This post from last month drew a lot of responses, mostly from people who did not want to go along with the conclusions. Someone made a 20-minute response to it on YouTube, making what they call the defense of the big tent. In light of the recent controversy over Nick Fuentes getting banished from YouTube, it is a good time to revisit the whole issue and the topics that surround it. Fuentes is probably the best known purveyor of the good optics argument, so that is highly relevant to this.
For starters and to clarify a few things, the creator of that YouTube response makes some mistakes that are common in these discussions. The first one is to frame the issue as between a big tent and presumably a smaller tent. That was not the point of the column and that is not the issue at hand. One can have a broad-based movement that also excludes people who think they are Roman emperors. Even the biggest of big tent claims have limits on what is and what is not accepted.
The second claim is to conflate the term dissident right with other sub-cultures that may or may not have claims to being right-wing. It is a form of binary thinking to define right-wing as anything not tolerated by the Left. The goat blood drinking pagans calling themselves Roman emperors may not be liked by the Left, but that does not automatically qualify them as dissidents or even right-wing. The left is not all that fond of scientists these days, but most scientists are not right-wing.
Then there is the use of the term dissident. In a generic sense, sure, lots of people would fall under the definition. Anti-Semites, for example, are in dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy on antisemitism. That’s most certainly true. Would that put them in the same club as someone like John Derbyshire, the guy who coined the term dissident right twenty years ago? How about Steve Sailer? Calling all of these people dissidents is as useful as calling them mammals.
The fact is, what distinguishes the dissident right from the conventional right is not just opinions on the human condition and biological reality. What ultimately divides the two camps is the lack of ideology among the dissident right. It is the old Russell Kirk observation about Right and Left. Conservatism is not a set of ideologies, but the rejection of ideology. Conventional conservatism has embraced the Left’s ideological views on human nature, which is the roots of the dissent among the dissident right.
This divide also exists within dissident circles. Anti-Semites, ethno-statists, fascists, third positionists and so on are ideologues. The root of their dissent is they have a different vision of the model society from prevailing orthodoxy. Similarly, they are never in doubt about the possibility of it. Like the Left, to quote Kirk, “they see politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society.” That is an important difference between them and the dissident right.
Now, in the YouTube clip, the narrator makes some of the common claims about optics and “punching right” that are popular in certain parts of dissident politics. For example, he claims early on that the alt-right was ruined by the media, who highlighted weirdos and lunatics in their coverage. In reality, the alt-right was doomed when the face of it became a narcissistic dilettante, incapable of organizing a one car funeral. A serious movement never would have tolerated Spencer as the leader.
The whole Spencer fiasco puts the lie to the claims by some that optics are unimportant in their politics. The sole reason Spencer rose to become the face of the alt-right is he looked good on camera. He presented an appealing face to the cause, so he quickly became the face of it. The reason why some of his former followers stick with him is they think he makes their cause look good. It is nothing more than a coping strategy to pretend appearances don’t matter. They always matter.
Another point that needs emphasis is that the whole “no punch right” business was the creation of people trying to sneak into more legitimate politics. You never hear this from people who can function among normal people, despite holding heretical views. It was the dubious claim that a right-wing movement cannot have legitimacy unless it is tolerant of people who have not updated their views since the 60’s. It was, in the end, an effort to co-opt dissident politics by the 1.0 crowd.
Then there is the issue of taboos, which is raised at about the ten minute mark of that YouTube clip linked above. Unsaid, but implied, is the claim that excluding certain people from dissident politics reinforces left-wing taboos on certain opinions. The claim is that excluding people, who are bad for the image of the group, automatically gives legitimacy to the left, by reinforcing left-wing taboos. In other words, trying to present a good image is playing by the Left’s rules on politics.
This is the error of all reactionaries. Instead of developing an internal logic that naturally results in a set of rules and standards, the reactionary simply responds to what he perceives to be his opponent. To be a reactionary in a society run by ideologues is to be a rebel without a cause. Whatever the people in charge of for, the rebel is against and whatever is taboo, the rebel embraces. The modern reactionary is someone who puts a leash around his neck and hands the other end to his opponent.
It also relates to the optics debate this way. Imagine a society that has been ideologically tuned to associate the color purple with heresy. There are regular ceremonies where the bad people are dressed in purple and defeated by the good people. To go around wearing purple would certainly challenge the taboo, but it would also convince most people you are nuts. Unless you have the power to dispel the taboo, breaking them just gives the people with power the chance to reinforce that taboo.
The irony of the reactionary is that ultimately, he embraces the core starting point of all ideologues and that is the binary universe. The ideologue sees the world as white hats versus black hats, good guys versus bad guys. You are either inside the walls with the good people or outside the walls with the bad people. Those taboo breaking reactionaries, with their disdain for optics, embrace the same view. You either break the taboos or you must embrace them. There is no middle ground.
This is why reactionaries fail. Most of life is in the vast middle ground of exceptions, conditions and contradictions. Most people get that. They get that politics is always about trade-offs, half-measures and compromise. You don’t win them over by being as fanatical as the people you oppose. You win them over by juxtaposing your apparent reasonableness against the fanaticism of the prevailing order. You do that by making concessions to their morality. You don’t wear purple.¹
There is the final point worth making here. Those who deny the value of presentation always say, “The Left is going to demonize you anyway.” They mistakenly think optics and presentation are about winning over the Left or abiding by their rules. Again, this is the mind of the reactionary. Good presentations and subtle compromises to convention are about winning over the vast middle. The point of politics is about controlling the field between the various sides.
Yes, the Left will call us Nazis and fascists no matter what we do, but that can only be turned to our favor if it looks absurd. Spencer was easily demonized because he embraced the role of prep school Nazi. Nick Fuentes is not so easily demonized, because he reminds most white people of their kids or grand-kids. He may be a smart-alecky twerp at times, but calling him a Nazi violates bourgeois sensibilities. To put it another way, it is very bad optics for the Left.
Politics is always about keeping the ends in mind and making the necessary compromises to further those ends. Politics is a means to an end. Ideologues always fall into the trap of thinking politics is an end in itself, which is why ideological states are always unstable and usually short lived. Successful outsider politics has to be practical in its application in order to win ground in the vast area that is always up for grabs between the orthodoxy and those challenging it.
¹Anticipating the response from certain circles, the Nazis winning the street battles with the Bolsheviks in Weimar Germany is an exception, not the rule. The middle had collapsed in Weimar Germany, along with the old ruling order. The Right and left, as understood at the time, were not fighting to win over their fellow Germans. They were fighting to fill the power vacuum that resulted from the collapse of the middle.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
Disquieting possibility: the extremists anticipate a collapse of the middle and are simply acting accordingly. Maybe extremists always do this, or maybe they’re blind, or maybe they’re on to something.
The order is so eroded that I think it’s a battle of wills to decide what comes next. Having lost institutional dominance, does the normally meek middle have the guts to hold?
Extremists and ideologues are always in the pumpkin patch, sure the Great Pumpkin is about to arrive at any moment. They hope the middle collapses, because they think they automatically win. At best, that is a 50-50 proposition.
The Great Pumpkin lol. I’ll give them credit, they stay optimistic.
We’re being put at a disadvantage because the left is abandoning the center faster than we are.
If the Great Pumpkin came today, it would be 30-70 (we’re the 30).
I think that’s part of what redpilling means at the moment: not just grasping reality (the intellectual component of redpilling) but also abandoning the center (the political component.)
Keep redpilling, lads. We’ve got to get it to at least 51-49 before the Day of the Pumpkin.
Babe, thanks for what you’ve put together.
For those who are unaware, while The Zman toils away on his book,The Babe has put together 3 collections of Morgoth’s essays. All are available for free.
https://thebabe.home.blog/
Ha, thanks, man. That’s one reason I’ve been a little quiet on the Zblog recently.
By the way, Zman, if you’re interested in me putting together a similar anthology of your blog posts for you, let me know and I’ll send you an email to set it up.
Thanks. I’ve been slowly going back through the old posts plucking out ones I liked or that were popular. It’s a long process, but I keep pecking away at it.
I suspect I will meet Morgoth at Collett’s thing next month.
I had a similar response; the middle seems to be collapsing. This may be an illusion stemming from social media and the sharp left turn the Democrats have taken in the wake of OrangeManBad’s election. The counter to this view is that most people don’t follow politics and most are not on Twitter. They’re not looking for anyone to rock the boat because they are relatively comfortable. The last thing they want is to have some wingnuts take over. Anyone who looks likely to upset the order is going to be viewed with suspicion. Democratic Party regulars are getting scared… Read more »
Not sure I follow all your thoughts in today’s posting, Z-man. They are in many ways well above my level of understanding. I then attempted to listen to the YouTube posting you referenced—I simply could not. The person you refute seems to be thinking (let’s call it that in all charity) while he is talking. It is way too painful to follow. I do not disagree, nor agree. I simply tuned out. There is no reason for it. He has all the time in the world to script (think through and edit) his argument before recording and posting. I assume,… Read more »
I couldn’t make it more than a minute. He has the male version of vocal fry. Very unpleasant. Also it’s a month old and only has 88 views. Doesn’t seem like he’s a real mover and shaker in the movement
I had full intentions of struggling through the entire 18:30, but had had enough by about the 6:30 mark. You didn’t miss anything in that additional five and half minutes, in case you were worried about it. Ha, ha.
By the way, at the time of this writing he is up to nearly 200 views. So I guess he owes our host a big debt of gratitude.
One of the many things I hate about the new century is that video has replaced text as the primary means of presenting ideas and arguments. You see this across fields as diverse as technology (how to build an amplifier circuit, etc…) and politics. I have tried to make videos on technical subjects. Even though I had written things down in advance I found myself rambling and going off on tangents. I then sat there editing clips together at a ratio of (optimistically) 1 hour editing for every 5 minutes of relatively coherent and watchable video. IOW, it’s harder than… Read more »
Yep, heck I ramble even when I write—and I know it. The only thing that somewhat saves me is that typing takes time and one simply quits after awhile—thereby saving both myself and the audience even more pain. 😉
I agree with most of this, but the constant internecine war between different groups and individuals on the dissident right is stupid, and wastes a lot of time, and effort. Just for crying out loud, IGNORE them. Attack the Left, and just ignore people who are annoying you. Everyone seems to have a chip on their shoulder. We are a gorilla army that’s spends more time attacking each other, than who we all hate in the Capitol. We take one step forward, then 2 back, because someone can’t just ignore an insult. Too many egos….
As a Yesterday Man, one of the big mistakes we made was taking our eyes off Lefty, and letting ourselves be distracted by his stick handling. He got inside our decision loop and in no time he had us chasing our own tails. Then he started moving goal posts, changing the rules, and our focus became “Get Lefty”… and we looked like idiots. We lost the media and then we lost the schools and even most of the churches. Look around boys: most of those institutions are failing or are dead already. They don’t work anymore. The dissidents are going… Read more »
‘Get lefty’ becomes ‘become lefty’. Funny how that happens. Stare into the abyss too long and you become the abyss.
@Paintersforms – well, yeah. The whole game is to delegitimize lefty, to make people agree that wine-soaked cat ladies and trannies and the rest are the ones responsible for our problems. It’s either that or else we remain the problem – I say remain the problem because our side has been scapegoated for a while now, and we’re losing). Lefty gets this, which is why he has such a thin skin for mockery. Mockery is the first step to reframing the target as a possible scapegoat. That’s one reason I’m not down on twitter, memes, and the rest of it.… Read more »
Yes. I meant if you spend too much time getting in lefty’s head you start to think like lefty. Then you’re fighting on his terms, and that’s a losing battle. That opens the door for subversives to steer the right leftward. People instinctively get this. When Hannity talks about offering real alternatives and clear distinctions, he’s giving a voice to what even normie senses. I’m sure it’s gone on for a long time. From Eisenhower to Goldwater to Nixon to Reagan to the tea party to Trump, and probably much longer. But nobody cuts to the quick. Trump comes close… Read more »
“The dissidents are going to go mainstream sooner rather than later. They will have to be ready because Leftie has lost his chit. Look at that election coming up – the democrat candidates look like the cast from SOAP and sound like them too.” There are hour long montages of all the really smart people in America gloating about how Trump cannot win covering from mid 2015 all the way up until election eve. They were saying this right up the eve of election day when the votes started coming in. Then reality hit. Moods turned sour. People cried. They… Read more »
It’s entirely possible that Bloomberg’s going to buy the election. He just gave Stacey Abrams 5 million and she’s going to support him. He just starts passing around money like that and he could get a lot of support. I don’t think anyone’s going to be screaming my principles! He might even make Stacey Abrams his vice president. Yikes!
Bloomberg spent $170 per vote to win the NYC mayor’s race. If he spends $170 per vote this time (130 million voters, and he needs a bit over half), that’s about $12 billion. The man is worth $54 billion. Would you spend 22% of your net worth to be king of the world, especially if spending down over 90% of your net worth would be irrelevant to your lifestyle? Furthermore, much of that spending was “pass around money”, in the old-school fashion of simply going out in the neighborhoods and passing out wads of cash, in the style of Oprah… Read more »
That’s a lot of money with no guarantees.
I don’t even know why anyone would want to be president these days. Everyone thinks you are something close to a dictator, while in reality, you have thousands of people fighting you no matter what you do.
I fully expected Trump to face a lot of shenanigans from the Congress and deep state, but even I was surprised at the level of blocking and maneuvering they have proven themselves capable of.
Tars, a few things here. One is that a very old guy who has succeeded in big ways, but is still not satisfied, can still want that golden ring for its own sake, to be able to say he has done it. I think that was one element of Trump’s quest, Another is that Trump has publicly dissed the man, and continues to do so. Like the milquetoast that goes all road rage, sometimes people simply have scores to settle, and trying to look rationally at something that has an emotional element to it makes it hard to comprehend why… Read more »
I wasn’t disagreeing. I was just saying it is incomprehensible to me. But then again, I ain’t in the club either:)
You gotta have massive respect for Netanyahu. Talk about brass balls! He was on Twitter bragging about how (((little-hat \Americans,))) working with the Israeli state, got the BDS movement illegal in like 1/2 of the US states. Unfortunately, I don’t think there will be an Israeli collusion story in the (((press))).
Netanyahu plays in a rotten sandbox, but he does have brass balls and is doing some unappreciated and non-understood good things for his own people. He is a very effective advocate for his crowd. We all need those effective advocates for our own crowds. That’s how the game is properly played.
Not much of a prognosticator, but am a former New Yorker. Bloomberg has a record which has yet to be told to middle America. He is a conniving Eastern Lefty fascist—but I repeat myself—a free booter of the worst sort.
He has the personality of a dead fish. If Trump is Hitler, this worm Bloomberg is Goebbels. And if he does buy the Presidency, It will serve to rouse the population of normies more than we ever could.
There is still an entire wing of Republicans that hate him so much they will vote Democrat.
I think that’s more of a feather than a wing.
Their candidates are terrible, but remember, we’re becoming a third-world country, and third-world countries get truly embarrassing politicians. (Just look at the astoundingly terrible “black leaders” we’ve got now.)
(And I think you could argue that Trump himself is in the third-world style.)
The challenge is going to be to stay first-world people in a third-world country. As you suggest, that will become a kind of leadership in itself. And make you a target for the third-worlders.
Bloomberg also fits in really well with both third-world politics and the current politics of the left. He gets his way by the distribution of “walking around money”, which really matches the Dem platform of “free everything”. What people don’t understand is, just like it is not who votes that matters, but who counts the votes, it is not the walking around money that matters, but who is in control of the walking around money. You can be a glad recipient of free stuff, but if you are not the one passing it out, sooner or later the freebies stop… Read more »
I want me and mine (blood and race relations) to win. Not particular about the means and i see no reason to restrict freedom of action by defending ideologies or principles not essential to my objective. Let my descendants figure out what it all means and what principles can be sussed out of it all. AFTER me and mine win.
The big mistake these guys make is they think early 20th century victories by outsiders can be replicated today under entirely different circumstances. The dissidents of the early 20th century were up against very weak states which few people in the state had a lot of confidence in and belief of the validity of that state. The existing states also did not have deep and broad support in the population. This was particularly true in Germany and Russia. From 1918 to 1932, the German people went through unprecedented suffering. America is an absolute utopia in comparison. The newly created Wiemar… Read more »
I am not so sure about the perception of the legitimacy of the state any more. Normie’s assumptions have been shaken (hence the collapse of the political center), but he knows not where to turn. Some vague version of our thing appeals to many, but the powers that be have flagged it as a “no-go zone”. As Normie prefers to play by the rules, as they are told to him, he does not come our way. Yet. In the meantime, Bloomberg and Hillary scheme. They may just take things in the fall election. That would ultimately blow the lid off… Read more »
While I agree there are a lot of unsatisfied people, I would say that they are still committed to the system. They still believe in Democracy, equality and the Constitution. Normies want to grab the reigns of power, but they don’t think the system itself is illegitimate. There is almost nobody saying “Democracy” sucks and that we need a fascist dictator or a king. They fundamentally agree with the system. The fact that we are even discussing what the normie thinks is a tacit endorsement of liberal democracy. My guess is that Jews don’t want Bloomberg to win. That would… Read more »
Agreed, Normie is not nearly there yet. But things move fast these days, and preference cascades are hard to stop, once they get started. My concern is that even if Normie really begins to buy into the WANVOWOOT thing, getting him to come our way is going to be difficult for a lot of them. They are herd animals, and, as far as I can tell, coming our way may always entail their breaking with the herd. Personally, I am adopting elements of Stoicism, MGTOW, and a bit of belligerence. None of it turned up to eleven or anything, but… Read more »
WANVOWOOT?
I would say a lot of the MAGA types are waking up to the fact that the state is illegitimate and there is no justice to be had if you are on the wrong side. MAGA sites like the Gateway Pundit illustrate it every day showing the raw deals Flynn, Stone and Trump got. How the FBI and DOJ are run by the swamp for the swamp etc. Tucker points out on his show the collective silence from the GOP in regards to how Stone has been treated and tells us to expect the same. What to do? At this… Read more »
Talking about being reactionary reminds me of the people on the Right whose immediate reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque was to call for a strip club to be build next door. It was stupid and counter productive.
The thing about Lefty taboos is to pick ones that make the Lefty’s looks nuts. Marching around in Nazi gear is bad. Mocking them over their fear of the OK sign is the way to go.
Gay strip club.
I don’t think it was counter productive at all. It was answering one deliberately offensive provocation with another. Fighting fire with fire, as it were. In the end neither was built (there are already plenty of mosques and gay bars in NYC.)
The real problem with the GZM is that normies swallowed hook, line, and sinker the taqiyya that the GZM is a monument to peace and reconciliation.
Anyone that understands the true nature of Islam knows this is absolutely incorrect. The GZM is a monument to Islamic victory and humiliation of the West in its very core.
Hardly reactionary, it was quite proper considering what the presence of a Mosque symbolizes in Islam. The Muzzies were rubbing our nose in s**t.
Every movement has a trail of dead ends, cul-de-sacs, burnouts, mummified corpses and all sorts of other detritus. They all had their little roles and most no longer matter. As someone here pointed out a few days ago the dissident wave is building. Some studies have almost 75% of whites thinking about white group interests in some form or other. Let’s put our energy in communicating intelligently with these people. Let the dead bury the dead. What’s the bigger tent, a click of carping screw-ups or more than 100,000,000 white people who are beginning to sense that something is rotten… Read more »
When freedom dies out – and it has pretty much died out globally – what “movement” is left that doesn’t involve death and destruction?
I think the most clarifying thing would be the defining of goals. Then you can decide “optics” issues in light of that goal. Otherwise you’re kind of bickering without really knowing what you’re bickering about. Hey, what the heck, I’ll go ahead and define our goals: (1) White identitarianism (2) Ethnostates You might say that the first goal is the pyschological condition of the second, more ultimate, goal. You might also that the first is a fallback position if the second becomes unobtainable: we might become “diasporized” in our own countries because of demographic change and will have to survive… Read more »
If I understand your admirably laid out logic, the Dissident Right occupies a space on the Venn Diagram where we find those who reject the ideology/ies of the Left and also the ideologies of the Right (civnat) and any other dissident ideologies (antisemitism, TradCath, etc.). They either have no ideology or if they do, they keep it to themselves (private opinion). That sounds like Conservatism 1.0, a la Kirk. Of course, it failed. These are Francis’s “Beautiful Losers,” what Hegel would call the fallacy of the Beautiful Soul (too good for the world). Add a British accent and you have… Read more »
@James_OMeara – Well, yeah. If you wake up one morning and discover you are being made the scapegoat for all that ills the community, then your goal is to avoid that fate. I agree it doesn’t really count as an ideology, but saving your skin can still focus one’s mind, don’t you think? But if we must have a goal, it would be something like: we want lefty and his individual water-carriers to be blamed for what’s wrong with society, and to have them marginalized, ostracized, or otherwise removed as a threat. It’s more complicated than that, of course, because… Read more »
Well, Democritus and Leucippus both failed by that standard, but they were both right. Conservatism as Kirk explained it is just an acknowledgement of reality. If beating the Left requires embracing some differently insane ideology, what would be the point?
What’s the story with Fuentes getting banned? I know he’s made enemies on both the left and grifter-right, but what did he do that he hasn’t always done?
Both Conservative Inc and the Left ganged up on him. He was a threat to both and they silenced him. He actually hurt them unlike the DR that is mostly a cerebral kegger for spergies. Z can spin it as he sees fit. But that’s where anyone or group that is a threat to the status quo will end up. This is why there is no real 3rd party in the U.S. The DR can offer it’s belly to the ruling class all it wants, but once it crosses a threshold, they will stomp into a bloody pulp. Too many… Read more »
All politics ultimately settles on Stalin’s method for solving problems: Eliminate the people who are causing them, in his case, Trotsky & company. Right-wingers like Suharto and Pinochet correctly identify Communists as the source of problems, eliminate them, and prosper. Left-wingers blame and eliminate productive citizens, turning their nations into Venezuela, which now lies prostrate, just waiting for a competent right-winger to invade, rout the starving remnants of its army, and declare himself king. So my strategy is to lay low and survive until the left annihilates itself and the right-wing death squads take over. Survive hell so I can… Read more »
René Girard had an interesting take on one of the stories of demon possession in the Gospel of Mark. Of course, for Girard, everything is mimetic, so the idea was that this particular unfortunate was living among the tombs, covering himself with filth, cutting himself, hurling himself against rocks, and so on was part of living out the role of the scapegoat. It was a coping strategy: Look, I’m already the scapegoat. I’ve done everything you would want to do to me already, so there’s no need to beat my head in with rocks or throw me off a cliff.… Read more »
On the topic of “ideological states”: I think this is actually the whole problem with all modern societies. They have ALL turned into an endless civil war (sometimes hotter or colder) between various factions who all want to be the ones to decide what the “perfect society” is. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent faction that just believes there is no perfect society and just wants all the ideologues to STFU, put down their megaphones, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives. Of course in a way this is my “perfect society” – a… Read more »
My thoughts on this are that the dissident movement is not at a point where a coherent ideology is important, or even desirable. It’s a collection of rag tag groups on the perimeter of the establishment, or within the establishment but no longer accepting the programming and hiding that fact in a bifurcated life. You can’t build a new structure until the old structure is thoroughly discredited (See Saul Alinsky) and they discredit themselves every day at this point. So a “dissident” has to be anything outside the Overton window. That includes this site. That includes Nick Fuentes (there’s something… Read more »
” You can’t build a new structure until the old structure is thoroughly discredited”
I think you hit the nail squarely on the thumb here: The major task is to convince (or rather to confirm, because most suspect ) that we are witnessing societal collapse, that all major institutions are complicit.
Then let that sit for a while. Exact details of what we ultimately hope for would be a bit premature- especially as we don’t really know.
Immigration though, seems to be one issue on which people can be red pilled fairly easily.
Fuentes made all the same “optics,” mistakes in his early days. Groypers are just the Catholic alt-right. Productive paths for young men don’t include side-shows be they ideolgically racial or theological LARP.
You are missing the point, which seems to be important for the alt-right to stagger on, it seems.
Optics do matter in terms of recruitment and public perception. These things are independent of the MSM – who mostly try to find the craziest loose cannon of a movement they can find and use him as a poster child. This won’t stop the MSM from manufacturing a loon, but we should never help them by allowing the unhinged a place at the table. We keep them away. They are trouble. Though it is foolish to think we can turn the DR into a political movement that will be tolerated by the ruling class – it won’t. Once it gets… Read more »
Off topic (or maybe not) an apparently serious attempt at peaceful separation. The Greater Idaho organization wants to peel off rural counties in Southern and Eastern Oregon and Northern California and merge them with Idaho. They are trying to get their proposal on the 2020 ballot.
http://greateridaho.org/
I have noticed that people who got here from what I will here call the middle (that is somewhere other than conservatism, libertarianism or the ideological left) have much less trouble spotting the difference between a big tent and a freak show.
Conservatism suffers for its lack of a coherent ideology. The routinely comedic “Conservative Case For X (degeneracy)” shows the worst aspect of this. When you can’t say what conservatism is, it’s hard to convince people what it isn’t.
We can articulate a set of practical hueristics as well as lofty principles – and we need to.
There still is a normal America. We who poke around the dissident right are probably never gonna get the majority middle completely to our side on every subject. But we don’t need to get them over on every subject in order to have a livable society for us.. The left is making a mistake deplatforming and throwing hissy fits. A lot of the middle don’t know Nick Fuentes but they do know Trump and Trump if we like him or not for our side is getting everything and the kitchen sink thrown at him by the nut jobs on the… Read more »
“You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.” — C. S. Lewis I am not sure what everyone here means by “on the right” or “right-wing” or “dissident right”. As one who has been to the far right all his life, or at least thought he was, I think dissidents will have to define what makes a good society — what one looks like. Then we sell that. My first thought is that democracy is total crap just as the ancients told us centuries ago. For a governance to work, I… Read more »
Last genuine political party were Dixiecrat against power hungry maniacs who claim great humanitarian ever live Republican party and conservative were always carpetbagger carpetbagger who pretending care about white people white people vote for him because other party were lunatic who want to destroy very existence of white people of course, carpetbagger doesn’t want fight back his lunatic cousins, why wouldn’t he? After all, they are part of family and family don’t destroy each other https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/02/13/is-anything-truly-scandinavian-the-bizarre-sas-ad-controversy-explained recent SAS airlines commercials basically denied existence of Scandinavian obviously Airlines and Sweden ruling class decided to quit with incrementalism and instead just go… Read more »