The founders never created a democracy, and to this day it has never been a democracy, officially or unofficially — democracy isn’t just voting. As I see it, the original purpose of voting as the main mechanism of any system is to mitigate internal hostility, class conflict and the possibility of civil war. Voting as a mechanism is the peaceful solution for settling political disagreements.

These ideas that certain people should or shouldn’t vote based on property or status is bullshit in practice — because it doesn’t last. The right to vote ultimately belongs to people that have a willingness and capacity for organized violence, because if you don’t give those kind of people the privilege of voting, you ultimately end up with secession and civil war.

Voting is supposed to be a mechanism that facilitates political stability, and I believe that mechanism usually works very well. But sometimes war and secession are necessary for long term stability and sanity, and voting then only exists to maintain an unworthy and unnatural peace among people that shouldn’t be sharing the same country.

https://t.me/AltSkull48/22567

And this segues into our right to keep and bear arms and why it’s so critically important for us to preserve at all costs. That is our real “vote” card, our “hey, please listen to us or else” card, if you catch my drift. The ruling class knows it.

The reason why voting feels fake and gay in the modern world is because votes are now backed by nothing, just like our fiat currency is backed by nothing. Voting had meaning when it was backed by the possibility of violence — backed by people willing and capable of enough violence that not giving them the vote would be dangerous to society.

The reason why voting will always be around as a mechanism within any future political order is because there is no other peaceful mechanism (at least that I’m aware of) to resolve political disagreements within a nation. People will vote in the ethnostate, even if it’s not officially a democracy.

What’s the alternative? Just obey the ruling party? The dissident right on telegram can’t even agree with each other on any single issue.

Some of the arguments I have with people on Telegram feel like trying to explain to an adult why they should wear a seatbelt whenever they’re in a vehicle.

Wearing a seatbelt isn’t actually necessary to operate a vehicle, and plenty of people drive around “safely” everyday without wearing one. So if someone has been driving without a seatbelt for years and nothing bad has happened to them, nothing I say about why they should wear one is necessarily going to convince them. In their mind, nothing bad can happen if nothing bad has happened.

The only thing that would objectively vindicate my side of the argument is them finally getting into a serious car accident and going face-first through the windshield. Until that happens, their anti-seatbelt position still has a certain plausibility to it: I’ve never worn one before, and I’ve been fine.

Just like with the seatbelt example, some arguments are unwinnable—and therefore unconstructive—not because you’re wrong, but because time and events haven’t proven the other side wrong yet.

Realizing this sheds some light on the futility of arguing online sometimes. People can just continue insisting that you’re wrong for as long as reality hasn’t yet forced them to confront the consequences of being wrong.

If only jewish voters voted.

jewish Virtual Library compilation of Jewish vote shares: consistently ~65–80%+ Democratic in modern elections (e.g., ~70% average for Democrats since 1968; specific years like 2016 Clinton 71%, 2020 Biden ~68–70%, etc.).

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-voting-record-in-u-s-presidential-elections

U.S. Jews’ political views (2020/2021 data and ongoing): ~70% identify with/lean Democratic; strongly liberal overall (Orthodox are the main exception and more Republican).

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-political-views/

National Election Pool / Edison (consortium of major networks): ~79% Harris / 21% Trump (limited states, did not fully cover NY/CA).

AP/Fox News / NORC analysis: ~66% Harris / 32% Trump (broader coverage; still solid Democratic majority; closer in NY ~55% and FL ~56% Harris, higher in CA ~76%).

https://www.jta.org/2024/11/06/united-states/79-of-jews-voted-for-kamala-harris-according-to-largest-preliminary-exit-poll

One of the first things that kind of radicalized me on race was Obama's re-election. I expected Romney to win in a landslide, but then I learned that the country's demographics were brown enough to elect democrats even when the economy sucked. I learned for the first time in late 2012 that whites were a declining share of the population and would become a minority in the US some point in the future.

This is, of course, a conservative, normie-tier meme. However, I think it illustrates something that some individuals deeper in the White Nationalist movement seem to routinely forget—I’m not thinking of anyone specifically, just generally speaking. White Nationalism, at least since World War II, has never been more mainstream than it is today, and a big part of that is due to an improvement in optics and frame.

This applies to our use of language as much as our appearance. I’m not saying everyone has to be super clean-cut, but it’s always important to show that it is actually the anti-Whites who are the abnormal, hate-filled extremist thugs. However, it’s harder to do that if the anti-Whites can paint us as the unreasonable haters, which they’ve been doing for decades with success up until now. The truth has always been on our side, but in the optics-frame-game, It’s still all about turning the tables.

The frame game is real.

Alright, my mistake. I shared this image post thinking it was obvious that the Elephant was a Jew, and the part that says “city of London” looked like a speech balloon, along with the other speech balloons saying “reptilians” and “masons.”

https://t.me/AmericanNationalist91/3436

I can relate!

Fire crew in Washington posing with a Rhodesian flag. In a global Zimbabwe, we're all Rhodesians

Dan Bilzerian got 18.9 per cent of the Republican Primary vote.

Incredible considering he ran on a platform of open jew-hatred from day one, called his opponent Randy Fine a fat jew and saying Fine was “so fat he wouldn’t be able to fit him in the fake oven”, and posted AI generated Hitler edits as campaign material

19% is near 1 in 5 Republicans voters in Florida supporting him after such rhetoric.

His 19% of the vote was probably all men under 30.

It’s gonna be so over for the cuckservatives in a few years when the last of them die off.

If we could isolate one concept that infected White minds and facilitated racial suicide on a global level, it could just be NAXALT ("Not All X Are Like That").

In the struggle for the White soul, it is the NAXALT fallacy that stands in the way.

Of course you'll often still come across people that feel this need to rebut our position on race realism by arguing that they have a black acquaintance that is surprisingly smart, educated and well-assimilated. It never dawns on them that they're just proving us right, because the individual exceptions they point out just reinforce the fact that there's a strong, consistent racial pattern.

Or maybe the very concept of an exception is beyond their mental capacity, just as per capita is to blacks.

I often feel envy and regret when I think about the long list of things I’ve wanted to accomplish in life that other people have already accomplished; and I know that I’m certainly not alone in feeling that way. I wish I had more consistent access to a gym and had spent more time lifting weights. I wish I had more firearms training, more opportunities to practice martial arts, made more money, and had time to read all the books I once thought I’d get around to reading.

But then I look at the majority of men who have accomplished much more than I have in the various fields and hobbies that interest me, and I notice that many of them are still without a wife and children. A minority may have a wife or children, but it seems much rarer for them to have both. They’re rarely married fathers raising children within a nuclear family. If I’m going to be brutally honest, it often seems like most highly skilled and accomplished men that happen to have children rarely raise their own children—they aren’t fathers to their children; the only exception is men that become fathers much later in life, when they are mostly done acquiring skills and accomplishments.

I’m not pointing this out to disparage men who have accomplished more than I have. I’m pointing it out because life is ultimately about choices and tradeoffs. You can’t have everything. And even if you manage to have most of the things you want, something still has to give. There are only so many hours in a day and so many years in a life, and becoming exceptionally accomplished at anything usually requires sacrificing enormous amounts of time that could have been spent somewhere else.