Embrace Your Inner Wrecker

Submitted by Chet Rollins

So the big red wave didn’t happen.  You watched in dismay as indifferent voters from the inner city filled out a form with the help of a progressive canvasser and put it in the mail a month before election day.  You’re finally looking to take that step to admit, yes, this is not going to be solved in the ballot box.  You’ve come to the realization that you’re going to have to find different ways to win, ways that go against the civic culture you grew up in.  You realize you need throw wrenches in the system, trip them up, force them to waste valuable resources, and destroy their morale.  But what can one person do against an adversary that have essentially locked down all of our institutions to their cause?  How can you fight the system where there are draconian punishments of something as simple as posting an edgy flyer on a college campus?

We should first take a look at the Soviets when they captured complete institutional control.  One of the most fascinating aspects of looking at the early Soviet revolution was the paranoia shown for behaviors.  Once they quashed overt resistance to their rule, they had to fear a more subtle, and perhaps more dangerous type of people.  When progress was not made properly, they would search for someone to blame, people who either didn’t work hard enough in support of the revolution or were actively sabotaging it.  Those people were called Wreckers.

One could argue that these accusations were cynical ploys to point the finger at individuals to deflect blame from themselves, and this certainly happened, but one can also read a deep paranoia that understood a mass of people who subtly make Soviet projects linger and fail was a major threat to their rule, as they would not be able to even have the infrastructure to enforce their edicts. 

If enough people passively work to damage an organization from within, soon will make it as inept that it might as well not exist at all.  There are also extensive ways to make hostile organizations waste an enormous amount of time and money by making arduous and painful interactions with them.  In Soviet times, one could easily be charged, be forced into a confession, and shipped out to the gulag.  This is the nature of hard power. In our soft power world, this is far more difficult and time consuming, and so the strategy is much harder to root out and discourage.  This is an advantage the right needs to embrace.

The mindset of great battles with heroic figures saving the country is a fantasy in a world of passive backbiting and enemy propaganda control.  Anyone brazen enough to overtly challenge the system, especially with a weak to non-existent counter-elite, only serves his ego as he gets pointlessly shot down.  Instead of focusing on great decisive battles, the right needs its focus on giving their enemy a thousand papercuts.

So what would be a good wrecking campaign for a dissident right-winger look like?  The key questions to ask are:

1.  Does this bring pain to my enemy at a low cost and risk to myself?

2.  Does this bring little to no attention to myself?

3.  Do I have plausible deniability?

4.  If I’m a part of a larger wrecking campaign, are there covert allies in power who I can trust and will bend the rules to help me stay out of trouble?

For the first point, a good example of causing pain to an enemy at low risk would be strolling over to your local library, taking a few degenerate books from their display like you’re going to check them out, go to a secluded part of the library, and put them where no one will ever find them. This is something that can be done at an individual level to good effect, and becomes even more demoralizing and devastating with each person who does the same thing, culminating when library administrators either give up or spend all their time trailing patrons who take the books.  Either way, pain for them, low inconvenience or risk to you.

The second point goes against the mindset of your average right winger, who loves to publicly own the libs for a temporary dopamine hit than actually doing real damage to them.  For a wrecker it’s all about creating frustration for your foes that makes it feel like they’re punching air. This is especially useful with an ombudsman who have confidential/anonymous lines (though you need to ensure they are actually truly anonymous).  Making a complaint about your annoying leftist co-worker making racially charged comments, while omitting the fact it was against whites, or complaining about microaggressions directed against you from your snotty H.R. manager is a solid way to waste resources and give your enemies grief.  Creating an aura of paranoia in an organization destroys cohesiveness, a feeling of shared mission, and murders productivity.  Make them scared.   It’s unglamorous you’ll maybe never see your victim getting decisively owned, but future generations smile on your work.  

The third point is key, especially for larger operations.  For those who wonder how this works, the pilot’s strike was a textbook example.  To protest the vaccine mandate, the pilots all called in sick on the same day and brought airlines to their knees.  There was little to do in retaliation, as it is very hard to prove that they all actually didn’t get sick, and they won.  If one wants to look at a failure using opposite tactics, look at the Canada truckers who made a massive show and got their bank accounts frozen for their troubles.

The fourth point is important when an organization is well on its way to full infiltration, and you need some cover when you are taking actions that are clearly detrimental to the people who are actually trying to make the organization effective. Effectively, if you are being intentionally incompetent or actively trying to make life miserable for your enemies in the organization, you’ll need a boss who knows the game and has your back.How far you go in your wrecking operation completely depends on your assessment of risk. All of these carry the risk of getting fired, banned from places, or even physical violence. A family guy with five kids who lives paycheck to paycheck is very different than a single man in his 20’s who already has massive savings and can move to another part of the country in a weekend. Rest assured also, being a wrecker means hurting and demoralizing your enemies, and may require massive deception of an enemy for a long time before backstabbing him. One can argue the morals of such action, but one can’t argue that such tactics ineffective.

12 Comments Add yours

  1. GDR says:

    It’s odd that when you bring up passive wrecking as a strategy that NazBols such as Tinkzorg call you a parasite. Reminds me of Radfem Hitler (a radical feminist nazi lol) calling me an incel over my underhanded relationship tips. I wonder if the same donor funds both?

    Like

  2. Vxxc says:

    This is effeminate cowardice thinking itself clever.

    We have enough women and trannys as it is, indeed they’re far bolder than the so called men.

    The USSR was right to do away with such creatures, it’s just common decency and common sense.

    If you can’t be as brave as a woman or a tranny why bother at all?

    You’re “resisting” for what?
    Your freedom to be a C_nt?

    Like

    1. GDR says:

      Crying Soyjak: “Reveal yourself so ZOG can hammer you down!”

      Grinning Gigachad: “What do you mean comrade? I’m doing my best!” *takes a nap mid-shift*

      Like

    2. Gnillik Yot says:

      I agree, VXXC. The whole tone of this article plus the advice itself reads like the author is just seething. And the advice itself, if followed, just makes the one following it into a passive aggressive bitch.
      “You must pretend to be friends with your leftist coworker/boss, and then stab them in the back.”

      Like

  3. Watermeloneous Noggly says:

    The trucker strike was perfectly reasonable as an idea, they just mis-estimated how much legitimacy and economic prosperity the regime was willing to burn in pursuit of control.

    Another key issue with “wreckers” as a strategy is that the USSR had to compete on level ground. It needed industry, it needed functional institutions, and it tried to keep them functional. The USSR had a direct competitor, America, which it had to maintain military-industrial parity with or be destroyed. The regime imports infinity nogs because it doesn’t need to stay functional, at least for now. Its manufacturing is done overseas, and it maintains its trade deficit by blackmailing the world with its military, which nobody is willing to directly challenge yet.

    “Wrecking” is a funny hobby, and putting impossible “meats” in the dog food aisle is entertaining, but we’re not living in the USSR.

    Like

    1. GDR says:

      The Truckers actually won – Trudeau fled the capitol – they simply failed to realize it in time and weren’t ruthless/ambitious enough to capitalize on it. They could’ve put Trudeau in a bog head-first if they had some real bastards among them.

      The labor bottleneck in Canada/USA/Australia/Europe isn’t manufacturing, it’s transport and especially security. If thousands of security forces walk away from their charges while a transport strike occurs, anyone can use this to arm themselves.

      If a state/province rebellion occurs at the same time then the federal military largely ceases to exist while state guards become nuclear powers.

      The issue is coordination.

      Like

  4. Vxxc says:

    GDR, you have nothing to reveal.
    Let me reveal there’s really no ZOG and not much of a hammer, and you’d be loafing under any system.

    Its just cowardice. Not clever.
    You can’t be free, its not possible.
    Your lot is slave, just accept it and stop being a wise ass kid before you do get smacked. Frankly, speaking of ZOG, this sort of smirking snide commentary combined with delusional grandiosity in a Kooze soul- hmm, you may well know more about ZOG than me. Just speaking as a fellow white person.

    I could care less about such weaseling being presented here as clever 4D chess – no, you’re just grumbling and unless motivated serfs.

    Cowardice precludes Choice.
    End of story.

    Any young boys who want to be more than the White version of Obama kindly do not follow this plan.

    Like

    1. GDR says:

      I’m a bandit, you’re the serf. My goal is simple and obvious: increase costs the system incurs to continue harming us, while using it to harm my racial and factional enemies.

      Stalin robbed banks and fucked widows for a living before the revolution, why shouldn’t I?

      Like

  5. Wilfred says:

    Reading “Gulag Archipelago”, I got the impression the vast majority of “Wreckers” were not people deliberately resisting Communism, but were just scapegoats being blamed for the failures of the latest Five Year Plan. If a factory didn’t meet its quota for widget production, the local Commissar could escape liquidation himself by blaming the failures on “wreckers” sabotaging the operation. The Wreckers were in reality, people he just didn’t like and could be plausibly blamed for the system’s failures.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. GDR says:

      If the people living under the USSR were actually wreckers it would’ve fallen in 5 years, not a lifetime.

      Like

  6. Disemelevatorize says:

    The library books don’t have to actually be on display. Just find all the degenerate books. Also if you can destroy them. Then ask the library to purchase them again. Rinse and repeat.
    Complain about the drag queen story hour not being racially diverse or not having drag kings.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s