THE NO VOTE MOVEMENT

by James Lawrence
 
Sorry to be a blackpiller, but no-one is likely to do anything about the fraudulent election in the US. The Fake News will hammer home the fake Biden win, and the Republicans and conservative Supreme Court will throw Trump under the bus.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on this. And it's certainly not a call to give up on Trump should he decide to fight his corner. It made sense for Americans to vote for him, both times, as a symbol of popular defiance. And it makes sense, right now, to contest the fake result as far as possible. The longer it drags on, and the more obvious it becomes to everyone that democracy is a sham, the better.

But don't listen to the fedposters talking about the coming civil war. The whole idea is a cope. After a Bullshido master gets stomped by a real fighter, he tells you that he would have won a 'no-holds-barred fight', in which he could use all his moves without getting arrested for lethal violence. Well, 'muh civil war' is 'muh no-holds-barred' for the democratic Right. It is the dream of a day when Amerikaners can finally use all their guns, without getting arrested for so much as pointing them at the local Red Guards.

For those of us who live in reality, war can only be a continuation of politics by other means. And the last four years have shown us what Trumpist politics looks like: one man, supported by his voters alone, ranting impotently on social media while the rest of the government works against him. If the voters try to support him on the streets, they are assaulted with de facto legal impunity by pro-government activists. If the man they elected tries to use loyalists to carry out his will, they end up being investigated on fraudulent grounds and jailed on technical charges.  
 
All of this bespeaks a massive power disparity that will carry over to any breakdown of order. Trump's enemies clearly have the state on their side, which means that they have the guns and the prerogative to use them. Privately-owned guns are lethal weapons; but so are privately-owned cars, in which Amerikaners drive to cities from they were ethnically cleansed, to work hard so that the interlopers don't have to. Whatever the weapon, only the Left can use it for political purposes, and I don't suggest you try to test this reasoning. The ball is in Trump's court, and the score so far doesn't look good.

Of course, the Right has a cope for this too. It is that Trump could have overcome the permanent state and carried out his policies, but he didn't really want to. No, he just wanted to con the Amerikaners for the umpteenth time, so that he could shill for the Israelis and military-industrial complex in the usual conservative way. This is horseshit, because Trump has gained nothing from his 'con', and may well end up losing everything. (For a starter list of based things that he tried to do but couldn't, see here.)

Again, the Bullshido analogy suggests itself, and this time it is the teachers at the political McDojo who are trying to save face. Alt-Right nationalists spent years trying to win over conservatives to the Sailer Strategy. Well, Trump took their advice – and his nationalism has turned out to be no less impotent in practice than Reaganite libertarianism. Hence the incentive to pretend that he wasn't Sailering in good faith.

Alt-Righters assumed that conservatives were too dumb and cowardly to adopt Sailer's logic. In the last four years, we've learned that conservatives are more cowardly than we could ever have imagined. But we've also learned that conservatives are not dumb. They are running a loyal-opposition party, and they shill for the military-industrial complex because that is literally all they can do in office. Most of them show no desire to change this state of affairs. They would happily hand out favours and obsess over constitutional minutiae were it not for the inconvenient need to court the plebs.
 
Trump, on the other hand, is dumb. We should be thankful for it, because he would never have gone anywhere near the political system had he known how it actually works. When he started breaking into the prolebait and eating it – saying the quiet parts out loud, and sincerely promising to put it all into practice – conservatives were almost as hysterical as progressives. They knew how to ration the embarrassing stuff, using just enough to get elected into their sinecures, so that they could carry out the grand old project of making sure the government doesn't do anything. They also knew not to use live prolebait, straight from the Alt-Right, which had not gone through the normal process of being compromised and caveated to death.

Conservatives also knew how to dance around the constraints upon them: obfuscating, rationalising, and compensating, so that nobody could see where indolence ended and incapacity began. But Trump had too much sincerity, and too little subtlety. He would openly fight the permanent government, and openly lose, exposing his unfreedom of action. After four years of this, only the fakepilled wignats still assume that Trump just doesn't want to help out De White Man. Everyone else on the Right knows all about the 'deep state', and lacks only an awareness of its true width and breadth.
 
You can imagine the terror of the NeverTrumpers in 2016. What did the madman think he was doing? It's not as if the plebs had anywhere else to dump their ballots!

But the cucks calmed down, once it was clear that Trump could not break his fetters, and that the legitimacy of their racket was not being called into question as a result. Now they are set to keep the Senate, and get rid of the Bad Orange Man, having inherited a vast stock of MAGA prolebait with no signs of life in it at all. This, above all, is the reason why there will be no civil war. We do not see two factions preparing to fight for power; we see an inner and outer party, both happy with the status quo, challenged by one old billionaire and a horde of powerless plebs.
 
And what of the Far Right Alt-Right Dissident Right? Once upon a time, in the late 2000s and early 2010s, it looked like we could hope to do more than vote for the least worst option. The Alt-Right of that time could claim no place in the lovers' tiff of leftists and neocons. So, almost in a fit of absence of mind, it drifted into vast forgotten waters outside the current of mainstream politics.

The Alt-Right wasn't trying to join the conservatives, so it had no need to compromise. Most of it wasn't trying to create an alternative party either, so it had no need to purity-spiral. It could explore all sorts of ideas, because it was not trying to pitch any of them to the masses. It had no politicians, so it could be radically honest. It had no formal leaders, so it could not be split up by infighting. It had no hierarchy, so the worst people in it could not gain control over the best. It could not do activism in cyberspace, so it concentrated on the quality of its ideas – not the quantity of dysfunctional halfwits that could march down a street in the name of the white race.
 
All of this unleashed a lot of energy – enough to convince me that the 'Movement' had learned from the strategic mistakes of the past. As later events were to prove, this was totally wrong. Most of the Alt-Right had no clue about strategy, and those of us who came up with good ideas could not enforce them on others. What the Alt-Right had tasted, all too briefly, was the heady fresh air of freedom from democracy

But its detachment was based on chance, not choice. There was always a sense of guilt about it, as if we should be doing something more 'serious', preferably en masse and on TV. Cranks and monomaniacs, the suppressed ego of the Movement, seethed in comment-threads and berated writers for their heresies. Larpers claimed the precedence of the virgin namefag activist over the Chad anon shitposter. Some people were trying to turn the whole thing into a new Far Right clown show, but it was unclear whether or not they would succeed.
 
And then along came Donald Trump. 
 
At one blast of Trump's clarion, the Alt-Right turned back towards democratic politics. And it immediately began to tread all the old paths of failure. It hammered out a single mass line, while haemorrhaging masses of people who didn't fit into it. It ground down a hundred intellectual flowers, and shat out a dreary swill of Pepe-Kek memes for white nationalist teens. It fell under the tyranny of its facefag activists and thought-leaders, who responded to any criticism of their uselessness with "what have you done for the Movement?"

We used to think it was irony.
After this led to the Charlottesville disaster, the Alt-Right trod another path. This was the path of cope, of self-deception, of Qanon and "trust the plan". People got their hopes up that Trump would one day do what McCarthy did, even though McCarthy had actually done it and still failed, because he had not possessed anything like the power to decimate the permanent state. Those who dissented could not get back to the Alt-Right's original detachment. They just whined incessantly, and hurled accusations at Trump – who, despite his failures, remained the one member of the elite who had stuck out his neck to put the Alt-Right's ideas into practice.
 
Well, we've trod all the paths, and now we're at the destination. The Alt-Right (or Dissident Right, or whatever it wants to call itself) has arrived back at the cuck shed, to watch the ravishing of its beloved people by the democratic state. It has come most of the way by itself, instinctively returning to democracy like a tamed monkey to its cage. The fake election result is just the hand on the back of its neck, forcing it through the low doorway and into the darkness.
 
Our old abode is well-supplied with ballot-paper, with which we are to vote for the least worst option. Any overspill of intellectual energy is to be soaked up in futile efforts to create new political parties. We are to pay rent to the activists and thought-leaders, who will keep up the interior decor, by plastering the walls with clever strategic ideas. These will invariably come to nothing, but they may help to get us in a less humiliating mood for democratic consent.

I expect we'll see resistance. But it won't get anywhere, and it won't last forever. The next few years of social depredations and ethnic gerrymandering will soon draw away our attention. And because watching without acting is unbearable, we will soon see people getting their cope up again: for the 'white awakening', for the 'collapse of civilisation', for anything that promises to turn impotent larping into real political action. To do the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result, is the definition of political strategy for the democratic Right.

And let's be honest, dear reader. Let's say that my crystal ball is cracked, and Trump manages to overturn the election result. Alternatively, let's say that the fraud was on a small scale, and that Biden won more-or-less fairly. Would either of these scenarios invalidate the gist of what I've said? Trump's entire administration was 'stolen', because he spent most of it floundering under a tidal wave of sabotage from the real government. And a 'victory' for him now would only spell four more years of losing – unless, of course, he pulls off a military coup that would actually allow him to rule.

Let's assume that's not going to happen. So what is to be done? I'm going to lay our last possible trump card on the table right now. But let me warn you that it admits of no cope, no compromise – and no guarantees.

Stop voting

Stop voting, and convince other people to stop voting as well. Choose detachment willingly, and persuade others to adopt it. Redefine the 'Movement' as a mass exodus from democracy, and reserve the word dissident for those who practice the moral minimum of dissidence: ceasing to dignify a vile regime with their voluntary consent.

In principle, most of us know that this is the right path. Most of us hate democracy in theory, in accordance with the wisdom of our ancestors (including most of the American founding fathers). In any case, we despise both parties and most organs of government, which means that we hate democracy in practice. Even those of us who desire some form of democracy, and insist that real democracy has never been tried, must agree that consenting to actual democracy is no way to achieve 'real democracy'.

So non-voting – or, as I prefer to say, no-voting – is correct in principle. But most people on the Dissident Right believe there to be a conflict between principle and strategy. In reality, no such conflict exists. The only conflict is between the principle and strategy of no-voting, and the tactics of voting (and general engagement in democracy).

Rightist tactical victories would include: triggering the libs, destroying leftists in debate, winning a street fight against antifa, banning Critical Race Theory, stopping X number of illegals at the border, publicising Hunter Biden's pipe, and getting Trump reelected. As you can see, not all of these are insignificant, by any means. But they are always defensive in nature; they always consume more in effort than they produce in results; and they always end up striking the democratic state without ever being able to kill it.

As military theorists will tell you, tactics exist on a lower level than strategy. Good tactics cannot trump bad strategy, which is why Hitler lost his two-front war (strategic defeat) despite the successes of the Blitzkrieg (tactical victory). Principles, I would say, are on a higher level still, because they determine the very reasons why we are fighting.

The outrage porn culture of the Dissident Right tends to induce tactical myopia. One thinker who generally resists this tendency is Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents. He has a clear principle, white survival, and a strategy called 'metapolitics': changing culture in order to exert a knock-on effect on politics. Here's how that still ends up at voting for the least worst option:

"[W]e are not going to gain political power without overthrowing the moral consensus that white racism, and only white racism, is the wickedest thing in the world. That’s a metapolitical task. It requires changing people’s minds. It is an educational project, which requires that we stay online and able to reach the public. ...
 
"If Biden is elected, however, we can expect erosion of the first amendment and no relief on tech censorship. This is one of the main reasons why it is crucially important for White Nationalists to re-elect Trump... The other crucial reason is that Trump has slowed white demographic decline, which buys us time. We need to convert anti-whites to pro-whites. If we can get enough people on our side, we can save our race in America. Trump gives us more time to do that, while Biden will speed up the Great Replacement by opening the borders and putting tens of millions of illegals on the path to citizenship and voting."

This is in the context of an argument against the Trump-haters, which is fair enough. But Dr. Johnson's strategy, of buying time against race-replacement so as to wake people up, could be used to justify voting for almost any conservative empty suit. If the Republicans did nothing after Trump but promise 10% fewer illegal citizens, those who want to save the white race would presumably have no choice but to vote for them. (That said, looking at their record, they would probably break this promise.)

But it's the deus ex machina of "the moral consensus" that clues us in to the trap. If it must be propitiated by "changing minds", how exactly is that going to happen, when the enemy has a much bigger loudspeaker and the truncheon of state power to back it up? Peak Alt-Right influence was probably around 2015 or so, before the online Movement was deplatformed. Take away this implausible route to a happy ending, and we are left with the strategy of voting for a slow death.

Hope it was worth it.
In any case, most whites have never been keen on the Great Replacement. And its methods – which include, among other things, driving whites out of cities by stirring up non-white violence and withdrawing police protection – are not so virtuous that we should have to reinvent the moral wheel in order to criticise them. The problem is not that whites need to change their minds. The problem is that state power works for the Great Replacement, and no attempt by ordinary people to vote against it is translated into serious action.

So we have to ask why the state is so committed to a policy of internal ethnic cleansing. And if your answer has to do with corporations, Jews, atomised individuals, 'ethnomasochists', etc., then you're putting the cart before the horse. 
 
The democratic government consists of a vast permanent bureaucracy, plus two electoral parties: a 'progressive' Inner Party, and a 'conservative' Outer Party. The Inner Party advances the bureaucracy, and the Outer Party puts a brake on it. The purpose of the Great Replacement, and the attendant anti-white hatemongering, is to create enough Inner Party voters to outnumber the native plebs voting for the Outer Party.

This built-in drive to overcome conservatism is also behind the privileging of women over men, children over parents, dependents over producers, dysfunction over civilisation, etc. The weak, dependent and incompetent are loyal clients for the inner party; the strong, independent and competent just want to pay less and be left alone. 
 
This principle of kakistocracy has appeared in past regimes, e.g. in the phenomenon of politically powerful eunuchs. But it should not be able to override, permanently and universally, the natural incentive for a state to prize the best of its subjects over the worst. So why does this not hold true in Western democracy? Because there is an Outer Party; we are fool enough to vote for it; and the Inner Party must mobilise a huge standing army of clients against us.
 
As we've learned over the past four years, the Outer Party cannot and will not take power. So we cannot use it to defeat the Left. Rather, it is using us, co-opting our discontent into its anachronistic Burkean stupidity. Whenever we try to infuse a more radical ideology into this zombie, we merely succeed in granting it a deceptive flush of life.
 
So instead of continuing to flog a dead horse, we must wager on a strong one. We must try to defeat the Left through the Inner Party. For the most part, all we need do is to get out of its way, by exercising our sole prerogative to stop voting for the Outer Party. This will allow the Inner Party to advance the state to full power; but it will also dissolve the party system, and render voting irrelevant to governance, thus annihilating the value of the leftists and clients to the state.

Yes, yes – I know! This is a bid to achieve strategic victory, by turning the logic of state power against our enemies. But there is always a time lag between a change in the logic of power and its recognition by those in power. And during that time lag, the rightist cause is going to suffer huge tactical defeats – enough to make the Soviet experience of Operation Barbarossa look like a walk in the park. The value of leftist votes will climb up a mountain before it plummets off a cliff.

So yes, there is risk involved. Obviously we would prefer to stop the car by destroying the accelerator, instead of crashing it to a stop by destroying the brake. But the second option is well within our power, while the first option is well out of it. A realistic capacity to appraise our options is one of the many fruits of embracing the blackpill.

Truth be told, every blackpill contains a whitepill. And the whitepill, in this case, is that the total defeat of the Outer Party is also a strategic victory for the Right.
 
The Outer Party is a very useful tool in the democratic box. It is a placebo for angry plebs, a holding pen for counterrevolutionary politicians, and a safety buffer between the leftist bureaucracy and the latent power of the military-industrial complex. By selling a retro version of progressivism, it enables a choice of two poisons, which makes it a lot easier for people to believe in the absurd democratic state religion. When the state falls on hard times, and popular anger is rising, it allows the election of right-wing scapegoats who will do all the work and take all the blame until the Inner Party can get back in the saddle.

The Outer Party solves the problem posed by Trotsky: how to keep a revolution going on a permanent basis, and prevent it from taking its natural course to a restoration of order and an essentially fascist government. It happened in France under Napoleon; it happened in Russia under Stalin; and it happened in China under Deng Xiaoping. But it cannot happen in the West, because our regime has pressed the forces of order into the service of chaos. Our Thermidorian politicians are vegetating in powerless sinecures; and their natural client base, i.e. virtuous and productive ordinary people, are incapable of signalling anti-regime sentiment as long as they continue to vote.

There's an obvious objection to be made here. The French, Russians and Chinese had to endure appalling revolutionary terrors before their governments returned to sanity. And we simply cannot say whether or not something like this will happen in the West. All we can say – in light of the last four years of antifa thuggery and black terror – is that voting is no sure way to hedge against it. 
 
Some, e.g. Moldbug, say that leftist political violence will simply grind to a halt once the Right abandons its public scapegoat role. The problem with this, at least in the short term, is that leftists know intuitively that fear and hate are the breath and blood of their movement. Once the Outer Party is gone, the leftist coalition will naturally tend to fall apart and fight itself, and it may well try to forestall this by going on the rampage in search of 'fascists' to attack. 
 
Those of us in the firing line should hold our nerve, and defend our friends and families. But we will have no reason to put ourselves in the firing line on purpose. And this brings us to another aspect of no-voting: the renunciation of all other democratic 'rights', such as 'freedom of speech' and the 'right to protest'.

Renounce free speech? Renounce democratic rights? YES. Just like voting, these 'rights' come with strings attached. In fact, they are little more than hooks upon strings. 
 
Natural human instinct is to try to hold onto anything that one has been given. But most democratic 'rights' do not benefit non-leftists, except as variably effective talismans against democratic wrongs. Rightist activism is a useless cargo-cult of leftist activism. "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences", unless you're a leftist. And rightists are constantly being sacked, ostracised and harassed over their politics – although conservatives claim to be flabbergasted every time it happens. 
 
I would say that the main purpose of these 'rights' is to encourage reactionary elements to self-identify, so that they can be socially disadvantaged and politically marginalised. Those of us who dare to dissent in the open can make no use of them; those who just want to live quiet lives are duped by the illusion of possessing them. Chairman Mao got to pull this trick on the Chinese – once. Then they wised up and stopped trying to talk their way out of communism. The trap is less dangerous in Western democracy, but rightists walk into it every day, gradually reducing themselves to an inferior social caste.

Even the right to bear arms doesn't
entail a right to use them.

Beyond this, what we call 'freedom' generally reduces to the liberty to go about our business. This sort of freedom has, in truth, been granted by most rulers to their subjects for millennia. And the past four years have not been kind to the delusion that modern Westerners hold it other than by the sufferance of state power. 

Russiagate showed that the West can do what China does, i.e. construct informational siege defences (albeit with vastly less justification). Then Corona-chan showed us that our governments can revoke all our freedoms at the drop of a hat, and put us under mass house arrest, out of sheer panic and bureaucratic hubris. Those who claim that Corona-chan is a 'psyop', designed to "make us give up our freedoms", should understand that the real psyop is the one that has convinced us that we have any freedoms to give up.

Now, don't get me wrong. Once we stop voting, we should keep dissenting and redpilling people. We should squirrel away firearms (in the US), find ways to hold onto our assets, and keep as much control over our lives as possible. We should take what we can get out of the state, and exploit all possible paths to doing this. And if we must fight, then we fight. What I am saying is that we should not claim any of these prerogatives as 'democratic rights'. 

Once you claim democratic rights, you must have democratic rule. You must keep voting, so that your 'rights' can be upheld. And no matter how bad democracy gets, you must live in abject terror of any alternative (except the purified Platonic Idea of democracy, which has never been tried, etc. etc.). 'Freedom', in this case, truly is slavery. Once you no longer claim anything from democracy that you could not hope to get from any other regime, then you will finally be able to unplug from the Matrix and make the jump from discontent to dissidence.
 
But this is not easy. An incel might complain about the sexual revolution, but he would resist a RETVRN TO TRADITION, because it would take away his OnlyFans e-girls long before it found him a wife. And so it is with democracy: the more it dumps all over us, the harder we cling to its backside. The need to take the blackpill, to accept that we must get to the good by going through the bad, is depressing at best and terrifying at worst. 

So we should initially expect to see a knee-jerk rejection of no-voting by the Right, based on emotional objections. We'll give a little smorgasbord of these now. Slavishness! Cowardice! Do-nothingism! Rationalised retreat! Mere capitulation! Cuck cuck cuck!

I will admit to retreat, and to rationality, because it is quite rational to retreat from an impossible position. Maybe also capitulation, as regards the dead horse that is the conservative cause, and all futile attempts to flog it into life. But I will not accept words like slave, coward, and do-nothing. At least not from people who can't even bring themselves to stop voting for a government they despise.

As for cuck (which I've pre-empted a fair bit in this post), the truth is that Western man is a cuck by default. He cannot  marry a woman, in the traditional sense, except by her unilateral sufferance. He cannot control his own children, and he cannot defend his community against criminals. He must defer to an endless parade of 'empowered' groups, i.e. state clients and catspaws. He enjoys endless luxuries, thanks to modern technology, but his ancestors knew that luxury is as enervating as hardship. All of this could be viewed as mere misfortune, and good personal qualities can redeem most of it. But the rot seeps into the soul of Western man insofar as he thinks he is free.

Thinking he is free, Western man is lower than a slave, because he is mentally enslaved. He is worse than a coward, because he fails the basic rite of manhood: passage from a child's fantasy world into reality. He does less than a do-nothing, because his actions do him harm, which he must then rationalise as benefit. This is why he cannot worship action, momentum, the blind ethos of 'doing something'. He has to stop doing what is wrong before he starts doing what is right.

If Western man would be free, he has to start at the beginning. He has to take a second look at all those passages in the New Testament, in which Jesus says to turn the other cheek when struck, hand over a cloak as well as a tunic, go two miles when forced to go one mile, etc. Yes, I know. Many people on the Dissident Right cannot stand this stuff, and would just love to replace it with some allegory for mass political struggle. But if these words amounted to a pacifist manifesto, they would not be contradicted by references to the justified use of force in the Gospels. I would say that they are on the same train of thought as "render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and render to God what is God's".

What belongs to Caesar is your body and worldly goods; what belongs to God is your soul. The name 'Caesar' can be generalised to the centre of political power, as opposed to that of religious authority. As for how one would go about rendering one's soul to Caesar, presumably it would involve a religion and a ritual based on political power. These, I would suggest, are precisely what democracy and voting have become in the modern West. If the people were really sovereign, then things would be different; but this is not so, ergo the belief in popular sovereignty amounts to a religious cult of power.

And voting is its most important ritual. The 'right to vote' is a hook upon a string, baited with a false identity: the free, sovereign democratic citizen. This identity is a corruption, or caricature, of the Christian idea of the soul. It enthralls the soul, forbidding it to think any thoughts or perform any actions that are incompatible with democracy. And it does so by promising the summum bonum of worldly goods – namely, political power – in pursuit of which every actual worldly good must be churned up in a struggle that is as endless as it is pointless.

As principle, no-voting liberates our souls from the democratic religion. As strategy, it aims at the preservation of our worldly goods against the democratic state. But none of this can be achieved without the sacrifice of the false democratic identity.
 
By trying to dodge this choice, the Dissident Right comes down on the wrong side of it. That is to say, it turns the logic of renunciation upon the actual goods of life. It has a movement to renounce marriage and children (Game/PUA), and a movement to renounce women (MGTOW). It has a movement to renounce international power (petty-nationalism), and one to renounce most US national territories (white secessionism). When it turns its mind to ideas, the theme is usually the renunciation of most of the religion and philosophy of the West, so that we can better regress to a state of brutish savagery ideally suited to mass politics. 
 
And yet it has no movement to renounce the vote.

Notice something here? Of all of these things, only the vote has a completely artificial value that we can hope to destroy by renouncing it. All the others have real value, so our giving them up will only benefit those who do not follow suit. Take MGTOW, for example: if half the men in the West were to adopt it, the other half would simply take their pick of the women. Only non-MGTOWs would reap the benefit.
 
The same logic applies to voting only if we swallow the official line, i.e. that the purpose of a democratic government is to serve the voters. When we realise that the voters are, in fact, being mobilised for the purposes of the governing factions, we realise that a political army with no political enemy to fight is up shit creek without a paddle. (For ideological conservatives, the defeat of the leftist political army is secondary to the project of tying up the state, but for the vast majority of conservative voters it is the other way around.)
 
Anyway, perhaps this inherent futility of Dissident Right causes is the reason why ordinary sympathisers hardly lift a finger for them, despite all the ravings of the activists and thought-leaders. Cowards! Do-nothings! Fence-sitters! Au contraire, gentlemen. The fact that the Right prizes reality over fantasy is the whole reason why it is saner than the Left. If we want to unlock its potential, as the Alt-Right was doing before it turned back to democratic politics, then we must work with this tendency instead of struggling against it.

Seriously, just stop being a votecuck.
No longer able to confuse activism with action, more rightists would concentrate on doing the things that are actually in their power. Those who decry feminism will have to find ways to control their women, and those who bemoan white extinction will have to counter it the old-fashioned way. Instead of trying to solve our atomisation through abstract, voting-bloc identities ('whites', 'men', etc.), we would feel the need for strength in numbers and do our best to form wider groups under the radar of the state.
 
The rightist samizdat discourse will be about a) understanding the system, and b) overcoming its degeneracy in practice. Those who would rather whine endlessly and rouse the rabble will find no fame or fortune in doing so. This will weed out the unworthy from the status hierarchy of the Right. In general, those who are attracted to soapboxes are wanting in real accomplishments (I don't exempt myself from this), and a rightist movement led by the biggest soapbox-orators is uncomfortably close to leftist kakistocracy.

Of course, some of us will be able to do more. It will be harder to dissent in the open, but our redpills will contain a lot more truth, because they will no longer  be adulterated with democratic lies. Some of us will be able to scheme for power in the one-party state, and will find it much easier to do so without declaring rightist political sympathies. Of course, the Left will go hunting for the heretics: we can wish them good luck with that. Just as the kakistocracy becomes politically useless, the social elite will lose the ability to erect barriers against it in private life.

As you can see, even if no-voting went no further than us dissidents, we would have reason enough to adopt it. But it could potentially spread like wildfire; there is no point at which it would start ghettoising itself and obsessing over its brand integrity. Once we detach enough people to cripple the cuckservatives every election, the rest of their voters will be forced to take the blackpill. And when the kabuki counterrevolution is a thing of the past, don't be surprised if much of the Left stops voting as well. It is only the impetus to unite against the latest right-wing pleb conspiracy that keeps socialists, anarchists etc. in the pro-government coalition.

By the time ballot-homage becomes compulsory, or remunerated, the damage will have been done. At that point, we can just vote for the Inner Party along with everyone else, because the illusion of choice will be dead in the water. (Note that we are not 'boycotting' the vote; a boycott is just a negative species of democratic activism. We are trying to Make Voting Irrelevant Again, and thereby free the Western mind from political porn addiction. We are defying the religious authority of democracy, not the political power of the state.)

Of course, all these whitepills may be unjustified. But in that case, no-voting simply reverts to its unassailable position as a principle. And as far as strategy is concerned, I defy anyone to come up with a better one than this. Cleverness, in this context, is folly. If a plan requires the slightest complexity, it is bound to fail. Contra democratic theory, the mob cannot outsmart its masters; it cannot stand against superior force; and it cannot produce anything positive, as opposed to pure negation and refusal, unless it is directed by leaders and patrons outside itself. The Right in the present day is a leaderless mob, whose leaders and patrons are a) out of power, and b) unwilling to take it back – with the sole possible exception of Donald J. Trump.
 
And Trump is probably finished. To repeat, I hope he pulls something improbable out of the hat, but I don't expect he will. And unless he crosses the Rubicon over the next few months, we are looking at another decade of straining against progressive mountains to move conservative molehills. If you are demoralised, angry, blackpilled, bored, want the Right to try something new, or just can't take the cringe anymore, then pass this post around and make the case for a No Vote Movement.