a variable that the government can’t control. And this very elaborate, intricate, the global supply chain relies on control. And the more liabilities you have out there, the worse it gets. Now guns are a big component of why most of these people in high rise buildings. It’s the biggest issue they take with this group. And their ability to protect themselves is something that doesn’t sit well with people who have no ability to protect themselves.

Right. These are people who rely on the police. In fact, you could make the argument that they rely on an increasingly more militarized police because as the system gets so complicated, they require even more efficient jackboot thuggery in order to enforce the laws, the more complicated laws, because of course laws tend to only grow in amounts under these types of regimes. So understand that the first impulse of any living thing, the first imperative, is self preservation. You look at a bacteria under a microscope, it’s trying to avoid being killed. That’s its whole M.O. is avoid death.

Move towards things that empower you and move away from things that are trying to kill you. And this individual drive towards self defense, this is one of the cardinal instincts that has helped humanity survive over millennia. It is why they call it an inalienable right to defend yourself. Because again, if you can convince people that they don’t have the right to defend themselves, then you can convince them of anything. If they can beat that instinct out of you that you should have the ability to stop somebody, to stop a would be attacker Think about that for a second.

How is that going to translate? When some institution, some government, some bureaucracy comes after you? You’re going to be conditioned to not defend yourself, okay? So what they’re doing right now is they’re leveraging people’s fears of these potential liabilities. Why do you need all these guns stored? Why do you need all this food? You know, people have a, this, this revulsion towards preppers. And I’m going to tell you why. It’s because they fear the disparity that’s going to occur should something happen. Because in the backs of these people’s mind living in those high rise buildings, they know full well how fragile the system is.

And they know unconsciously, at any time, they don’t even. This is probably a thought they’ve never even actually consciously had, but they unconsciously know how unnatural it is of a certain set of circumstances for them to be in that high rise building, getting all that heat and water and electricity pumped up there and having their animals shipped in from all around the world and their food and all this stuff, right? They understand on a visceral level how unnatural that is. And because their entire existence depends on the system, they’ll do anything to protect that system. Even if it means going against their own instincts, their own fundamental instinct to self preserve.

They will go against. That’s why people will willingly walk into the gas chambers in the future. They will willingly go into the euthanasia clinics in the future. They’ll willingly sterilize themselves, okay, and inject themself with whatever they’re told to. Because it’s an extension of this. If you can convince somebody that somebody attacking you and you defending yourself is a bad thing, then you can get away with anything. So the malevolence with these people who, again, I’m not throwing shade. I was one of those people, I was one of you, okay, who thought that. Who didn’t understand how supporting the militarization of police and the demilitarization of the public was a recipe for turnkey totalitarianism.

I was one of those people who did not understand it. When ICE T said I’ll give up yours, your firearm, or I’ll give up my firearm when you give up yours. I couldn’t understand that. I couldn’t wrap my head around that. But it makes perfect sense. Let’s say, for example, that you’re a person who believes that George Floyd was treated wrongly and was killed and murdered by Derek Chauvin. Let’s just assume that you of that belief, okay? I’m not trying to create a political debate about it. I’m just trying to make a comparison here. Now, would you want the police to be more militarized or less militarized? What do you think’s gonna happen when they turn the tables on you? And this is why they call it turnkey totalitarianism.

Because every government, law and regulation that is put into place can be used by the next government who might not be of your political choosing. And this is why you need to be very careful with the removal of your own rights and freedoms for so called utilitarian purposes, because it may well be used against you when the tables do finally turn. So the malevolence of all of this is being a conduit for other elitist malfeasance, which basically gets its power from the centralization of control. As wealth becomes more consolidated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, you have to potentially be more and more paranoid and want more and more and more control over the system.

And that is where we’re heading. And so part of that is making sure that people have no ability to defend themselves. Not just the ability, but have no desire to offend themselves. They want to actually inculcate you with the idea that self preservation is inherently a bad thing and it’s a threat to the collective. So this is why this is such a important issue for me personally, because I realize how integral it is to preparedness. Gun confiscation is not something that is benign. It is incredibly insidious. And while it may be some well meaning people, and this is something, this is an olive branch I’ve always been willing to extend because I don’t want them to dig their heels in.

Because oftentimes what happens with this debate is that the people who are making sense like I’m making now, overplay their hand and start lambasting the other side as being a bunch of idiots. And if you take that approach, it’s only going to backfire. You’re going to overplay your hand. So we can’t take that approach with this, especially in Canada, where it’s still a toss up as to, you know, that the future of Canadian gun rights really does hang in the balance at this point. And if you can’t try to communicate to people on a level that they can understand, we’re going to lose our rights forever.

Okay, so when I approach this with people on the left, I tell them, is it fair that the police, who I respect, but is it fair that they are increasingly becoming more militarized? Those same police were going to crack down on you because you say free Palestine or you say Free George Floyd. And this is what they don’t want you to talk about in the media. They want this to be a tribalistic, divisive issue. But if everybody actually knew the truth, they knew the truth about why the Black Panthers were armed, why Malcolm X was armed, then maybe they would wake up to this and understand that this is not a political issue.

There are plenty of wedge issues out there. This should not be one of them. Gun confiscation, whether you, whether your party’s in charge or not, and whether you’re just well meaning, the road to hell was paved with good intentions. As trite as that saying is, it’s the truth. It is insidious. And when you have the government trying to pass these inefficacious laws that make no sense, they actually don’t do anything. It would be one thing if the laws actually reduce gun crime, which they don’t, okay, that’s proven that they don’t actually reduce gun crime. And even if they did, one could make the argument, so what? So what? There’s a cost to having the ability to be free and to be able to weather a storm in whatever form it may take.

Take self driving for example. It’s a great example because, you know, the government can, it’s a great technology, but they can seize up your car in a moment’s notice if they actually wanted to. Okay, so do we want to move into a world where it’s illegal to drive? People are going to say, yeah, driving is bad. You know, people plow their cars through people. You can weaponize it, right? And more accidents happen. So what, you want to be free in case it’s an insurance policy, Right? But let’s just say that there was a legitimate, you know, there was a demonstrable reduction in gun crime as a result of firearms being confiscated.

So what? There is no legitimate reason right now for them to be doing this. And that is why, you know, it is very nefarious, because they know what we’re talking about. They know they, in terms of whoever is handing down these orders for these people to come on these panels and start talking about things they know nothing about, only that gun bad and disarm population good. I actually don’t think that a lot of the front people for this really understand what they’re doing, but understand how nefarious it is. And that’s how you know it’s nefarious. Because there is no demonstrable effect on gun crime when Removing firearms.

So at least not in Canada anyways. And again, even if there was, so this is how, you know, it’s evil, it’s malevolent in nature, and how ultimately it ends. It ends in authority being abused. And we know that it’s historically precedented that authority will abuse power. Last night I was watching a video of 1930s Chicago and it was colorized and it was put in 60 frames per second. And, and it’s remarkable how really little has changed. You know, everybody thinks, oh, the world is so different now. But you know, I mean, there’s buildings, there’s people walking around, there’s cars driving around, there’s kids playing in the street.

Not much has changed. And that was before World War II. The abuse of authority is historically precedented and in fact it’s almost guaranteed to happen. So when you have people who are anti gun and at the same time getting their heads beat in by the police because their political talking point is not thought too highly of, something’s wrong, okay? We’ve been inculcated with this idea that self preservation is wrong until we’re getting beaten over the head by the police. So I think that what happens with a lot of liberals, for lack of a better term, is because they’re not prepared themselves.

And this doesn’t even have to be liberal. It could be conservative. There are conservatives who aren’t preppers. But anybody who has this knee jerk, prepper, paranoid person angry all the time, anybody who has that knee jerk reaction that preppers are just living in fear all the time, chances are what’s happening there on an unconscious level is that they’re realizing how unprepared they are and they need to rationalize their inaction by viewing this person as crazy. That’s what it ultimately boils down to. And the same thing is true with, with firearms. You don’t perceive there to be a threat because you don’t value your life, you don’t value self preservation.

So there is no threats, right? Until of course there’s going to be militarized police that you’re going to chalk up to being the fault of the right, which it was likely policies of the left that helped get them there. And this is why it’s an apolitical issue and it’s called turnkey totalitarianism because it doesn’t matter who is sitting in the driver’s seat at the time, should they want to crack down, they turn that key. And all of those technologies that were put there to empower you now get used to attack you all the surveillance and tracking technologies, the full self driving, the inability for you to procure any sort of firearm that fires over a certain rate per second.

So it’s in this fear and it’s their fear, right? Because they say preppers live in fear, but it’s actually them who fear their own inadequacy when compared to preppers. Because going back to what I initially stated, they understand the fragility of the system and they want a living, level playing field if it all goes to. And how do you have that? Well, you have everybody just as dependent as you crabs in a bucket. And this will sound trite, but many people who’ve committed atrocities over the years didn’t believe that they were committing atrocities at the time.

And they wouldn’t have thought that what they were doing, the policies that they were promoting, were basically paving the groundwork for such atrocities to be committed in the future. And understand that the people at the top, they have an insatiable threat, thirst for power, and that is never going to be relinquished. Once they have the guns, they’re never going to give them back. We had the long gun registry, that was the one exception, I think. But once they take these rights away, they’re likely never going to be rescinded or repealed. Now, the RCMP right now in Manitoba is talking about going door to door for efficient mobile collection of firearms because there’s these remote communities and they have to go now and acquire these firearms by force.

And of course this is going to unfortunately lead to altercations, I presume. Now, if you’re a person who’s worried about firearms in Canada, number one, go and support the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights. They’re the only people who are doing good work with respect to trying to preserve whatever privileges we have and again, certainly trying to expand those privileges that we have, and I have to call them privileges here in Canada because we don’t view it as an inalienable human right. Of course, we all do as individuals, but the government doesn’t recognize it as such. In Saskatchewan, you can also move here because there’s some protections in place in an attempt to interdict this gun confiscation which looms overhead.

The Saskatchewan Firearms act, passed in April of 2023, aims to protect the rights of lawful firearms owners in the province by establishing license requirements for seizure agents, requiring fair compensation for seize firearms, and establishing a provincial firearms regulatory system. So this is how Saskatchewan is going to make it complicated for the feds to come and try to repossess and expropriate everybody’s firearms. The act aims to ensure the rights of responsible firearms owners and that they are respected and that the province has its own legislation to address their concerns. So here’s what’s going to happen. The act establishes licensing requirements for individuals and businesses, just putting more barriers in the way of the feds trying to confiscate your guns.

Involved in firearms expropriation, ensuring a heavily regulated process. Also, fair compensation. Now, for me personally, I don’t like the conversation about compensation because it makes it seem as though if you give me fair value for my firearm, then I’ll be okay with it, which I’m not, right? So the compensation argument almost moves the goalpost in a way I don’t like. So I don’t give a shit If I’m getting a dollar or $10,000. I don’t want to give up my guns. Okay? Now, and this is a. Perhaps something that people might want to consider. It’s an ethical thing too.

Like if somebody were to give you, you know, 10x the amount for your firearms, would you give them all away? And then you have to ask, why are they paying me so much to get rid of these things that, you know, we know is not going to have any sort of measurable effect on gun crime? That almost makes it scarier, doesn’t it? Anyways, the act mandates fair compensation for firearms being seized as overseen by a firearms compensation committee. More hoops to jump through, delay, delay, delay, in the hopes that this can be repealed by Pierre Poliev of the Conservatives.

The Saskatchewan Firearms Office will be responsible for administering new legislation and will take on the expanded role in prosecuting nonviolent provincial firearms offenses. The act also acquires forensic and ballistic testing of seized firearms. So that’s another step. They seize a firearm, they gotta test it. Where are they going to test it? That’s going to be a whole process, right? So what I’m saying is, if you want to postpone what I hope isn’t inevitable, then come to Saskatchewan. And I think Alberta has a very similar policy as well. And lastly, as I’ve always said, isn’t it funny how with these authoritarian regimes, these burgeoning authoritarian regimes that are in their infancy, isn’t it funny how they’re always willing to put a gun in your hand when it comes to killing somebody else overseas, but they’re so readily willing to take those guns away? And that’s how you know when you’re Approaching World War 3 is when they’re ready to give the guns back.

But there’s a caveat. You have to go over there and probably die for some rich man’s war. Right? And so now that the issue of civil defense has taken root in Canada as a result of the trade war, you have all of these liberals talking about armed resistance against a US Military incursion. And while that might seem fantastical, it is not beyond the realm of possibility for Canada to defend itself with guerrilla style tactics against a armed US Invasion, however unlikely as it might be. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility, but it certainly is impossible if nobody is armed.

And so it’s just interesting to see that as the shit hits the fan, whether it was the pandemic or anything else, that’s when liberals run out and buy guns. And even that reverse Trump effect in that, you know, when Trump gets into power, everybody feels they need a firearm to protect against, you know, the far right menace. And so all we’re saying is that gun rights transcend politics. The reason why I’m endorsing Pierre Poiev as the next leader of Canada is strictly because he has stated that he will repeal these unjustified gun legislations that have been passed by the Liberal government.

That’s it. That’s all. And so I hope that I’ve not alienated a significant portion of my audience who is on the left, but is sensible and understands that this is something that should. This should not even be a political issue. There is no reason whatsoever why gun ownership should be an issue which is only promoted by the right. It makes no sense whatsoever. On that note, once again, I openly and resolutely support Pierre Poliev for the next leader of Canada. We got to get these guys out of there because if we don’t, we’re going to lose our rights and it’s going to affect you and your children and your children’s children.

And these are rights that we’re never going to get back. So please move to Saskatchewan, Support Pierre at least this time around. Let’s hold them to task and support the ccfr. And if you like to support this channel as well. Thanks for watching Canadian Prepper out.
[tr:tra].

See more of Canadian Prepper on their Public Channel and the MPN Canadian Prepper channel.