Don’t vote. It only encourages them

You will undoubtedly hear that the election is nail bitingly close.

That is a lie. To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.

And what is the issue of the election? Once in a while Republicans point out that Obama is up to his armpits in foreign wars and losing, that the economy has been depressed and is sinking further under Democrat rule, that the streets are unsafe, that the young have no job prospects, that middle class means a hundred thousand dollars in college debt while working at starbucks, that Obamacare turns out to be unaffordable, and so on and so forth. So what are Democrats on about?

They have microtargeted campaigns for low information voters – women, homosexuals, blacks, and hispanics. But if you add up all the microtargets, their one issue is “We hate straight white males.”

To which the Republican reply is “We hate straight white males too. In fact we hate them even more than you do.” And sometimes, not very often, they add “But we also worry about losing wars and the economy sucks.”

Before this election, the anti straight white male party had a majority. After this election, the anti straight white male party will have a bigger majority and more extreme policies.

And similarly for the election after that, and the one after that. You face a government that hates you, and every year it will hate you more. Hence the visibly second class citizenship for whites that we see on the streets, that the recent catcalling video inadvertently highlighted.

Yes, political competition continues, and will continue, but it is competition within the permanent majority party as to hates straight white males even more.

Politicians will use public money to buy votes. They naturally want to buy the cheapest votes, so democracy tends to universal franchise. But they still want cheaper votes, so create an underclass. Then they import an underclass. The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.

No good person should vote in an election with universal franchise, as it is a declaration that he is equal to his inferiors. Since, in fact, he is not equal to his inferiors, he must therefore be oppressing them, and will be punished for that oppression. Strangely, he remains unequal. Obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe.

That is what you have been getting for voting, and will continue to get for voting. You have been punished, you will be punished, and the punishments will grow progressively more severe. When you vote, you affirm that you are equal. Since, in practice, you are not equal, you affirm that you deserve the punishment that you will receive.

54 Responses to “Don’t vote. It only encourages them”

  1. Randy says:

    Voting can help secure gun rights.

  2. […] all things Jim… Jim urges us not to vote, explains what happens when people do, advocates lynching instead of furtive murder for vibrants […]

  3. […] vote, you will be punished. Related: Just say no to voting. Related: Don’t vote. Related: Voting is kabuki theatre. […]

  4. Dave says:

    In 2009-2010 I joined the Tea Party movement, ran for office, attended rallies, rang doorbells, etc. Now I just show up on Election Day and vote straight-R to punish the socialists who killed my country. I won’t emigrate; there’s plenty of empty land waiting to be settled in the former United States. I do hope that my state will emerge as America’s Estonia, but it might become America’s Moldova.

    I have no religion and no tribe. My family and professional associates are all unarmed liberals who think I’m nuts, and I live far away from them in a rural trailer park surrounded by poor white people who depend on EBT and heating-fuel assistance (winters here are COLD). Other than scouting and harvesting edible wild plants, my survival skills are pretty weak.

    • “Now I just show up on Election Day and vote straight-R to punish the socialists who killed my country.”

      This is like “punishing” Anita Sarkeesian by sending her an anonymous death threat.

      Which she will then trumpet to the world and pocket the resulting donations, laughing at you the while.

      • peppermint says:

        Or tweeting @lucianaberger #freegarronhelm you #filthyjewbitch. Enough tweets got the attention of ed miliband (J-Doncaster North)

        Actually, it’s nothing like trolling. It’s more like voting for a politician whose entire goal in life is to ratify the progressive agenda and, in the words of Black poet Langston Hughes, let America be America again. By the way, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a republican, and more republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than democrats.

    • Dave says:

      The R platform boils down to, “let us march forward toward socialism, just a little more slowly than the D’s would like.” I should have voted straight-D, because the sooner this country collapses, the sooner we can start rebuilding.

  5. Brian says:

    What then, can we do? Join Phalanx? Have more children?

    • jim says:

      The Cathedral is self destructive as well as other destructive. The time will come when politics as normal ends, and it is time for politics as abnormal.

      But that time is not yet, and attempting politics as normal – unsuccessfully – will only delay the final reckoning. Consider the Tutsi. Knowing genocide was coming, and would come with the backing of the Cathedral, they set about preserving their own lives individually, and preparing for the day collectively, knowing that any earlier action would merely strengthen the Cathedral’s hand against them.

      Recollect also the Khmer Rouge, who fell when their efforts to exterminate the Khmer Rouge got entirely out of hand, provoking foreign invasion.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Nobody cared about Khmer Rouge exterminating Khmer Rouge. Their problem was that they were retarded enough to pick a fight on their border while they were carrying out their own goals.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think so. Vietnam started the fight, attracted by weakness and disorder.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I don’t have the expertise on ’70s Communism that you do. Can you point me to a readable history that explains how Vietnam was the aggressor rather than Cambodia?

            • jim says:

              Am relying on my memory of events.

              Immediately after taking the capital, the Khmer Rouge took Phú Quốc, long claimed by Vietnam, China, and Cambodia. Last recorded occupier before these events was China. It is not terribly clear who controlled it before the Khmer Rouge came. It was a backwater. Vietnam got suddenly indignant, kicked the Khmer Rouge out, and took control.

              Subsequently both sides accuse the other of various trivial bad things, and the Vietnamese invade Cambodia, seizing and holding a small chunk The invasion goes nowhere for several years, until the Khmer Rouge autogenocide starts to seriously afflict the Khmer Rouge themselves. Pol Pot orders the execution of every Khmer Rouge member in the east, whereupon the Vietnamese ramp up and roll over the self destroyed Khmer Rouge in a couple of weeks.

              If you say that Khmer Rouge invasion of Phú Quốc in 1975 provoked the Vietnames invasion of Cambodia in December 1978, the trouble is that the Vietnamese invasion of December 1978 took about two weeks to conquer most of cambodia. Thus it is more reasonable to attribute it to events taking place in 1978 November-December, than to events taking place early in 1975.

              And what took place in 1978 November-December is that the Khmer Rouge went full on politicide of the Khmer Rouge.

    • Adolf the anti-White says:

      If the top 10% of White Male Americans moved to Singapore, the UAE, China, et cetera, the Cathedral would collapse. That sort of thing is happening, but slowly.

      A society is made by it’s elite, and we are convincing ours to leave.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      Phalanx is a good try, but it’s likely going to remain experimental for a while.

      Pamphleting against White Genocide seems to me to be the obvious way to fight back. The Cathedral always uses words like “Hate!” when they see the message for white survival and that is easily translated from Political Correctness as “Heresy!” would be for other religions. Properly done, giving information about the programme of White Genocide doesn’t have to be anti-Asian, anti-black or anything else besides against racial traitors, but it still is unacceptable as it goes against the doctrine of Anti-Whitism…

      Best regards,


      • jim says:

        Pamphleting means you are appealing to the masses – ethnic identitarianism as a left wing program, which really means you are trying to roll leftism back to what it was in 1930, 1950 or so. Leftism has an inherent tendency to move left.

        • Adolf the anti-White says:

          Spreading awareness of racial differences is not appealing to the masses. Unless the pamphlets are pushing for democratic reform, or something.

          Spreading awareness that cigarettes kill you is not demotic. But it becomes demotic if you try to create an anti-tobacco activist platform.

      • peppermint says:

        pamphleting is fine if you’re pamphletting college campuses to get the kiddies a day off for an anti hate event

  6. jaimeastorga2000 says:

    Should we register to vote, but not vote, in order to send a message? Or should we simply avoid having anything to do with the system?

    • Red says:

      If you register to vote there’s a good chance that someone else will vote for you.

  7. Dr. Faust says:

    If white males are not strong enough to rise up and destroy any chain pressed against them then they are not deserving to be free or dominant within that society.

    What’s the difference between the black and the jew? The Jew freed himself. The are various idea among the white nationalist movement to copy the tribalism of the jew to exist within a multicultural society. That’s only one for of existence which may be necessary. It is ignorant and foolish to believe that we’ll see anything within our time but maybe something can arise – something different than we imagine now-in my children’s time or our grandchildrens.

    If we know history as well as we suppose than why can’t we prepare for the moment after?

    • jim says:

      If white males are not strong enough to rise up and destroy any chain pressed against them then they are not deserving to be free or dominant within that society

      Throughout history, white males have always fought and ruled white males. That is why we are so very good at it. Our rulers are white males, supposedly ruling on behalf of women and vibrants. When actually replaced by women and vibrants, their replacements will have a problem.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Does this mean that vibrants and women getting elected will ultimately be a good thing?

        • jim says:

          Only in the sense that worse it better. To be ruled by ones inferiors is always unpleasant, and the more inferior they are, the worse it gets.

          Observe that two of the three female justices on the supreme court, both of them appointed by the half caste Obama, are outstandingly and strikingly stupid.

          Of course, the more inferior they are, the more likely overthrow, but overthrow is a still some distance off.

  8. Adolf the anti-White says:

    One could always vote for the incumbent, in an attempt to create a Singaporean-style party dictatorship.

    • jim says:

      The incumbent is fairly powerless, the actual power being in Harvard and the Public

      Mandate of heaven works for China, because left deviation is deemed a worse offense than right deviation.

      The analogy for America would be that no one would worry much about “racists”, “mysoginists”, “homophobes” and “transphobia”, while Senator McCarthy was busily reaming commies in hollywood and the state department. If we had Singaporean or Chinese style repression, then it would be a good idea to vote for the inner party candidate.

      • Adolf the anti-White says:

        If we genuinely elected out rulers, it would be worse than the present system. We saw genuine elections a few times in the 1800s. It’s what motivated the Pendleton Act, and the entrenchment of the civil service.

        Monarchs achieve good government. Political machines achieve reasonable government. A permanent civil service achieves bad government. Elections set the country ablaze.

        The only solution is to make the political elite permanent. There can be no political fix until that is achieved. (and the chances of a political fix are slim)

  9. Mark Yuray says:

    “The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.”

    Any good articles/books on this?

  10. VXXC says:

    “You face a government that hates you.”

    I’ve been saying this for years. But well said.

    Now merely not voting isn’t enough. You are correct concerning their intentions and indeed policies underway towards us. But not voting does not save us anymore than voting would save us.

    What we seem to have among those that would ..ah..act accordingly is Strategic Armed Passivity. A step down from the Strategic Defensive [where you know defend]. It won’t work. The Molon Labe crowd wants to be attacked or have weapons seizure, which is Strategic suicide for the Cathedral.

    I think as much or more than ethnic cleansing it will be debt, as in debt seizures. If the interest rates reset to anything more than a trifle we’re in a world of debtors and debt collectors [including stockholders relying on that income] and we’re fatally intertwined. Genocide by debt has worked before.

    Passivity is signing your own death warrant. It’s not that we shouldn’t vote, it’s that we need to change utterly the meaning of exercising the franchise, that is power.

    • jim says:

      I think as much or more than ethnic cleansing it will be debt, as in debt seizures. If the interest rates reset to anything more than a trifle we’re in a world of debtors and debt collectors

      The better sort of people don’t seem to be in debt. One of my sons this year married, purchased a house, and got his wife pregnant. Theoretically he is in debt, but he could pay off the house today if he chose.

      Hence my position on debt slavery: Sell the defaulters!

      During the run up to the mortgage crisis a lot of the better people borrowed heavily and purchased a pile of houses, but it seems to me that nearly all of them unloaded the houses at the last minute onto people who don’t have to pay their mortgages, which is to say, diversity borrowers. The reason that they took a seemingly big risk was because they knew that they could always unload a million dollar house at the last minute onto some wetback left over in the Home Depot parking lot because he was too drunk for a day labor gig.

      • B says:

        It’s not that hard to stay out of debt if you have a decent community and a normal values system. Meaning, your life choices run towards getting a profession, getting married and not blowing your money on hoes/conspicuous consumption designed to impress idiots and hoes.

        The problem is that increasingly a decent community and a normal value system are hard to find. When even the “better” people take on debt that they have no intention of honoring, and their plan consists of unloading that debt onto some illegal, your society is pretty hosed.

      • Brian says:

        Good work if your son’s wife is pregnant and he owns a home.

        What tips do you have for those of us raising children?

        How did you keep the wife in line? How do you discipline her?

        Any books or other resources on family life that you would recommend.

        • jim says:

          The manosphere is trying to figure out “Long Term Relationship Game”. I don’t think they have good handle on it, because it is harder to test theories than with pickup game, and those studying the problem are unduly influenced by Christianity.

          I suggest that one should be a natural born asshole with violent propensities.

          Low IQ men tend to spontaneously behave in a way that women find attractive, because they don’t think through the consequences. A high IQ person should study how to behave in this sexually attractive way while avoiding getting caught in any problems that an expensive lawyer cannot get him out of.

          Learn to shoot. Learn unarmed combat and combat with simple improvised weapons. Learn how these abilities can get one into trouble, and how to avoid trouble while taking advantage of these abilities.

          Never be afraid to treat a woman badly. Fertile age women leave men who treat them well, not men who treat them badly.

          Frankly, I was never very successful at disciplining my wife, though I failed less badly than most my of generation. Women are tough. Fitness tests were designed to separate the men from the boys in an environment where men had advantages that we do not have, hence tend to be excessively harsh for the modern environment. And if you ask for obedience, the obvious fitness test is extravagantly determined disobedience, which if carried out with sufficient determination is a hard test for the husband to pass.

          Have a home office, man cave. Your wife’s entrance to it is by permission and conditional on good behavior, while you are entitled to be in any part of the house and supervise and criticize any of her activities, or help her in any of her activities, or substitute yourself for her. You can then get a lot of disciplinary effectiveness by rationing your wife’s access to you and your area.

          This advice coming from someone who’s claim to credibility is merely that he was successful as a husband and a father, when many men were not, which is not a very high bar to pass. My wife was a high IQ woman who was attracted to high IQ men, but only manly high IQ men – and high IQ men tend to be unmanly, as women perceive manliness. So I was all there was.

          One of my nieces (high IQ, high socioeconomic status) spent most of her fertile years cavorting with numerous young men with room temperature IQ and blank resumes. When her fertility window started to run low she went with a doctor, and it was as if she was eating broccoli because it was good for her. I could see why she did not much like him. Eventually she found someone of her own social class who was acceptably manly, and, to my surprise, managed to marry the poor sucker, and promptly started having children, so she did OK – at the last minute, and after demonstrating considerable willingness to compromise on what she really wanted.

          • Brian says:

            “This advice coming from someone who’s claim to credibility is merely that he was successful as a husband and a father, when many men were not, which is not a very high bar to pass.”

            No other claim matters to me right now. Many thanks for the advice. Will study it carefully.

          • Dave says:

            So, are you still married?

            My guess was that you avoid divorce by not fearing divorce, because you know what comes after: a younger, hotter woman for you, and a series of pump-and-dumps for her.

        • Dan Kurt says:

          Married to a super bright woman (Ivy Science Ph.D.) for 46 years. My advice:
          1) keep head bowed;
          2) learn to say “yes, dear;”
          3) pretend to be nearly deaf;
          4) never fight over money matters, that is, make enough money yourself and encourage her to make money herself before and after having and raising children.

          Dan Kurt

          • Red says:

            Wrong generation. The advice you give will result in close to 100% chance of divorce with today’s women.

          • Ron says:

            That does not sound like a marriage, or a life worth living.

          • jim says:

            Dalrock suggests otherwise. The work that the manosphere is doing on “Long Term Relationship Game” looks good to me, though the trouble is Christian influence. I think their advice would be better if they worshipped Odin instead of Jesus.

          • Brian says:

            Do you have kids? Are they independent? Do they have kids?

            If the answer is yes, yes, and yes, then I’m listening.

            No shame in a ‘no’ here, I’m just looking for advice from people who have passed that bar.

        • Dan Kurt says:

          re: “Do you have kids? Are they independent? Do they have kids?” Brian

          1) One son. 2) Ph.D. Mech. Engineer self who has been self supporting since graduating from college (Fellowships for MS and Ph.D. at a top 20 in world University). 3) Not Married yet as he reads in the literature of the manosphere. (I never directed him there, BTW. While visiting him recently I saw on a book shelf Aaron Clarey’s Enjoy the Decline.) He insists he is not a nerd an to prove it he is an avid bicycle rider. He does long rides multiple times a week with friends and his bike club. Last weekend he did a Century (100 miles) and this coming weekend he is scheduled to do another Century. He is planning to vacation next summer in Belgium with friends riding the roads of the one day classic bike races of Belgium. His mother and I would like for him to get married but it is hard to find today a suitable potential mate as you have apparently discovered. Many of his college friends are divorced already upending their lives, something he is well aware.
          Dan Kurt

          • Dave says:

            I was a nerd growing up, and started cycling long distances at age 21. So for most of the next decade, I was a nerd with muscular legs.

    • peppermint says:

      What we have is a finely tuned system, which is the result of a long evolutionary process. It has the following goals:

      (1) allow Whites to pretend that they are personally in charge, or, at least, that no one is else more alpha than them
      (2) extract resources from Whites to keep putting out propaganda and bringing in voters. In addition, Whites love living around diversity because they are privileged to have diversities as cashiers in every store they go to.
      (3) transhumanism. Cybernetic implants and immortality promised, genital mutilation delivered.

      That transhumanism bit is what keeps Scott Alexander hooking up with some transthingy, Henry Dampier from using the word ‘nigger’ on his blog, and the Less Wrong crowd grumblingly supporting one of the parties or the other or maybe the other one.

      In the end, the only White privilege left is the privilege of being told how privileged we are. But how do you think the future you see will be able to extract more resources from Whites?

      • Dr. Faust says:

        I like this. It’s catchy. “the only White privilege left is the privilege of being told how privileged we are.” In the age of memes I think this has potential.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “That transhumanism bit is what keeps Scott Alexander hooking up with some transthingy”

        She’s female with special snowflake syndrome.

        On the other hand, they’re both completely and totally fucked up. He’s “asexual”. She freely admits to being BPD, having 30+ lifetime sexual partners and working as a camgirl.

        What else is there to say?

        • jim says:

          That she is Scott Alexander’s only sexual partner ever, assuming that what they do together is something that we would regard as sex.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Genocide by FORCIBLE assimilation into the hundreds of millions of non-white immigrants being brought into ALL of the white countries. That is where the deliberate destruction of my genotype is taking place. It is White Genocide.


  11. peppermint says:

    If the government is gay enough to think it needs me to vote for it so it can feel loved, I’m going to insult it by voting for the most of the mainstream candidate around. Someone like that “With Jews We Lose” guy. My area doesn’t have anyone like that, though.

  12. Steve Johnson says:

    “To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.”


    Even if legislators actually did get to vote on things that mattered the left only has to win one vote – witness gay “marriage”. That pretty much covers laws.

    As far as budgeting goes I wonder to what extent anyone has any idea of government spending actually is. Departments make up budgets and report numbers but how much of that is fiction? The only people who are in any position to know are those in the Treasury department when they “pay” the banks who are giving credit to people who deposit government checks.

    • peppermint says:

      they still feel the need to lie about it when passing bills and instruct the CBO to score a bill according to what they wrote in it instead of its obvious intent. Intentionally bad loans by banks with an explicit or implicit bailout guarantee are probably not on the government’s balance sheet.

      But let’s talk about how much spending is on welfare anyway. Everyone knows food stamps cost 70 billion dollars, but no one seems to know how much Section 8 costs, even though that’s a direct subsidy. Does anyone keep track of medical costs? Does the government bleed a significant amount of money per year out of private companies to give to community groups?

  13. B says:


    Voting is like crack. One minute, you’re voting “just this once, just for this one issue,” the next minute you’re glued to the tv, breathlessly waiting to see what Obama will say, like some small child wondering whether Batman will beat Spiderman. Just say no.

Leave a Reply