🇺🇸🇮🇱⚡️- 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.

If we don’t value the idea of every White man having political franchise and real representation, regardless of their socio-economic status, we don’t have a leg to stand on when we criticize Jewish influence and power taking over our government.

If it’s our political interests that matter, then they have to really matter within the system, and that means political representation for our people, not just the wealthy Epstein class.

Imagine if our government somehow restored that old property requirement for political franchise, imagine how much more power boomers would have, not to mention the billionaire Epstein class. It would be off the fucking charts. You already hate their political influence now.

Roughly half of Millennials and Gen Z don’t even own a stinking shed. Our situation would be so much worse if we went back to property requirement, which was short sighted to begin with.

This is another plus 1 for democracy (or at least direct democracy). No one can deny that under a functional democracy, the government would obey the actual will of the people, which typically results in severely limiting immigration — especially illegal immigration. There’s no denying this!

The existence of the Boomer generation, as well as what we call the Epstein class, is more than enough to convince me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that wealth and property should NEVER be used as a metric to assess an individual's worthiness regarding politics, political franchise, aptitude, integrity, or anything else.

Some of the wealthiest people out there are also some of the dumbest and most degenerate traitors, with minimal integrity and respect for anything other than their own ego.

Right, and many of the wealthy property owners and big business executives are champagne-liberals that vote for anti-White policies like open borders so they can enjoy cheaper labor. They don’t give a damn about White people, even if they are White. They vote for their own personal financial interests, not for the wellbeing of the race. Even financially upper-middle class Whites (mostly boomers) are going to vote for what benefits them rather than the race as a whole. They are addicted to cheap labor and want an incredible range of spicy restaurants.

That’s another reason why I oppose giving property owners (the wealthy) exclusive political franchise over the White majority, regardless of financial/property status.

In fact, I would be more in favor of reducing the political franchise of the wealthy, because unlike everyone else, the wealthy can really insulate themselves from society’s problems. They can buy huge plots of land, vacation homes in other countries, houses in gated communities in the best neighborhoods, and they can afford private security.

They don’t have to be as responsible with their political choices; they don’t have to suffer if they vote for the wrong people or the wrong party, because the problems that result from their poor political choices will never really hurt them. It is the rest of us, the poor and middle class, that must suffer if they are irresponsible and unaware of the societal-wide consequences of their political choices, and that’s if they even care about us at all!

What matters is incentives and skin in the game. Rich people do have some skin in the game, but it’s not really their own skin, more so just their wealth. You have more skin in the game, your real skin, because you can’t afford to be wrong with your political choices. You can’t buy your way out of a bad choice, precisely because you are not wealthy enough to own a huge property that can insulate you from poor choices.

So when it comes to the question of who should or shouldn't have political franchise, my overall point is that it's people like YOU who should have more political franchise.

Most of you reading this probably aren't wealthy enough to purchase a small house, much less meet a quarter of the historic property requirement for political franchise in the early 20th century. Most of you are struggling Millennials and Gen Z just trying to get by and pay your rent on time. And because of your situation, you have to live closer to diversity; you are the ones that aren't getting sufficient political representation. Your grievances, needs, and concerns aren't being properly addressed.

Maybe a couple of you are rich, but most of us here are among the working/renting class of Whites, the common folk, the ones being shit on by the establishment the hardest.

When I speak highly of democracy, what I am saying is that the common White man should have more power and more of his rights protected.