Some people still don’t understand what I’m saying here.

What I’ve come to realize is that many White people aren’t naturally ethnocentric enough (at least not consciously) to understand that they need to play on team White. And they won’t understand that until other races make them understand that. Some Whites won’t see racial differences and embrace White Nationalism until they experience being excluded by other races or worse…

You either understand what I’m saying or you don’t.

To go back to the sports analogy, some White people just won’t understand that they need to play for team White until team negro steals their ball a couple times. If that doesn’t happen, they won’t open their eyes.

There’s little doubt in my mind that many of ChudTheBuilders biggest fans are blacks that want to give White people the N-word pass, in order to make White people feel more comfortable being around blacks.

Never underestimate the extreme lengths non-Whites are willing to go to gain access to White people and extract White DNA.

Toronto used to be cool. It used to be a vibe

““wHy aRe tHerE iNdiaNs In pOrTuGaL?!”

Because they are good slaves, you are not.

I hate essay-posting but allow me a rare indulgence:

To understand what is happening now, you need understand that this isn’t the first time it’s happened.

Why are there Indians in Kenya? Suriname? Fiji? Burma?

Because Indians have always been the preferred servile class of elites. The evidence for this goes back hundreds of years.

I’ve spoken about British colonial Burma before, and it is a great example of what this looks like.

Even after extensive efforts to bring them to heel, the majority of the Burmese ethnic groups were far too resistant to submit to the British empire to be reliable labor. They refused to abandon their culture and ways of life to be slave drones for British pocketbooks. So the Brits started importing Indians to be their colonial administrators, preferring them as labor because they were easier to control and satisfy.

By the 1940s, Indians made up almost 20% of the population of the entire country.

Another great historical example of this is Suriname - a small country in South America that had been under Dutch colonial rule for 300 years.

The Dutch abolished slavery in 1863, forcing colonial plantation owners to have to hire labor to do the work they had previously been using slaves for. But… they didn’t want to pay former slaves or Indigenous locals a living wage for the work.

So what did the Dutch elites do instead? Import Indians.

Today, Indians still make up 27% of the population. 27%. Of a tiny, obscure South American country.

We could basically go through the list of every country with a non-negligible Indian population and the theme would be consistent: They were brought there by elites who needed a submissive, easily exploitable labor pool when local labor asked for better living conditions or wages.

Why? Because Indians never did. They are a population that seems fully content with subjugation (even Marx noticed this).

So it’s easy to see why they were such an ideal population for the intensive global expansion era of colonial empires. And it’s even easier to see why they are perfect subjects for late capitalism now.

They are the culturally, psychologically, and physically ideal organism for the dominant system.

There’s 1.4 billion of them. They are deeply socially stratified and so expect and even enjoy inequality. Their cuisine is cheap, meat-free slop. They live amongst trash and filth with no qualms. They don’t care about the environment. Their reaction to death and abuse is blank-eyed indifference. They are physically and spiritually malleable. They not only adopt and internalize the demands of the dominant system as personal ambition, they believe this servitude makes them better than everyone else who hasn’t.

Absolutely IDEAL subjects.

You, on the other hand, are not the ideal subject.

You want to live in a high-trust society. You would shed tears if someone tried to cut down the apple tree you climbed as a child to build a data center. You want to see and experience beauty. You want your own space. You have an expectation that your living conditions will improve over time. You would not be content to live in a room with 10 other people, work 16 hours per day for pennies, and eat cheap slop.

You are a liability. Just like the Burmese and Surinamese slaves were.

And as we continue to crawl deeper into this late capitalist hellscape, you and your silly little needs will come into increasing conflict with those of the system.

Thus, you WILL be replaced by people far easier to control and far less concerned about their own welfare or the welfare of everyone and everything around them.

… Unless you do something about it. But the system has already locked-in that you won’t, and that you’ll just sort of fade into nothingness, distracted by meaningless comforts and terrified of the uncertainty of change.

So “why are Indians in [wherever]?”

Because you are about to not be.”

https://x.com/slatzism/status/2053955955508019269

👆This is why I think it’s futile (and even suicidal) for us to focus our efforts on trying appeal to the elites to try to win them over to our cause. The ruling class don’t want White people, they want Indians to replace them. They want absolutely obedient, mindless slaves.

It is only when the elites genuinely fear a racially aware host population that can take action against them, with lethal consequences, that they (the elites) will fall in line with Nationalism.

This ties into why some of the elites (Peter Thiel, Elon) are trying to influence and co-opt right wing politics, in order to insert and pervert certain ideas (authoritarianism, hierarchy, monarchy, anti-freedom) that facilitate a society where they become a ruling hereditary aristocracy that remove your rights, turn you into a subject, and exercise complete control over you. And we all know where that can lead: being replaced by Indians.

These ideas on the right promote the restoration of medieval institutions associated with feudalism, they have nothing to offer the White race, it’s just a one way road to techno-feudalism, and more Indians.

All these ideas are just a blank check for the elites to steam roll your rights and your race.

🇺🇸🇮🇱⚡️- Ed Gallrein has defeated Representative Thomas Massie in the Kentucky 4th Congressional District primary in a major win for Israel and Trump.

This was the most expensive House primary in American history totaling close to $33 million in campaign spending alongside normal payments to zionist and pro Trump influencers.

All our enemies have is money, but they have a lot of it.

The next time we do a republic, we need an updated constitution that makes it illegal to mix money with politics.

With diversity, no form of government works except the worst, most brutal, abject totalitarianism — the kind where your society is an open air prison. Is that solution we want? Absolutely not. So the problem with our republic is not that it is a republic. The problem is the presence of non-White populations fucking it all up. The answer isn’t to do away with a republic, but to reestablish the White republic that the founding fathers established.

Getting rid of our republic because it doesn’t work when we have diversity is like getting rid of cities because our cities aren’t safe anymore, because of diversity.

The problem isn’t the system or form of government, it’s the non-Whites that are the problem.

The more you read about people in the past, especially Americans around the years leading up to the War for Independence, the more you'll realize that they actually weren't dramatically different from the heritage Americans alive today — they were just dealing with greater physical brutality. They didn't just revolt over a 2% tax (a popular lie); they were galvanized by the pigheaded brutality of the British Empire's heavy-handed policies and tactics. The oppressive establishment/elites we are dealing with today are much better at being subtle, cloak-and-dagger, and are less openly violent toward the population than the British Empire was.

That's why it seems like modern heritage Americans are more docile than their 18th-century ancestors, but that is a popular misunderstanding. It’s fake news.

Arguments against democracy have been on my mind lately, especially a contradiction I’ve noticed for many years in some Dissident Right critiques. The argument, as I understand it, is that democracy gives the ruling class a false claim to legitimacy. Even when people are unhappy with the direction of the country, they are less likely to revolt because they are led to believe (implicitly or explicitly) that “the people voted for this.” In other words, democracy turns elite rule into something that appears to be the will of the majority.

That is a serious critique, and I do think there is merit to it. Elections, media, donor influence, bureaucracies, and public opinion can all be managed/manufactured in ways that make people feel like that the majority consented to policies they never really wanted. Democracy can hypothetically become a pressure valve. It can make people accept outcomes they hate because they assume those outcomes must have some kind of popular mandate behind them.

But the contradiction is that the proposed alternatives are always systems where the ruling class does not need the consent of the governed at all. The Dissident Right argument seems to be that this would at least make elite betrayal more obvious. If the rulers are traitors, people would know they are traitors because there would be no democratic illusion hiding the relationship between ruler and ruled.

But that still does not solve the initial problem. A system where the people have no representation, no veto, and no meaningful mechanism for removing the ruling class does not give them more power over treacherous elites. It gives them less. Sure, It may make illegitimate rule more visible, but it also makes it harder to resist through any normal political means; or any means whatsoever if the population is inevitably disarmed by that more totalitarian/autocratic system, thus leaving the people with absolutely zero recourse.

So the argument almost ends up proving the opposite of what it intends. If elites are always going to rule, and if the best a system can do is force them to seek, manufacture, simulate, or manage public consent, then democracy may actually accomplish more of what the Dissident Right claims to want than their own alternatives do. “Democracy” may be flawed, manipulated, and manufactured consent —but even manufactured consent still forces rulers to acknowledge that the people’s consent matters. A system that openly discards consent does not expose elite rule so much as remove the last formal obstacle to it.

TL;DR: If democracy is bad because it hides elite rule behind fake consent, then replacing it with a system where elites need no consent at all does not solve the problem — it just makes the people even more powerless.

Getting rid of democracy only makes sense (works in our favor) if our population can permanently maintain widespread possession of modern, military grade weaponry in order to physically remove and replace any traitorous ruling class/establishment.

There’s no point in having a system that removes the illusion of popular consent if the population can’t do armed revolt.

The other reason why criticism of democracy usually fails to be compelling to smart people outside of Telegram is that there is no solid definition of what is and isn't a democracy. As I have pointed out before, the collective definitions of democracy held by both the right and the left are far too broad and nebulous. By these broad definitions of democracy, modern Russia under Putin could be considered a democracy because the Russian people still vote. Of course, it doesn't really matter in their case; but voting is still a function of Russian politics, thus it falls within the broad definition that people have been using around here.

You can't properly criticize something that isn’t at first properly defined.

The world, as I see it, runs on incentives. If you don’t have power — physical, political, or financial — then people with power have little, if any, real incentive to help you, because you can’t meaningfully reward them, punish them, or affect their interests.

That’s another reason why I think voting is an institution worth keeping, as well as an armed populace.

And regarding political franchise (the right to vote), inevitably you have to give it to your entire population (at least the entire male population) if you want to secure their loyalty. People that don’t have political representation will rightfully consider you to be an occupier rather than their legitimate government.

This is why racial separation is very important. In order to have nice things like democracy or a republic that actually works well, we need it to be White.

Being loyal to a system that doesn’t provide you with political representation/franchise is literal cuckoldry.