Electoral politics, at least as traditionally understood, has become meaningless for the most part. The 2020 Presidential Election and the recent failed California gubernatorial recall vote make it abundantly clear that, as a result of a combination of voter fraud and demographic change, we cannot win this struggle simply by filling in a bubble on a piece of paper and then proudly sporting an “I voted” sticker, like a child walking out of the dentist’s office.
This situation has been further exacerbated by the proliferation of lazy, dumbed-down voting procedures enacted under the pretext of a fake pandemic — but which are probably here to stay. Measures such as voting by mail give a natural advantage to whichever party is most attractive to lazy — which by definition tend to be the most liberal ones.
The one-party state comprised of radical Democrats and their RINO fake opposition is therefore firmly entrenched for the foreseeable future. We dissidents — and increasingly, ordinary Republicans and even some Democrats who are reluctant to drink the magic Kool-Aid — thus find ourselves in the position of what Ernst Jünger, in his book The Forest Passage, called Waldgängers, or forest rebels. A forest rebel is someone who maintains his freedom in the face of tyranny, even if only internally. He is not necessarily a literal rebel in a literal forest. Jünger noted that this is a difficult path to follow in the era of mass surveillance states — and he wrote that in 1951, long before facial recognition, NSA snooping, doxing, and so-called “smart” phones.
Jünger examines how a Waldgänger might respond to a dictator’s sham election, where propaganda and intimidation have already determined the outcome. Such plebiscites generally result in 98% or higher “yes” votes. Voting “no” is an act of rebellion, and there is always a risk that one’s vote could be traced. While in the United States we do not yet have to deal with the prospect of our votes being traced back to us, we face a different problem in that we have no way of verifying if our votes are counted correctly.
This suggests another solution: simply not voting at all. Voting for an ordinary Republican is now tantamount to voting for the anti-“white supweemacy” agenda and all the other ridiculous labels they espouse. Not voting at all is much more than that, however. It is a vote against the vaunted mass modern democracy itself. It is spitting in the face not just of the Judeo-Bolshevik Democrats, but the treasonous Republicans who have aided and abetted them over decades by “losing gracefully” and working entirely within their alleged enemy’s paradigm. Not voting is thus a refutation of modern mass democracy and its ridiculous premises, such as absolute equality. It is more than a simple yes or no for a particular party, candidate, or policy.
This is even truer when we consider the proliferation of lazy voting procedures. Only voting by text message could be even lazier and more prone to tampering than mass voting by mail. Traditionally, voting took some modicum of effort. Thus, low voter turnout can no longer be explained away as laziness or lack of interest; it is now instead inherently a refutation of the entire system, especially if large numbers of people refuse to vote.
Jünger also observes that dictators need both a large turnout and a few token “no” votes in their sham plebiscites. This gives them a veneer of legitimacy in the eyes of the outside world and to gaslight their subjects. Jünger describes how some precinct captains in the Soviet Union would sometimes addfake “no” votes to elections because they knew that the regime wanted token resistance. This showed that not only was the election fair and free, but that there were still dangerous heretics in their midst who justified a totalitarian police state.
Given our circumstances, not voting at all is both a stronger message, and more resistant to tampering. If it is virtually a foregone conclusion that Leftists or the controlled opposition will win all the elections, we should focus on sabotaging their reign as much as possible.
However, this does not mean that we should never vote again. A return to paper ballots could change this situation. Some candidates, such as Tucker Carlson if he runs, might be sufficiently radical and sincere to justify our participation. There is also something to be said for making the regime have to commit blatant electoral fraud in hundreds of state and local elections because there are too many radical candidates of all sizes running.
Under no circumstances, however, should we ever lend our ballots to Trump again. Nick Fuentes recently said on Telegram:
Such a Whitepill when Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk are openly pushing Groyper/Nick Fuentes rhetoric. At this rate, Trump 2024 could be more based than 2016 or 2020.
As a matter of honor, Trump is unfit to lead after throwing us under the bus and scampering off for half a year — not to mention the fact that he was far from based in 2020. All he did was tweet “law and order!” while Shaniqua twerked on the ashes of civilization, and then ramble about the black unemployment rate to add insult to injury. Trump was great for causing chaos and polarization, but not on following through with action like a true leader — unless it was for Israel. The God Emperor has fallen to Grift Emperor, and I can’t help but suspect that anyone who continues to support him is either brain-dead or a grifter themselves.
I understand the concern that this strategy could lead to the Democrats consolidating more power. However, given that both parties work together to destroy the country, this won’t make much of a difference. The House of Representatives passed a red-flag law with the help of 135 RINOs, the self-described firebrand Matt Gaetz among them. An honest one-party regime is better than a two-party farce, because it would highlight the stark divide between the nation and the State.
Thankfully, the outrage over this red-flag law surpassed what the RINOs predicted, and the provision is going to be removed. Gaetz’s alibi is that it was only included in the bill as a staffing error. This is an unlikely story, given the uproar on genuine Right-wing media in the days leading up to the vote. This debacle was a victory for us. The normie rank and file now know that the GOP is as anti-American as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and that they are also bad liars as well as traitors who hold us in contempt. Most importantly, the rank and file has learned that they can bring traitors to heel.
Talk of election fraud and grifting naturally leads to another issue: litigation. One response to political outrages has been to litigate them in court. I am not as strongly opposed to litigation as voting, but it is still advocated too much by those who have a boomer mindset, regardless of age.
Filing a lawsuit, like casting a ballot, implicitly carries a message that you believe in the system’s legitimacy. This is despite the fact that since the 1960s, the judiciary has been steadily packed with radical Leftists, many of whom are Jewish, along with a smattering of cowardly conservatives who refuse to take action because that would be “judicial activism“ — despite knowing that they are surrounded by radical activists who despise them. There are still some honorable judges out there, and even Leftist judges will occasionally hand down a just ruling. However, these good rulings are merely outliers, and ultimately function to lend legitimacy to the subversive ones.
Lawsuits take time, effort, and mountains of attorneys’ fees — besides which, victory is not always certain. Instead of filing dozens of lawsuits over election fraud, it would have been better if conservatives had called for mass protests, boycotts, and strikes. Consider the rumor that a staffer overheard John Roberts shrieking that “I don’t give a shit about Bush/Gore, we didn’t have riots then” during Stop the Steal. Obviously, the seven justices who declined to even hear that case are guilty of moral cowardice. Nevertheless, Mr. Roberts’ temper tantrum, while immature and cowardly, did make something crystal clear for many: that the United States is now ruled by force, not by law.
If Trump had been a real leader, he would have organized a truckers’ strike and other forms of mass civil disobedience. Then, Mr. Roberts would have pouted about how he had a strike on his hands while working in Washington, DC, surrounded by blacks who are angry because the supermarkets are empty.
Relying too much on litigation is also, frankly, lazy. Throwing money and paper at a problem to make it go away is reminiscent of those wealthy Italian city-states of the Middle Ages that paid condottiero mercenaries to fight their battles for them. Again, this should not be taken as a blanket attack against litigation. There are still honorable attorneys and judges out there, and worthy causes to litigate, but litigation should not be used unless the case will be heard before an even-handed judge, and when there is a strong case. Ideally, litigation should be used in tandem with other forms of activism. Doing so served our adversaries well during the so-called civil rights era.
If voting and litigation are not promising methods, then what should we do? I would say that real-world activism is the answer.
First, there is the sort of guerrilla street activism that some Leftist organizations, and in some cases even lone individuals, carry out. However, we aren’t going to flier or sticker our way to victory. It also isn’t a tactic that everybody can engage in. Nonetheless, its importance shouldn’t be downplayed if it is used as part of a broader strategy of resistance.
Jünger observed that anonymous, clandestine street activism such as a Waldgänger painting “No!” on a factory wall could cause a totalitarian regime to feel more uncomfortable than merely voting “no.” This alternative form of voting would then provoke a disproportionate response from the paranoid regime, making the anonymous dissident a hero and the regime look like the petty fools who they are. Things haven’t changed much, as these days even milquetoast stickers that read “It’s OK to be white” can still sometimes trigger a laughably disproportionate response.
Networking, infiltration, and red-pilling those around you are also forms of activism. The bright side to the regime going full totalitarian so fast is that people are now more receptive than ever to our message. Take, for example, how the National School Board Association is asking the Biden regime to use the Patriot Act against decent parents on charges of hate speech and domestic terrorism. Their alleged crime is a healthy disgust with the nanny state’s systematic child abuse, which has come to encompass pedophilia, anti-white dogma, and excessive COVID restrictions. Given that the regime provides new propaganda for us on a regular basis, radicalizing the citizenry should become easier and easier.
Another possible method could be to organize patriot caravans during rush hour traffic in urban, liberal strongholds such as Los Angeles. Traffic on the freeways is already a disaster. Patriots swarming the freeways on a Friday afternoon would be a perfectly safe and legal way to make the lives of liberal urbanites a total hell until they comply with our demands. In similar fashion, there are numerous ways — all of which are safe and legal — that patriots could make Black Friday even more of a nightmare for retailers who discriminate against customers or employees based on their vaccination status.
Adopting creative Waldgänger tactics has also gives us another advantage. Unlike traditional electoral politics, they allow a small but dedicated segment of society to wield great influence. As the regime continues to act reactively and double down on its asinine policies, Waldgängers can expect their numbers to swell, most especially if their tactics are having a visible impact. Even if the number of active Waldgängers remains relatively small, we should still be able to count on a large portion of the population supporting us in varying ways, which is something the regime fears, as evinced by its efforts to isolate dissidents.
In conclusion, it is important to note that Jünger cautioned Waldgängers against engaging in criminal activity. To him, that meant tainting what was otherwise a morally righteous cause. I would extend that warning to violent activity, given the culture that we operate in. Let the regime shadow-box with extremist terrorists who only exist in their heads, shouting at imaginary tormenters like the madmen they are.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Racial Solidarity & Moral Hazard
The Groyper Civil War:
Lessons from the End of an Era
Brave Jewish Keyboard Warrior Does Battle with Rightist Keyboard Warriors
A Critic Takes the Dissident Right Seriously
Why & How to Build Dissident High Culture
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 374 Greg Johnson, Richard Houck, Gaddius Maximus, & Thomas Steuben on How to Respond to Being Called “Racist”
“Indigenous” Isn’t Our Term
The Brownsville Raid: Mercy, Not Justice