Essay:Why is it a "wasted vote" if you vote third party, but not a wasted vote if you abstain entirely?
I hear sometimes, people will say, "I'm fed up with Trump; I'm just not gonna vote at all in 2020" and people are like, "Yeah, that's the spirit! If refusing to vote causes someone like Hillary to get elected, that'll finally wake up White America."
But if you say, "We should run a third party or independent candidate" people are like, "What, and WASTE YOUR VOTE?! That's crazy; that's just what the Jews would want you to do."
Yet one-third or half the population is already "wasting its vote" anyway by not voting at all. A lot of them are cynics who have decided that voting never changes anything. Yet together, they have enough voting power to cause change, if they wanted to.
The way I look at it, if you're anticipating there will be large numbers of people who hate both major party candidates and aren't planning on voting at all, that's the time to run a third party or independent candidate. You could run some really racist, sexist, and antisemitic guy and hope he gets 5 or 10% of the vote, to send a message. And the message you send is, "The reason the Republican lost is that he wasn't racist, sexist, and antisemitic enough to attract that extra 5 or 10% of the vote he needed to win."
The alternative is that the 5 or 10% is just "dark matter" in the political universe. The media can spin whatever narrative it wants, such as saying that the Republican turned off the voters by being TOO racist, sexist, and antisemitic. When people don't vote, it leaves up to interpretation why they stayed home.
The only problem is, it's hard to actually recruit a good third party or independent candidate. To run for, say, President, you have to have a big enough ego to believe you could do a good enough job; and most people have been taught all their lives that such thinking is grandiose. NEETs in particular probably think, "I'm just a loser; how can I attract support?"
Then there are the family men, whose thinking is, "If I make any kind of sacrifice for the greater good of society, rather than always doing what's best for my family, my wife will divorce me and take the kids." Look what happened to Heath Hitler; he got into radical politics, and his wife left him and went to the tattoo parlor to cover up his name and all the swastikas she had put on her body, so she could look good to the family courts and get custody of her kids.
It really has been a hindrance to us, I think, that feminism has given women so much power to hold back their husbands from doing anything brave or daring to try to save their country. It puts men in a very emasculating position, in which they can't pursue greatness and become an inspiring example to others because that would be "selfish".
People said Adolf Hitler was kinda weird because he didn't have a family, but maybe that was what gave him the freedom to do the stuff he did. He didn't have to worry that going to Landsberg jail was going to leave his kids fatherless. He didn't have to worry about a tearful wife telling him, "You torture me so much by going to these dangerous rallies where communists are throwing around beer mugs!" American men have been taught that they should be sensitive to such concerns ("happy wife, happy life" and all that), and that if they persist in doing what they think must be done, it's their fault if they lose half their stuff and are ordered to pay child support.
The Jews' greatest stroke of manipulative genius was to destroy the white man's will to fight back by using feminism to pussy-whip him into submission. The family became unable to present a united front against the enemy, because the wife -- typically the most timid and conformist of the two spouses -- had been made the dominant partner. Naturally, she would tend to cave in to society's demands for the sake of her own comfort and safety, and compel her husband to cave in as well. Also, her ability to call the shots demoralized her husband and made him think that if he couldn't lead his own family, what chance did he have of leading the country?
In times past, a woman would be respectful toward her husband, viewing him as the stronger and wiser one. (Or if she did disrespect him, as women will sometimes do as a way of testing men's strength, he would have the right to correct her.) She would marry as a young and virginal woman, and pair-bond with him, loving him with the kind of love that a woman reserves for her first love. The home became a refuge for him, where he could rest and enjoy the companionship of his mate before going back into the outside world reinvigorated to resume the fight.
Feminism encouraged women to become slutty and arrogant, so that they would consume the energies of their husbands with their bitchiness, leaving those men too distracted and emotionally exhausted to fight any battles outside the home. There also arose manginas and white knights standing ready to shame and punish men for not respecting "empowered" women, and not believing every female story of victimization. A lot of these cucks were just trying to cope with their own unhappy marital and/or incel situations by deluding themselves into believing the women were right, and that by doubling down on cuckoldry, they could eventually find happiness.
Feminism taught women to behave like Jews, so that white men would have Jew-equivalents living with them in their own households and telling them how to think and what to do. And of course, the vaginal Jew has many cuckish shabbos goys (aka white knights and manginas) to stand up for her when she complains of being mistreated. Just like the Jews will complain about a fake holocaust, she will complain about rapes and emotional abuse that never happened, so she can collect shekels and sympathy.
It's really rare that an Adolf Hitler -- a man who is both a brilliant theoretician and a skilled orator -- will emerge to save the white race. But hopefully if he does show up, he will be able to harness the power that is currently lying dormant in the non-voters.