How to Respond to Election Fraud

1,597 words

There have already been reports of election irregularities, raising the specter of another stolen election. As far as I know, however, the Trump campaign is merely hoping for the best, not planning for the worst.

If the regime can get away with another stolen election, they would certainly be justified in thinking they can get away with almost anything. If the election is stolen, there is no reason why the Kamala junta shouldn’t go all out in replacement migration, unrestricted lawfare, and looting the productive to pay reparations to losers.

Every town will become Springfield, Ohio. The FBI will finish transitioning into the Stasi. Elon Musk will be destroyed through civil and criminal proceedings, and free speech with him. The intimidation and destruction of other rogue elites is sure to follow. And rather than radicalizing the masses and the movement, this will serve to demoralize them. The accelerationist theory has a spotty record of predicting reality. This may come as a shock to those who are “very online,” but winning raises the morale of normal people. The pastel Soviet Union of the last four years cannot become accepted as the new normal.

I certainly hope that other people have been planning how to respond to a stolen election, especially since there is no excuse for being blindsided after 2020. Regardless, I will offer my thoughts.

Inaction is not an option, but repeating the mistakes of 2020 is also not an option. All we got last time were political prisoners. On a moral level, there is no incorrect way to resist communists stealing an election. But there are pragmatic concerns about what is effective. The response cannot be haphazard.

In 2024 do we have any more hope of resisting than we did in 2020?

Trump was isolated in 2020. Despite a few notable exceptions, those still around him were traitors and nut cases. We were promised Krakens that never emerged from their lairs, thereby tainting otherwise good arguments and evidence. Today, Trump has a better team. Along with RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, JD Vance, and Elon Musk giving Trump sound advice, they will also lend him credibility rather than detract from it. This is important because Trump permanently damaged his credibility in 2020. Nobody is going to make efforts, let alone take risks, for the guy who went to golf at Mar a Lago while his most ardent followers were being tortured at the DC Gulag.

Elon Musk is the most important person supporting Trump this time, because the Left’s 2020 color revolution relied upon total information control. X/Twitter has broken that monopoly. Furthermore, as described in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk, he is a former libertarian who previously disliked Trump and was initially ambivalent about reinstating him on X. I’m sure the usual suspects will complain about how Musk was a “never Trumper,” but I would prefer to look at him as an indication that other rogue elites and the masses will respond better this time.

Musk’s personality is also important. He ardently believes in ideals like free speech and democracy, does not like being told to shut up and obey, and thrives on drama and crisis. I will write a review of Isaacson’s biography soon, but suffice it to say in the meantime that Musk would likely emerge as the leader of the resistance because he is perfectly suited for the task.

Furthermore, it is likely that Trump will win by a larger margin this time. Thus, they will have to steal the election through either more blatant fraud which will be easier to document and prosecute in the court of public opinion, or by flat out refusing to let Trump take power on the basis of legal shenanigans.

If there is a dispute this time, it’s likely that both sides will invoke “democracy.” It would be wise to hammer home how the Left and the Right attach materially different meanings to that word. For the Right, it means voting (with the assumption that the votes are counted correctly) to express the will of the people. For the Left, it means parliamentarian debate, minority aggrandizement, the people voting for what the media deems to be correct, and most importantly for this discussion, the “peaceful transfer of power. ”

Like the Founders and Aristotle, I reject mass democracy, but working within the democratic paradigm, what really matters is that the transfer of power is based on an accurate counting of ballots in a fair and free election, not whether the transfer of power is peaceful. When the Left pontificates about a peaceful transfer of power, what they really mean is that whoever has the most will to power should prevail, which for the time being just so happens to be them. It means the Right should go along with what liberal judges and journalists say because otherwise there will be chaos, regardless of whether the votes were accurately counted.

There is nothing peaceful about this talk of a peaceful transfer of power. It is a poorly veiled threat and unabashed hypocrisy, and it should be denounced as such.

The first instinct of Americans is to file a lawsuit. But time is of the essence here. Most lawsuits take months or even years. But there is less than three months between election day and inauguration day. We need an immediate response.

Beyond that, lawsuits presuppose that there are neutral referees, as opposed to irreconcilably opposed camps. Thus even if the stolen election goes to the courts, the outcome is more likely to be determined by raw power than law. While it hasn’t been confirmed, Justice Roberts allegedly declined judicial review in the 2020 election because he feared riots, meaning Leftist riots. This seems borne out by the Supreme Court’s conduct.

The Founders had the bright idea to “let ambition check ambition.” But that is the road to ruin in a culture in which “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” If good people are to prevail, they must become at least as hardcore as their enemies. Does this mean that Leftist riots must be opposed by Rightist ones?

This brings us to the issue of protests. Protests are inevitable, even though the J6 protesters were ruthlessly persecuted to deter further resistance to stolen elections. But protests should be discouraged, because they will inevitably be riddled with enemy agents and will be violently suppressed. Beyond that, even the largest protests are too small a response to a Leftist coup. At best, a protest can shut down part of a city. We need to think about shutting down the whole country.

If anyone advising Trump is reading this, I propose a general strike as the principal means of resistance. In a general strike, half the nation can shut down the whole thing. Unlike activism, a strike doesn’t require doing anything. Unlike protests, tens of millions of people can participate in a general strike. Unlike protests, strikers can be both invisible and omnipresent, not gathered into one place where they are vulnerable to violence and doxing.

General strikes have a long history of being effective. For example, the strikes of the November Revolution brought down the German Kaiserreich thereby ending WWI. Furthermore, the reluctance of German workers to strike on behalf of the communists in the subsequent Spartacist uprising was a strong reason why it was crushed by military force.

But to be effective a general strike must have reasonable demands. Team Trump could demand that the ballots be counted and verified. Or, if that is impossible, they could demand that the election be held again in offending states, perhaps even with UN or other international observers. Calling for international observers would grant Trump legitimacy while humiliating the regime by making the US look like the Third World banana republic it has become.

If the regime enlists migrants as mercenaries to break the strike, then they have crossed the Rubicon, and all bets are off. What happens after that is on their hands.

Trump should set up a shadow government in Mar a Lago, with a full cabinet and an explicit list of policy objectives for the first 100 days. Along with facilitating a seamless transition, it will help win the battle for legitimacy. A shadow government will also facilitate Plan B if Kamala remains in power, regardless of whether the election was stolen: National Divorce.

America has, in effect, polarized into two enemy peoples. If the Left continues to steal elections, they have declared that they wish to reduce us to slaves without political representation. We cannot coexist under such conditions. We have irreconcilable differences. We need a national divorce.

A general strike could be buttressed by other tactics, such as an income tax strike. Short of that, the mass filing of extensions could be a valid tactic, a shot across the bow, as it were.

Trump could also encourage his supporters, many of whom are competent young white men, to either not enlist in the armed forces or to only enlist in their National Guard provided they live in a state that supports him.

A lot of people don’t write wills because they are superstitious. They think that planning for disasters will somehow make them more likely. As a former non-commissioned officer, I am convinced that planning for disasters makes them less likely to happen. This applies to election fraud too. If Trump had announced that he has a plan to fight another stolen election, he would have made it less likely to happen.

You aren’t serious about “protecting democracy” unless you have plans in place for preventing — or overturning — stolen elections.