The Dissident Right

Labels are important in social discourse, as they are shorthand for a collection of ideas, arguments and images. It’s why the Left always makes its first assault on something by corrupting its labels. If they can anathematize the label, then they effectively discredit the people and ideas associated with it. It is a form of the aphorism often mistakenly credited to Stalin, “No man, no problem.” Similarly, social movements often first try to establish their name and symbols, before fully explaining what it is they are championing.

One reason the alt-right was easily smashed by the Progressive establishment is that they chose symbols that had already been anathematized by the Left and their team name had no intrinsic meaning. They would have been better off dressing as circus clowns, rather than prep school Nazis. They thought they could break the taboos against fascism by irreverently breaking the taboo, but instead they simply ended up playing a well-known role in the Left’s morality play. From there it became easy to demonize the name “alt-right.”

That said, if the term alt-right had a better definition, one that was both positive and intrinsically respectable, there efforts to break the fascist taboo by irreverently mocking it could have worked. The reason is the public would have identified them with a label having an established meaning that was separate from the cartoon version of fascism the Left has promoted for generations. Instead, alt-right had no obvious meaning, other than an association with Richard Spencer, who was quickly turned into the bogeyman.

It is why “dissident right” has a better chance as a label for an authentic alternative to the Progressive orthodoxy. The word “dissident” has both a literal meaning and an historic meaning. In fact, the idea of the dissident has emotional resonance in the West, as it is associated with resistance to authoritarianism. While “alt” is that key on your keyboard you use when things go wrong, a dissident is a heroic figure, stoically refusing to buckle to the authoritarian. It’s a word the Left cannot demonize without revealing themselves.

The trouble is, the label does not have a literal definition that is known to most people who use it for themselves or the larger movement. You see that in this post over at Counter-Currents by someone using the name Eordred. He runs through the various tribes that continue to operate outside of mainstream public discourse, but he struggles to arrive at a definition. It is only at the end that he makes a passing reference to the actual source of the term, coined by John Derbyshire a couple of decades ago.

The dissident right is, to some degree, a reaction to the shift on the Right, among the Buckleyites mostly, to embrace the blank slate and egalitarianism. This was mostly due to the infestation of neoconservatives and libertarians. The neocons brought with them that old Marxist belief that society can be willed into any shape you like, regardless of the people in it. Libertarians, like Marxist, simply refuse to accept the reality of the human condition. As a result, the mainstream Right implicitly embraced the blank slate.

The dissidents were those who first dissented from the prevailing orthodoxy on human nature and human organization. Drawing on science, rather than tradition or religion, the dissidents made the correct point that human diversity is real. People, as we see them today, are not the result of historical forces, but the result of evolutionary forces. It turns out, and the evidence continues to pour in support of this, that human evolution is local, copious and recent. The observable differences are rooted in biology, not culture.

While the dissident right is, to some degree, a reaction to the drift into blank slate mysticism by the establishment Right, it is not reactionary. To be a reactionary is to be entirely controlled by the Left, which is why reaction has never been able to sustain itself as an authentic organizing philosophy. It is the cleanup crew after a spasm of radicalism has made a mess of things. The dissident right is not a reaction to radicalism. It is a promotion of biological reality. It offers an alternative foundation for political philosophy.

As far as being on the Right, it is because biological realism reaches the most of the same conclusions of the traditional Right, with regards to human nature and the human organization. The difference is that the traditional Right assumes those traditions, customs and institutions are the result of accumulated wisdom. The dissident right, in contrast, thinks of traditions, customs and institutions as evolved solutions to human organization that are peculiar to a people, because of their peculiar evolutionary arc.

In other words, go into any high school cafeteria and you will see the students self-segregating along academic class, social class, sex and race. This is not the result of accumulated wisdom in the form of custom or the result of tradition. It is not the result of mystical forces like white privilege or social constructs. It is the nature of humans to attract to those with whom they share fundamental connections, which are rooted in biology. Their hierarchical relationships are similarly rooted in their biology.

This difference in starting premise is what distinguishes the dissident right from the traditional Right and puts it at odds with some elements on the Right. Instead of defending tradition on philosophical grounds, it challenges the status quo on empirical grounds. It is why the Left is so frightened of what is coming from the human sciences. Their effort to anathematize these ideas by calling them “scientific racism” inevitably makes them look like vinegar drinking scolds, condemning Galileo in defense of superstition.

That said, this radical starting point could very well be why it cannot coexist with the traditional Right. There is a noticeable gap in perspective between those with an empirical world view versus those steeped in tradition and philosophy. When your starting point is an English biologist, rather than a German philosopher, the cultural differences are quite noticeable to both parties. The rationality of the dissident right may make it unsuited for political conflict, which is not about the right answer, but the right weapon.

201 thoughts on “The Dissident Right

  1. Agree that a positive label is key to distancing from existing groups and encouraging new followers. Since the word “Right” itself is tainted I’d avoid it. My suggestion: A New Renaissance. Add party if you must, but it implies a positive, enlightened break from the past.

  2. The dissident right is not a reaction to radicalism. It is a promotion of biological reality. It offers an alternative foundation for political philosophy.

    I’d go a bit further than that and argue that Truth–(with all its philosophical implications)–is the foundation of the Right. Just confining it to biological reality is not enough. And then we strike metaphysics. How you deal with truth depends on what your view of the view of the world is. An atheist deals with the subject of racial reality in a totally different way to that of a Christian.

    Spencer is closer to the Marxists than he is to the Christians and this is one of the reasons why a “broad church” Right is just as idiotic as a political system based on Judeo-Christianity: the two elements are fundamentally opposed.

    Whittaker Chambers understood this and it is one of the reasons he left the National Review, he realised that broad church approach of the Nat Review was going to result in it being just another positivistic front, ultimately furthering the causes of the Left.

  3. You write that Nietzsche is “traditional Right” and outside of the Dissident Right, and that the Dissident Right is a “radical starting point” that “cannot coexist with the traditional Right”. Where does this leave a thorough-going Nietzschean like Jonathan Bowden, who you’ve promoted on gab? Where do thinkers like Spengler, Schmitt, Evola, and de Benoist stand? What about Greg Johnson?

    I thought Dissident Right was simply a bland catch-all, but it sounds like you wish to restrict it to pure biological reductionism, and against those “steeped in tradition and philosophy”, even if these outsiders also appreciate the importance of biology. You seem to be identifying thinkers like those I’ve listed as belonging to a different, to quote the essay, “label”, a different “collection of ideas, arguments and images”. To explain the massive changes in thinking and behavior of whites over the last 100 years, isn’t recourse to the concerns of the “traditional Right”, like philosophy, culture, politics, economics, etc., required?

    It sure sounds like I, for one, am outside of the Dissident Right, which is odd since I have read all of your essays and gab posts for about the last year and agreed probably 98% of the time.

    • Well, if you haven’t realised the traditional right is flogging a dead horse you really need to think again… that’s not to endorse Z’s theories necessarily but at least he’s not flogging that dead horse.

  4. Oh shit, I think a few days ago you black-pilled me, Z-Man, when you sent me down the Ed Dutton “At Our Wit’s End” rabbit hole. Here I was worried about low IQ third worlder vibrant “migrants” polluting white genius through immigration, genocide and miscegenation, while all along the modern western post-industrial enlightenment welfare state unwittingly engineered the seeds of its own destruction by creating a world where the least of us were for the first time allowed (encouraged through social welfare programs?) to reproduce while the talented 10% were encouraged to flourish and amuse ourselves in every way except biologically and reproductively. And Dutton and his co-author seem to agree there is no path towards reversal of this process. Again, John Derbyshire seems to have stated it most accurately and succinctly – we are doomed. Pretty soon there won’t be a substantial population who can understand three syllable concepts like “dissident” – when the average IQ level descends to the 75-85 level, “Big Man” political theory will have it’s re-ascendance.

  5. I disagree, it’s so very much simpler: it’s all about the gibs. The first rule of counter-insurgency is provide more gibs than the other side. That’s reason commies will never be staked through the heart: the vast majority of people, of whatever race, creed, or colour, are fit only to be slaves. So long as the rice bowl is full and the children aren’t crying they’ll bend over and lick the boots of anyone.
    How many warriors capable of leading do you know?

  6. Another great, thought-provoking article Z!
    Maybe a future movement can be rooted in a combination thereof of the following…

    Morality: Logos (As coined/defined by E. Michael Jones)
    Intellectuality: Biological Realism
    Politicality: Dissident Right

    In defining this Logos based ‘movement’, an OB commenter posted the following profound quote:

    Follow the Light, never the Light-Bearer
    Trust in Truth, never the Messenger
    Honor the Creator, Never the Architect

    Maybe someone recently pissed in the Kool-Aid I am now drinking, but that is some pretty powerful stuff there – that 3-line quote alone really encapsulates a direct contrast to all that is wrong with our Rulers on ‘The Other Side’.

  7. Whites across the planet have altered (overwhelmingly, degenerated) in thinking and behavior massively over the course of just the last 100 years. To attribute all of this to changes in biology I find extremely difficult to believe. Culture, philosophy, politics, geopolitics, economics, et al matter, and matter TREMENDOUSLY.

    I’m also skeptical that the reigning elite will allow a small subset of scientists to undermine the egalitarian faith. There is already overwhelming evidence for cognitive differences between the races and sexes, all of which have made hardly a dent in overturning the reigning values that are destroying us. The overwhelming majority of men and women follow the elite class in control of mass media and education, and there are plenty of ways for the elite to obfuscate scientific findings (assuming scientists continue to be permitted a relatively free hand in these matters). The centrality of the egalitarian faith to the Western world, the DEEP emotional attachment to it which our elite inculcate in the masses, it’s continued value to the elite in terms of (((ethnic))) agenda and in creating an open one-world market state to rule over and profit from, it’s value also to non-whites in justifying fleecing of white peoples and nations, all leave me highly skeptical that it will all be overturned thanks to a handful of scientists writing journal papers, or by a Right centered on Ed Dutton books.

  8. Nope. Not catchy enough.

    Plus, it means nothing to ordinary people. Maybe if you were actually listening to Ronald Reagan’s speeches at the time, “dissident” might have some purchase on you. But that’s not most people.

    Plus: you think “dissident” will catch the left in a trap, but how many modern maleducated SJWs even know what the word means? And of those who can at least use it in conversation, how many will have the same associations with it as you do? They don’t remember the Cold War.

    And even if they are old enough to remember it, and can be identified as having supported dissidents at the time – surely by now it’s clear that most of them aren’t capable of being shamed. They’ll either twist themselves into knots to explain why they aren’t hypocrites, or they simply won’t care that they are.

    But I will grant you that it’s a step up from “Alt-right”.


    I suppose I should, in all fairness, try to make a constructive suggestion rather than just shit on someone else’s idea. So, for what it’s worth, the two best options for a label are “normal” and your country’s name.

    You could even combine the two: “We want to bring America back to normality.”

    It needn’t be a formal label, either. A party could get away with just emphasising these words in its messaging. (Cf. Trump, 2016.)

    Everything else is too political, and won’t appeal broadly enough.

  9. How the fuck do i subscribe to this page for email updates? I looked everywhere there is no link to get posts delivered direct to my inbox, or am I missing something?

  10. The Dissident Right will get better at winning when they heed Mama Prosper’s words

    “Look A.B. the problem with these guys is that all they all know what they don’t want but they don’t know what the do want.”

    The ability to articulate ideas and values people can relate too in a fun way is sorely lacking on the dissident right.” I was born right wing I think and was Limbaugh Republican at like 17 which is about as liberal as I ever was but most people aren’t like that and being able to say “here is what we want and this is why life will be much better with us in charge.” and then to make it happen is sorely lacking

    Also as pet peeve, the only issue that that seems to get the more religious people in our movement worked up is abortion . Its not enough to hang a hat on and anti abortion people don’t really have good arguments for the bulk of normies who are ambivalent about the issue and aren’t very religious

    The anti abortion movement is driven by feelz which is good in that it gives them energy to get a lot done but when they are confronted with the actual facts of abortion, a ban means a population that is increasingly left leaning and less White they shut down like NPC’s

    We really need a serious of ideas/policy proposals that are easily memed , easily explained and will convince normies that life under the dissident right would be much better

    We let the religious people do the talking for us start nattering on about banning porn or abortion or Christendom and the non religious start thinking “Handmaidens Tale LARPING” and not a better society

    Long Long term, the US will be very Christian but for the next few decades its increasingly secular and we need to operate in that envelope

    Fighting a moral war you already lost is futile fact is our leaders need to be thoughtful, the rest not so much

    Make “deport illegals, build wall, end immigration, clean up schools, deport criminals and troublemakers, get rid of needless laws and bring our boys home.” the center piece along with “steady jobs and better wages” and communicate why this better in a fun way that triggers emotions and you can win

    And yes its possible TINVOWOOT is the real case, people would also fight for the above goals if you communicate them well

    • Good ideas for a DR platform – which BTW is sorely needed. Just trying to sell white normies on HBD alone is not a solution, It’s a non-starter.

      Make it simple is the way to go. Pamphlets, shot videos, booklets explaining key parts of the platform. Call it “Common Sense for the 21st Century”.

  11. Kind of interesting to me … a list from Wikipedia of the groups Soros either founded or supports:

    Open Society Foundations,
    New America,
    Black Lives Matter,
    Best for Britain,
    European Movement UK,
    Scientists for EU,
    Media Matters for America,
    Center for Public Integrity,
    Human Rights Watch,
    Priorities USA Action,
    American Bridge 21st Century,
    America Votes,
    Millennium Promise.

    Not too much indication of what they actually do or believe.

    • This might sound crazy, but if we had one billionaire on our side, we could win. If someone with deep pockets started openly white versions of the ADL, think tanks, lobbies and community organizations, we’d roll. Sure, they’d be be attacked, but now we’d be able to fight back and even go on the offensive.

      We’d have a home base. That’s all we need.

      I know that people – especially rich people – love the media’s approval, but you’d think that the opportunity to change the word, to save your people would be tempting. I mean, who wouldn’t want the chance to be the George Washington of a future society.

        • Realize that I sound a bit like a kid wishing their glass doorknob was a diamond. However, it remains true that for what some of these rich guys donate to their favorite college football team in hopes of winning a conference championship, they could change the world and be honored for hundreds of years by their people.

          It’s right there for the taking.

      • We absolutely would, which is why that billionaire would be RICO’d or just straight-up murdered immediately.

        • I know it sounds odd, but I truly believe that we’re so close. Just a few business owners who will hire those fired by the Progs, just a few white ADL organizations, just a few white lobbies, just a few white community groups and we win.

          We’ve seen over and over with Muslims and other groups that when a group hold firm and tight, the Progs fall apart. They have nothing. Sue us, fuck you, we’ll sue back. Fire us, fuck you, we’ll hire that guy and go after your guys. Give money to politicians, fuck you, we’ll give money to politicians.

          They hit hard but can’t take a punch.

      • There are some on our side, but they aren’t willing to spend their dollars and euros like Soros. It’s more than a matter of saying they are with us, but willing to invest in us.

        Peter Thiel for example.

  12. Huh? Reactionaries have been acknowledging and discussing HBD since long before the Nazi larpers and assorted edgelords made it trendy.

    If your entire framework is just HBD, then you’re going to lose. HBD is just an observation, like credit inflation or secular cycles. It’s not a coherent political philosophy and doesn’t provide any kind of schelling point.

    The left’s obsession with blank-slatism isn’t a real principle, it’s just a convenient way to remain in power. Even if you could thoroughly discredit it in the eyes of the public (and this is already conceding the legitimacy of demotism), they’d just change their strategy to something else. Class-based Marxism is already making a comeback.

  13. Instead of playing around with “what do we call ourselves” ? Alt-right, traditional right, nationalist right, etc………..

    Why not just start calling ourselves : “The side with shit that works” , and start calling the lefties ” the side with shit that doesn’t work – and that is trying harder ever day to make goddam sure NOTHING works”.

  14. Dissident Right is another dopey moniker. Most people fall between 90 and 109 on the IQ spectrum. Dissident is a big Latin word. It is too much for them to handle.

    Dissident means disagreeing, at variance with. So what is a Dissident Right? Is it disagreeing with the Belt Way “right” of the National Review? Is it a disagreeing with leftist socialist? Communists?

    Anything named as [whatever] Right falls into the hands of leftists as such claptrap labelling comes from radical politics of the French Revolution.

    The bottom line is this: Political movements are won by getting action from most people, i.e., those with IQs of 90 to 109 and secondarily by those with IQs below 109.

    Even the dopey Nazis didn’t call themselves nationalists nor did they call themselves The Right.

    They were the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), that is, the nationwide socialist workers’ party of Germans.

    If you want to capture the minds of most, you must side with them and make them believe they already are one of many on the same side.

    Here are some conjured on the fly without any rumination:

    • The American Workers Political Union
    • American Loyalists
    • United Working Class USA

    Even the dopey Antifa know better. It’s easy to recruit people to be “Anti-Fascists.”

    “Alt Right,” “Dissident Right” — these are too abstract and thus lack any magnetic draw.

    The biggest problem is not as the Z-Man points out about alt-right having been smashed by progressives because alt-righters adopted Nazi symbolism. The biggest problem is that names such a Alt Right and Dissident Right are vacuous.

    Life is not lived on abstraction.

  15. Z Man;
    You’ve said yourself that the terms Left and Right have outlived their usefulness. So why spend energy and time debating what kind of ____ Right is the best branding.

    You said tribalism will increasingly be the rule. In pre-Urban societies, where most of the human generations were passed, the name any tribe gave themselves in their own language was something inclusive like, ‘the family’, ‘the real people’ or ‘the sons of _______ [some mythical ancestor or place]. A modern example would be ‘la cosa nostra’, i.e. ‘our thing’.

    So how about Sons of the West or some such_?

    • If you must label it, “our thing” works for me. Then someone has to ask what our “thing” is, and you get an opening. Also very hard to go up against, because it is so nebulous.

      But keep in mind something as anodyne as “tea party“ got spindled and mutilated.

      • But I’m going to use “you Sons of…” Aztecs, Africa, the Spanish Empire, El Cid, Byzantium, the Ummah, whatever, and watch them light up.

        And light up they do!
        Talked to a Khan, a Son of Ghengis today. Thanks Al!

        Plus, Our Thing definitely works for me, for the same reason it worked for them (and for my aunt Tata).

  16. It makes no difference what we call ourselves. We could call ourselves Gareebaflatters or Pimplepussies; it makes no difference. What matters, as far as anyone we might wish to influence is concerned, is how the corporate media and their fans decide to characterize us. For example, they have decided that “White Nationalist” is synonymous with “White Supremicist”, so that’s what we are in the public’s mind. As we get deplatformed the problem only gets worse. We need to find a way to deplatform them.

  17. Zman I love your posting but sometimes it feels like you’re just trying to find a way, any way, out of the current direction of the west. Playing semantics with the “dissident right” vs “nationalist right” vs “alt right” is an exercise in finger waggling.

    The fact is that there are no institutions – education, media, government, corporations, the military (all upper brass are shitlibs) – that are right wing.

    There is also no current viable alternative from other countries in the world — the Soviet Union collapsed because the US capitalist model served as an alternative to the country’s communism. We don’t have any help in that regard.

    With respect to Germany, Hitler allied with the German military, which had a deeply right wing constituency, in order to attain power. There is no such institution for Trump to ally with – the closest he’s got is the Federalist Society, lol.

    With Amnesty Don basically a complete failure, our last option, is a 1929 style or greater Great Depression. Kooky things happen during times of deep depressions. Hitler got 3% of the German vote in the 1928 elections, for example. It could easily go against us too, but that seems to be the last option.

    With the US having traded a real estate bubble for a sovereign debt bubble, the best thing we can do is increase the national debt faster and faster until there’s a currency crisis. Therefore, Andrew Yang or someone similar for UBL….

    • Actually we traded the real estate bubble for a sovereign debt bubble, and then got both, along with a student loan bubble (Liz Warren wants to cash that 1 trillion chip in), an auto bubble, a stock bubble, a corporate debt bubble (look out for that one) a reflating unsecured consumer debt bubble and an administration eyeballing Iran for a war…..what could possibly go wrong?

      The systems will fail so catastrophically that anything ungrounded will be swept away. We’ve seen this before in 1914 and 1790. It’s once again time. And we’ll have to live through it. The future will be incomprehensible to the vast majority of people. Large fires are caused by large entrenched multi-generational systems that suddenly fail.

    • The Left’s control over society will weaken over time. They’re mostly idiots, and, more importantly, they’re fundamentally wrong. That will start to matter. Could the whole thing collapse? Sure. But we could be looking at a gradual decline, a decline that bit by bit offers opportunities for our people.

      Now is the time to start preparing to take advantage of their opportunities when they arise.

      • This is the kind of response that I don’t think is helpful. Why do you assume the left’s control over society will weaken over time? They have dominated society since the start of this country without fail and I see no signs of that abating. Here, read this quote from 1895 on conservatism and liberalism from Robert Lewis Dabny and tell me something has actually changed since then:

        • Because the demographics are changing. The Left is no longer the Jew/New England WASP coalition. They are becoming the black/brown/Asian/Jew/Muslim/Harpy White coalition. They won’t have the troops to man the posts. Of course, that also probably means that they’re going to get more brutal.

          Look, none of know the future. And to a degree, it doesn’t matter. Our course is the same. Start creating networks of trusted people. That works whatever may come.

  18. Maybe figure out what the goal is, then think of a nice-sounding name that expresses the idea.

    It strikes me that “dissident” comes across as “against”, but against what? and for what?

    • SidVic answers above.
      JR Wirth adds, rightly, that some would be happier chasing gazelles.

      To be for who you are, not what somebody sold you.
      To be against lies or deception.

  19. To accept biological reality, we have to accept that human beings of any race or culture are not hard wired for democracy beyond the local level. That’s just a fact. Mencken pointed it out repeatedly. So what we have today is a collection of inferiors (of any race) hiring smooth talking insiders to steal from the strong in society, which deeply resents it. This pattern gets more and more abusive until the strong get together and just take over the place, re-setting the natural balance.

    A critical mass of takers tipped the balance about 30 years ago. The real abuse will happen over the next 10 years, as they desperately try to balance a budget that’s now mathematically impossible to balance. Taxes will be more and more confiscatory. Society will break down until some Pinochet like character takes over. How many people in our society literally don’t have the intelligence or socialization to hit an alarm clock for the most menial job in a modern society? They’re meant for hunter/gatherer societies with the population being checked by one violent atrocity or disease after another. All those people will end up the way Malthus predicted.

    • @JR
      I hear you and agree which is why I advocate for building Communities so we can live amongst those who are working in the same direction we are and if it all falls apart we have a parallel society already in place…Not enough pain yet though for most to do anything like that…

      • Lineman, the idea is sound and I’m certain exists defacto in smallish, rural communities or religious communities/communes. My problem is that most of us are dispersed and pulling up roots and finding each other difficult.

        • Sometimes Brother roots have to travel to keep the tree healthy…If the area you are in is dry and no chance of rain then to keep alive you might have to pick up and move or think of something to bring the rain…

          • Defense against either attention, attack, or poverty.

            So right, Lineman.
            Our physical existence is the one thing, the only thing, that matters.

          • Thanks Lineman. Good thinking. The story of my life. Jettisoned over 100 years of my people to leave California.

  20. Besides avoiding taking on unnecessary baggage, i find myself largely unconcerned with the label. They have spent years and much treasure vilifying the national socialist. That battle is lost. Dissident right is ok. I like logostenarians. White advocacy works too. Our enemies are clever and they will work hard to discredit any label that is taken up. The morality of our position is easy. The delusions of the current order are making people miserable. Most blacks tend to be more spirited and less bookish that Asians. Women like babies and have a strong maternal streak. It’s OK. These ideologies like feminism deceive people into pursuing paths that destroy them. The deceivers should allow people the freedom to choose choose paths that fit their natures. We are a prosperous society and we do not require women with small children in the work force (this will sell). Blacks should not be made to feel inadequate because they have little interest or aptitude in math. I think most people are open to the idea that if hard, uncomfortable truths are not embraced, it leads to misery.

  21. It makes no difference what we call ourselves. We could call ourselves Gareebaflatters or Pimplepussies, it wouldn’t matter. What matters, as far as anyone we might wish to influence is concerned, is how the corporate media and their fans decide to characterize us. For example, they have decided that “White Nationalist” is synonymous with “White Supremacist”, and so to the average Joe, that’s what a White Nationalist is. We’re evil, vicious, dirty, rotten and nasty.

    The corporate media is the problem; not the labels we choose.

  22. Progressivism is religion by a different name. As such, the proper terms for people like us are “heretics” and “blasphemers.” We should emphasize our dissent from and blasphemy against CultMarx dogma. One of the things our side does not do frequently enough is point out how superstitious our progressive rivals are. Abstractions such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other dreaded isms and phobias do not exist in any objective sense. This is a simple argument to make … so why aren’t more people making it? We should also point out that progressive morality is rooted in nothing beyond progressive preferences; it does not come from a higher authority and therefore no one need bow down to it.

    • I suggest the descriptive term “counterrevolutionary” to brand those who deny the American dream. I support the revolution.

  23. I think ‘American’ is a pretty good word to hang on to, especially since the other side seems increasingly willing to abandon it.

  24. The starting point for what is being discussed today, is that the HBD argument underlying our take on reality is completely apples to oranges for the rest of the people we live with. They are trained and programmed to believe in the blank slate, and in the ability for culture and prodding to mold people into whatever someone wants them to be.

    We have our work cut out for us, because the powers that be well understand that biological reality completely blows up a couple of centuries of work in convincing people that they are lumps of clay to be molded into whatever is appropriate for the moment. The gay and transgender thing, with 49 gender identities or whatever, is the crown jewel in their effort. They will not give it up without a huge fight.

    Their strategy is to push a bit into the “a bridge too far”, then normalize that extreme (“moving the goalposts“). Our dilemma is whether to fight them on their terms as incrementalists, but in the other direction, or to create a whole parallel universe for enlightened people to drop into. It looks like the latter is our only real choice, both because things are so far gone, and also because fighting them on their terms, with a significantly smaller army, appears hopeless. Carving out reality based communities, as Lineman recommends, seems the way to go, and then invite people in. Then the label is irrelevant, it is the community that matters.

    Keep in mind the normies have been programmed to think as they do. Deprogramming (like an intervention to pull a person out of a cult) is what is necessary, and that is a tall order. We need to generate some sort of preference cascade, and we are a long way off from that right now.

    • How I wish that Jefferson had never written that “all men are created equal.”

      • Jefferson thought that gays should be castrated and lesbians have their noses cut off. What he meant by “equality” is rather different than the current usage.

        • So am I, but I cut off the sentence at that point because that’s what the Left (and Right) do. As Z-Man says, they don’t play fair.

        • Citizen is right. “All men are created equal” is the first thing out of every anti-racist’s mouth that I’ve ever talked to.

          It’s a root code, a bad line of programming. Religion is self-programming, natural to social creatures.

          A muslim will spout, “there is no coercion in Islam”, because they ignore the full verse as well.

          • No coercion for your slaves: conversion is voluntary, so no blame to you if you kill, enslave, or sell them since they didn’t volunteer. Nice, huh?

            And since there’s only One God, Allah, YHWH, and Jesus must be the same, more root code, camouflage. “Why are you fighting against God?”

            The bad root code in Christianity is “there is but One God, he is the all-powerful Creator”- all the arguments stem from this; there must be a Plan, how to reach Him, why does He punish us, why create Hell, etc.

            The bad root code in Hindu-Bhuddism is “Desire causes suffering, therefore karma is the VICTIM’s fault.” No, that little girl was not raped and strangled because of her previous desires.
            It was HIS mad desires that caused HER suffering. The foreign Brahmins recast this, preaching submission in their version of original sin.

  25. Does a name matter if we can’t promote it beyond our echo chambers? The media will call us what they will and corrupt any label we choose. I think there’s some merit to being an amorphous, unorganized entity as long as we’re anonymous;just a collection of loosely related web sites.

    • Branding always matters, even if it’s just a term referring to an amorphous underground. Good branding is a shield, bad branding is a chink in the armor. No branding is like charging into the battlefield wearing your birthday suit.

    • Because there’s a lot of discussion going on beyond those echo chambers. Just as one engaged YouTube viewer who sought out that video is worth far more than some channel surfing viewer of a network show, so are our discussion here and in person.

      The echo chambers are losing their influence, except with Boomers.

    • Don’t be so sure that we are not being heard outside of our echo chamber. I am detecting fragments of redpillishness seeping into the wider culture; certainly in Britain and Europe.

  26. While I think that the label Dissident Right works pretty well, it still has several problems. People may not want to be a dissident. It’s labels you as the Right, which many people associate with small government, anti-abortion and sort of religious, none of which grow out of being a race realist and two of which really put off a lot of women. Finally, the “dissident” portion doesn’t directly address or explain what you really believe, which is biological diversity.

    I humbly submit that my personal political label – while almost certainly isn’t a good title for a mass movement – works really well on a one-to-one basis. I call myself a Darwinist. It has a number of advantages.

    First, it can’t be anathematized by the Left. Darwin is supposedly one of their guys.

    Second, it’s sciencey. Leftist and CivNats both claim to love the Theory of Evolution, unlike those hick Christians. This makes it extremely difficult for them to criticize.

    Third, the label doesn’t pigeonhole me as a liberal or conservative, left or right. This is good, because being a race realist doesn’t require you to be a small government, libertarian type. You can be race realist and think that Swedish-style socialism is just fine so long as the country is 95% ethnic Swedes.

    Finally, the term is both familiar but foreign in the context that I use it, prompting people to ask me why I use the term. Getting people to ask you questions and gently answering them is far more effective than lecturing them.

    However, I do suggest you take it very slow. My first response to why I use that term is this, “Well, because I believe that Darwin was essentially correct, I believe in the Theory of Evolution.” Naturally, they nod in somewhat confused agreement. They’re on the hook. (If you’ve ever read Influence by Cialdini, we’re tapping into two of the six principles of persuasion – authority (Darwin and every teacher they’ve ever had) and consistency (they agree with the Theory of Evolution).) Everything after that is just reeling them in.

    • Citizen, your post makes me think it would be wise to tailor a label for your audience. Darwinist works very well in the situations you’ve described. But for a lot of Christians, it won’t be effective, since immediately they go to the thought that we’re descended from apes.

      I’ve been working on my conservative Christian neighbor for a few months now, and not having a lot of success. He doesn’t like the evolution/natural selection angle, although he does listen to me, so maybe it’s taking a while for the ideas to take hold.

      A big problem is he listens to Ben Shapiro every day, and is convinced that the answer is that we’re going to get minorities to vote Republican. Candace Owens is proof that the rest of blacks will follow her lead.

      He has told me several times that in heaven we’ll be among people of all races, from all over the world. So that’s what he thinks we’re getting closer to here in the West: A large multiracial contingent of Republican voters.

      • Wolf, some conservative churches make a distinction between microevolution, which they are willing to tolerate, and macroevolution, which they want nothing to do with.

        Microevolution talks about evolution within a given species, or portion of a species, as a result of selective pressures (natural or man-made) and other causes. Macroevolution pretty much asserts that all living things came from a common ancestor.

        Many — probably most — professional biologists don’t like this distinction. They see it all as part of the same fabric.

        But if your friend believes that plants and animals can be bred for certain traits, then he already accepts microevolution, whether he realizes it or not. He probably just doesn’t like the word.

      • Here you go:


        Don’t know if it matters, but they work. Salesman use them all the time.

        Members of the Dissident Right should read Cialdini’s book every quarter or so. People don’t make decisions based on facts and logic. Push their buttons!

        There’s a nice video here.

          • A mentor of mine once said that we’re all salesmen. Seems obvious, but most people don’t like to think of themselves like that. They’re wrong.

            A lot of STEM guys disparage salesman, thinking they can do their job because they’re smart. They’re very wrong. (Btw, I’m not in sales, though, again, in a way, we’re all in sales.)

  27. Dissident also has the reverse connotation of being a troublemaker, and in a sense it is ironic to call ourselves that since many of us are authoritarians who just so happen to dislike the current people with authority.

    We are the traditional right. The neocons are the subversives and invaders. None of them have any place on the right. Their blank slatism is currently sending the entire world on a socialist trajectory. If they are willingly blind to even the voting patterns that they need to recognize for their own self-preservation, they are at the very least accomplices to the left, if not members of it.

    As neocons are not known for being firm under pressure, we have little to fear in taking back the label of the traditional from them. They have already resigned themselves to the dustbin of history. They have no principles to fight for. Why should it matter to them? The only danger of calling ourselves that is association with them, and even then, that may be beneficial among boomers anyhow.

  28. The rationality of the dissident right may make it unsuited for political conflict, which is not about the right answer, but the right weapon.

    I might even say the right story. People have to be made part of a story to be motivated.

    Unfortunately, the stories that motivate people don’t seem to require truth or rationality at all. Look at our opponents.

    I might put it this way: story wins the war, reality wins the peace. It’s the political equivalent of courtship vs. marriage.

    (That’s an important point for understanding the left, by the way: because they’ve got a war-story, but their “scientific” ideas are untrue, that’s why you get a state of essentially permanent revolution. They can only do war, not peace. We’ve seen their “peace” in Communism’s 100 million corpses.)

    That’s why there’s no point in us debating tradition/philosophy vs. evolution. We give the tradition guys tradition, philosophy guys philosophy, and the science guys science. Whatever works. Reality, philosophy, and tradition can be three points of the trident we shove up globohomo’s ass.

    I think the core of our story has to be: fighting back against almost unimaginably evil people at great odds, saving our guys from annihilation, and getting our own ethnostates. I know a lot of d-righters don’t like the ethnostate business, but the story has to have a goal, besides just the nebulous “white identity.” Even the frustration of not reaching the goal is valuable as an emotional driving force.

    I think “dissident right” is an excellent phrase. “Dissident” conjures up the image of an underdog fighting heroically against the odds. As far as I can tell, this is actually true, too, so you “reality types” should be satisfied!

  29. Propaganda is a tool in the war of social perception, and distorting labels can be an effective way of demonizing the opposition. On a larger scale, corruption of language is a devious way to infect and weaken a culture because it destroys social cohesion and trust. The Progressives (as instructed by Alinsky) are masters at this form of attack, and you cannot beat it with mere words of clarification. As in any form of disease, you must eliminate the infection. In the days of real hardship and existential threat, evolutionary fitness selection rid us of this type of disease. Now, we need a new paradigm to continue this imperative.

  30. Another very profound/powerful observation by Zman. This is why he’s first on my list for reading everyday. Now if he could only list the weather report for my area, I could drop my cable TV subscription. 😉

    • Good lord, just get an HD antenna. You can still get the three big networks and their asinine morning news.

    • Weather Radar app by NOAA.
      One touch shows the whole country at once; another, list as many cities as you wish. No zip codes needed.

      Cancel away! Now you don’t have watch the True Weather Detective Stories booswash.

        • Yes, I have a smart phone. It is turned off and remains so, unless I grab it as an emergency device. To tell the truth, I’m afraid of using it. I must admit to having an entire family—wife included—that are completely addicted to smart phone connectivity. I consider this a personal embarrassment, but to keep the peace I am told to keep my mouth shut wrt such on family get togethers.

  31. “It is the nature of humans to attract to those with whom they share fundamental connections, which are rooted in biology.”

    This is why mixed-race people notoriously have a hard time fitting in with either of their constituent groups. You are sitting at the “white table” at the cafeteria and some guy with caramel colored skin and hazel eyes tries to sit down. “Who is this guy?!” everyone thinks. Same thing happens when he tries to sit at the black table. We are told that such people are the future, and they will essentially play the role of cultural peace-makers, bridging differences, but I doubt this is the case. Sad, because it of course isn’t their fault.

    • I have come to thinking that, given the presence of mixed race relatives in my midst, that the bearers of those mixed race children turned out to be very cruel parents. Their own selfish interests created people who terminally “never fit in”, in any direction. I think it is no accident that many of the most angry “black” people have little black blood in them, and are the most lost of all.

      • It’s not the kids’ fault. The kids are great people, and I do all I can, very carefully, to not let them backslide into resentful attitudes. It is a constant task. I blame the parents for putting the kids into that permanent predicament.

        • It is also instructive to watch firsthand how our dominant culture encourages people to believe that every last minor slight, or dimension of slight inequality, is trumpeted as the white man’s fault and an act of aggressive discrimination. Anyone with a brain in his head understands that the world functions in a messy way. To impute active discrimination to any small perceived setback is simply cruelly taking advantage of someone’s biological circumstances.

    • Blame a man for what he can change, not for what he cannot change, so true.

      The saddest man I ever saw was an aged, very tall black man in Georgia. He was quite light cream, but he had pure blond nappy hair and sky blue eyes.
      His life must’ve been living hell.
      The sadness was etched into his face.

    • Ed Dutton did an interesting video on mixed race people. It’s about a half hour:

      I have a mixed race relative by marriage who said when she was a kid she just wanted to be White—if she was in a Black area she probably would have wished she were Black.

      I think she’s in a better place about it now, but you hear these stories a lot about mixed race people. I think the parents might just be selfish and not thinking of the consequences, but most have drunk the egalitarian Kool-Aid and don’t foresee the problems they’re creating for their children. What happens if the balloon goes up and we have some kind of tribal warfare? Where do these people go?

      • Neighbor kid – dad black, mom white – has told my wife that she doesn’t fit in with either whites or blacks. Her younger sister seems to be going hard to her black side, says she’d only date black guys. I suspect that she knows that she’ll never really fit in with whites and that white guys just don’t go for black girls, even half black unless they barely look black, i.e. defense mechanism.

        Probably not a bad idea. Then again, she lives in a very white area. Wait til she tries getting accepted by black women. No chance. My guess is that things won’t turn out well for the younger one.

  32. The problem with “dissident right,” is that nobody wants to self-identify as a dissident in the current year, with the permissive liberalism of the 20th century giving way to the overmind of censorship and ostracism (at-best) in the 21st. The second issue is that these people are not entirely on the right. Spencer is just a Wilsonian Progressive. Most of these people are likely on the left and authoratarian quadrant of the political compass. More than half would prefer to work within a political party (hence all the support for Trump in 2016) than be ideolgical dissidents. The only reason they are “radical dissidents on the right,” is the fact that the neoliberal power elite are directly attacking them and claiming their attacks are on behalf of the left.

    • I would not include Spencer in the dissident right. He’s basically a paleocon, as that is where he started. He’s now moving into some fringe stuff, but he is an example of a guy starting from an entirely different place than the dissident right.

      • You’ve referred to Spencer as a later-day David Duke several times, and the thing that stands out about that comparison is that both of them were legitimate White Advocates who got into bed with costume-wearing retards and pretty much destroyed themselves in so doing.

        • I’m a fan of neither, but in their defence its hard to be choosy when trying to gather a public group for extremely non PC causes.

      • Spencer may be any number of things, but he is representative of some non-trivial faction of the “dissident right,” and he is in no way ideologically similar to the paleocons. His imperium (cringe) shtick is very much Wilsonian and Progressive. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anything upon which he and Woodrow disagreed.

        And this is far from unique to Spencer and Wilson. If you make simple biological realism the litmus test, all political actors with some few exceptions from the 19th to mid 20th centuries become fair game for emulation and there are probably groups in the dissident right who see one or more of them as ideoligical kindred. Most recently I have noticed an explosion in the dissident right around discussion of thr old leftist populists.

        That isnt to say there are no true rightists around. Trads and monarchists are easy to find (follow the pretentious verbiage), but some of these relgious sorts are no biological realists and there we run into category issues once more. Is the “right,” even a meaningful category in an age of fully-gelded religious intitutions, long decayed identities, and an almost fully financialized bougousie society?

        The way I see it you are either just HBD aware or you are part of the pro-white/white-activist genre. Most seem to have a foot in both camps. Not everyone in the former is a dissident (eg David Reich) but everyone in the latter is whether they know anything about biology or not.

        • Again, it is not about conclusions. It is about origins. Spencer starts from a very different place than the dissident right. He may agree with us on some things, but he comes about his opinions from a very different starting point. And yes he started out as a paleocon. he worked for AmCon and Taki. That’s where he cut his teeth.

      • Do you mean “paleocon” in an abstract sense? Richard Spencer shows no discernible connection to Christian tradition, or to the Anglo-American political tradition, or to concern for “limited government”. I believe he has stated that he has been centrally influenced by his study of Nietzsche, which becomes especially obvious with his call for a political unity of “good Europeans”, as opposed to strict nationalism. I have no idea how this aligns with THE paleocons.

  33. We really need a label that slams the opposite. The left is great at this. If you are not progressive you are regressive. If you are not pro-choice, you hate choices. The opposite of dissident is what? It would be nice if “freedom” could be incorporated somehow, without being sucked down the libertarian or progressive rabbit holes. Isn’t that what we ultimately want – freedom to associate with whomever we wish, and freedom to not subsidize and endorse that with which we disagree?

    • What if – hear me out on this – we just bite the bullet and call ourselves the “revolutionary right.” In a different era, that label would sound extreme, but today it’s kind of par for the course, especially since the word “revolutionary” has been diluted to mean “radically innovative” or “paradigm-shifting”. The smear that comes with this label is to compare us to the conservative revolutionaries of interwar Germany, but that’s a bit academic and starts regressing toward silly Nazi name-calling, which is both inaccurate/ignorant and less effective by the day. Plus, if you’re against the revolutionaries, you’re anti-revolution, which places you in the position of being the reactionary rather than the forward-looking progressive.

      • The Disruptive Right? Disruptive has some social cache lately in regard to business and technology and implies innovation.

        • Honestly, fellas, Dissident sounds right to my ears.
          Good tries, though.

          Our Dissidents versus their Resistance. We live in weird times.

      • Hume: Still trying to find a use for that tricorn hat you bought for the Sarah Palin rally?

      • That’s pretty badass, but might be too easily associated with violence a little too early. How about we do a bold 180 and reclaim “liberal”? It used to be a great anti-authoritarian label, until the marxists changed its meaning.

    • The opposite of dissident is what?

      NPC. The meme’s effectiveness was why Twitter came down so hard on it.

      • The memoryholing of “NPC” is a lesson. We are dealing with people who have been programmed what to think, and the programmers can plug in any term or name and trash it. Most people do not think rationally, but emotionally, and follow the cultural meme implants placed into their brains by the powers that be. The “evolution” idea has merit, but do not underestimate the PTB’s ability to trash that one, too. Our movement is better off without a name. We know what we are about.

        In fact, lacking a name makes us harder to hit. It may also be more attractive to those coming over to our side, as they can participate without being “labeled”.

        • If we’re better off without a name – why not just refer to ourselves as the Faceless Men?

          “Followers of Him of Many Faces consider death to be part of the natural order of things and a merciful end to suffering.”

          ” The guild’s House of Black and White in Braavos has a large sanctuary that contains a pool of black water, idols of many death gods and altars with candles, and small alcoves along the walls that contain stone beds. Some visiting worshippers light candles to their god, then drink from the pool using a stone cup, then go lie in one of the alcoves.[1] The religious order refills the fountain with a poison, so that drinking from the fountain leads to a painless death.”

          We’re simply here to encourage the lefties to drink from the pool of black water………………….

          And the death we seek is that of the Globohomo world order – so that we may all have a merciful end to the suffering………..

    • Maybe Preservers, Preservers of the West? The opposite of preservers are destroyers. We want to preserve all the things that have made the West great.

      Defenders, Defenders of the West. That makes our opposition the attackers. They certainly have done a lot of attacking and destroying of the West.

    • Opposite of dissident would be “conformist”. Heartiste has used this in many of his posts. (The conformist suck-ups on the Left, etc.). This would be most effective against Boomer shitlibs as they have a self-conception of a brave-rebel who speaks truth to power on a motorcyle being persecuted by the Southern Man. (I.e., Easy Rider).

      The conformist herd, the conformist NPC, the conformist hivemind. Something like that. Leftoids pride themselves on their belief in their own individuality and uniqueness. Hence the LGBTQWTFLOL…and so on. Shiving them with “conformist”-something would cut deep.

    • The opposite of dissident is compliant, complacent, a supplicant, the “unawakened” who goes along to get along without daring to question authority or speak truth to power. Someone who has no reason or no will to question the system, and no vision for improvement. A dissident is the David fighting Goliath, the sans cullotte storming the Bastille, the Phalangists fighting behind commie lines; the lone tianamen square student protestor who stands in front of the army tank.
      Get off your boomer hobby horse about “freedom.” Freedom is a vibrant wandering around malls throwing white children off of balconies to express his rage at being unable to find where da Whyte whamen at. Freedom is dead: it’s time for some un-freedom – un-freedom to not export our industrial base, the un-freedom to not import our demographic replacements so your quarterly report looks better, the un-freedom for lefty to not leave his reeducation camp without completing xhir’s struggle sessions.

    • Like I said above.

      We just start calling ourselves : The political movement that stands for shit that works.

      The left can be called The Party of bad choices, or the holding pen for people who can’t acknowledge reality and good decisions.

  34. Here’s another English scientist worth knowing about.

    Although the linked article does not emphasize it, his career suffered due to the sociopolitical advocacy he took up as a result of his research. Incidentally, he fathered and raised nine children.

    Neither biology nor statistics would be the same today without the work Ronald Fisher did — and that is a huge understatement.

  35. I agree that,

    ‘you will see the students self-segregating along academic class, social class, sex and race.’

    However, it’s a push to justify this with:

    ‘It is the nature of humans to attract to those with whom they share fundamental connections, which are rooted in biology.’

    Are academic class and social class really rooted in biology? And even if they are that doesn’t tell us what to do about them. After all, rape and nepotism are also rooted in biology but we try not to indulge in either.

    • As with most things, it is highly unlikely that it is either biology or philosophy that completely determines the culture of any grouping of humans, but rather it is the result of a combination of both. The realist/empiricist approach has backing, but biology is not quite so deterministic. Certainly, it is foolish to ignore observed biological differences among the races or sexes, and to structure a society in defiance of them (just asking for trouble), but it is also simply not true that biology is the be all and end all of what creates a society. For better or worse, philosophy, religion, and simple contact with the “other” (i.e., accumulated wisdom) does influence tradition/culture.

      It is true that the current zeitgeist goes too far in discounting (if not flat ignoring or opposing) biological differences, but the Dissident Right should not make the opposite mistake.

    • Unrecorded. I understand your question, but have no adequate response—except to question how long and how deep you’ve been involved in HBD. The answer is a resounding “yes”, but if you can’t come to that conclusion, perhaps a bit more reading of the literature is in order. Rape and nepotism are not the best examples, again from my understanding of HBD.

      No put down implied here. Just keep your readings up and I believe you’ll come to the answer yourself. Hell, I’ve been studying such for years, and only now are the bits coming together thanks to folk like Zman, Jayman, Cochran, and Thompson, to name a few of the active bloggers. I can’t begin to name all the authors of longer format books.

    • By academic class, I meant junior, senior, sophomore, etc., so yes, age is a natural grouping. Social class is driven by intelligence and other cognitive traits which are heritable.

      • I would be interested in the connections between social class/caste and broader inheritable psychological traits (the Big 5) vs simply g.

        Here’s one study:

        One thing that I thought interesting from the study is that openness to experience demonstrated small-to-medium inverse associations with every success outcome except positive affect.

        • connections between social class/caste and broader inheritable psychological traits (the Big 5) vs simply g

          The defunct Mangan’s blog touched on this (life history being associated with Big 5 traits):

          “Interestingly, life history appears not to be related to intelligence.”

          This surprised me. In fact, I’m not sure I believe it. NB, I have not yet read the study Mangan cited (linked here), I just tend to be skeptical of psychology findings that don’t jive with my lived experience.

    • Class and caste- comfortable familiarity, with enforceable boundaries- are not malevolence or cheating.

      Rape and nepotism are biological warfare.

    • Unrecorded;;
      For whom is nepotism *not* the rule everywhere under the sun_? Isn’t nepotism the main point of the evolution of altruism discussed at the linked article about the English biologist W.D. Hamilton_?

      Ask yourself where the idea that nepotism is bad came from. It certainly was the rule in Chicago politics, for example.

    • A more pressing question for us is how biological are political and social views; or which is better political strategy: debating or making babies?

  36. Focusing on culture would be a better strategy than on biology, at least in the Booby’s view.

    Take a 19th Century Slav from an backward country, put him in a North American culture, largely a derivative of the English economy and legal system, add some hard work, and presto: you have successful offspring buying homes, starting businesses, etc. The same can be said of the Chinese and Japanese, whose descendants are more like white people of yesteryear than most white people these days.

    The African descendants and Natives of North America, on the other hand, have never accepted the culture of the European conquerors, and it shows.

    That can be the death-blow to multiculturalism, and it isn’t an ideology, it’s just reality.

    • But focusing on culture implicitly accepts the Left’s (and Current Right’s) morality. It accepts the blank slate and rejects racial biology. Once you accept their morality and reality, you’ve lost.

      “Blacks aren’t any different, they just haven’t been (fill in the blank).” You’ve lost.

      • Baby steps.

        Ethnic nationalisms aren’t possible in the current polity, for better or worse. That’s not going to change unless you can think of some way to fire all of academia from Berlin to Seattle, the entire gov’t bureaucracy of each Western country, and convince middle-class white women to find a new pseudo-religion.

    • Blacks evolved in the mono-climate of sub Saharan Africa and were a nomadic people that had no need for substantial or permanent housing; hence their descendants here in the US are not inclined toward buying or maintaining mainstream housing. Conversely, the peoples that evolved in the upper Northern latitudes experienced extreme climate variation and could not survive without substantial housing; hence their descendants’ proclivity to own and maintain a solid and safe domicile structure. There is no right or wrong here, just different strokes for different folks.

    • Focusing on culture has been a losing strategy for over half a century, at least in the Dindu’s view. To the extent the Blakes don’t accept the white man’s culture, it’s because of their biological inability to do so.

      If muh culture could deal a death blow to multiculturalism, multiculturalism would already be dead.

    • My preference would be someone from the other side of the Hajnal line, but close enough.

  37. Z makes a good point at the end that the dissident right’s empiricism makes it rather unsuited for politics (although I would caveat that the dissident right would probably perform best in local elections if it were to expand its political appetite). So where can the dissident right generate big impacts, if not by electing people? My guess is the academy (biology, classical literature, history, and most engineering subjects are fair game), medicine, and, perhaps most importantly, careers and social positions that involve developing group bonds based on inherent shared characteristics and the need to specialize when tackling tough labor (I’m thinking power linemen or the pipe wrestlers in the Dakotas as I type this). We should engage the people who already see a strong relationship between biological/material attributes and social success, and let them know that their lived experiences and worldviews need not be relegated to little corners in the American fabric.

    • @John Hume
      Most lineman I know are dissident right by what they believe its just getting them all moving in one direction that’s the hard part…

  38. We have a high mountain to climb when biological reality is smeared as pseudoscience by virtually everyone who has a mainstream platform. From the recent treatment of Dr. James Watson (see NYT’s Amy Harmon) it’s easy to see that any science findings relating to race differences will be silenced by the mainstream media. Since we’re living in an era of the unthinkable becoming reality, maybe it’ll even become a crime to study race differences.

    • I agree and it is a reminder of the fact we need to develop better rhetorical skills. We also have to accept that political warfare is always about morality, not facts and reason. Making the denial of biological fact sound immoral is vastly more effective than repeating facts from the latest IQ studies.

      • I think it would be very unwise to overlook the tried-and-true tactics of “regular” politics.

        One such is that going negative works. We should never miss a chance to point out that our opponents are bad people intentionally doing bad things. Their guys range from scumbags to sociopaths.

        And for fair-play fetishists, take solace in the fact that it also happens to be true.

        • I agree. Casting things in moral terms allows for an easy short hand, where my side is the white hats and the other side are the black hats.

          • The Platinum Rule of the white secular Left and evangelical Right: Treat others (except fellow whites) as they want to be treated. No reciprocity is expected or required.

            Others = Special People and POCs.

            Toward fellow whites The Golden Rule and its ethics of reciprocity generally applies, unless they disagree with/violate The Platinum Rule.

            Disagreement with/violation of TPR by a fellow white results in the revocation of his human/religious status. He becomes “irredeemable.”

            Sound familiar?

            Good slaves concur with The Platinum Rule and its ethics of non-reciprocity toward official Others.


        • Local Democrats have always been dirty, but nationally, the descent of the left into outright evil has been one of the most amazing developments of the last 30 years. Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis were all naive liberals, but they had a basic decency and moral compass.

          Today’s leftists are pathological liars and criminals, who will do anything for power. Spying on opponents, advocating for infanticide, allowing young illegals to be trafficked, dredging up perjurers to bear false witness at supreme court confirmations, and just the shear volume of dishonesty on every issue, is simply disgusting.

          And the CivNats still want to engage with these people in good faith? Trump has not been effective in getting some important things changed, but at least he gets that it’s all out warfare every day on every issue. A spade must be always called a spade, and you just cannot reason with these people.

      • Typically, people don’t think, they feel and then use reason to justify their feelings. Before I accepted that fact, I might try to reason with someone and I might as well of discussed the issue with a telephone pole.

        • Yep, using facts and logic in a political debate is insane. Politics is religion.

          • “Politics is religion.”
            That’s how I see the Bible.
            As forgotten political propaganda of the time each book was written.
            No gods, or magic, or heaven.

            That is a great strength, one we don’t suspect. Since it was the encyclopedia of the West for some 1600 years, it is familiar and powerful with us.

            The events in it were real. Even the plagiarized parts have kept our deep well of human stories alive. We may no longer remember what exactly they were talking about, but neither did the writers. Yet still they used its themes to move masses.

            Reading it with modern eyes- like an archeologist- ended my enmity. I don’t see Bhuddists or Sikhs as crazy, alien as their manuals are. Both believer and secular can unite, wielding different prongs of the trident against the Great Replacement.

          • I didn’t grow up with any religious instruction. My parents were not openly hostile to religion, but they weren’t fans either.

            The Great Replacement is slowly pushing me toward Christianity, if for no other reason that it may be what we need to fight back.

      • See my post below. Darwin and the Theory of Evolution are a good Trojan Horse or, maybe, their Achilles Heel, choose your favorite ancient metaphor. Using evolution as an intro into your beliefs puts them immediately on the defensive. From a Cialdini emotional persuasion point of view, you directly tap two of the six (authority and consistency) principles of persuasion.

        To deny racial differences is to deny the Theory of Evolution, which forces them to reject the authority of every teach they’ve ever had and their own stated beliefs. It makes denying biological differences immoral and unscientific.

        • Citizen: If pointing out the logical inconsistencies in left wing views worked, Dinesh D’Sousa would be emperor of Earth. Our enemies reject the legitimacy of logic. Pointing out how they are illogical is therefore a giant waste of oxygen. You/we need to think like stupid people here. Herd status-striving for women; shaming (or contra, heroism & leadership) for men works, anything involving the word “syllogism” does not.

          • Agreed. I’m trying to find a way for normies to think about these things while keeping them in their comfort zone. I’m not trying to win a debate but to change their perception of reality.

        • People forget there is conjecture, then hypothesis, then Theory- a tested, demonstrable, repeatable body of laws. Theory of Gravity, for instance.

      • Agreed, Mr. Z.
        Aaaaand: could you share some concrete examples of how to do that?
        How do I make fun of a Leftist and their “moral” arguments, by making fun of them with my own “you’re immoral” arguments?
        It’s really difficult, b/c I go STRAIGHT to facts and reason, which never resonates (except with myself) or is successful.

        Open to other suggestions from the Peanut Gallery!

      • “I agree and it is a reminder of the fact we need to develop better rhetorical skills. We also have to accept that political warfare is always about morality, not facts and reason.” Ha! The “Right” has no rhetorical skills. We can’t make a political argument to save our skin or soul. Never have. We just sit there like a bunch of fish in a barrel tounge-tied. Hm…picture tongue-tied fish.

        I’ve spent years fussing at politicians, presidents, journalists at their lack of elaboration and clarification ability. Now that the left is completely insane and dominates the moral high hill, most will not bother to hear our thought-out arguments…..because the left has defined and claimed the moral high hill. Don’t play the lefty game. Counter arguments by pushing back will not win for us. We need to define an alternative dissident morality hill, with “new” language that is not electrically charged by the left. Define a whole new geography!

    • If the problem is just who controls the megaphone, that is a great position for us to be in. Even the Quillette people have been able to circulate evidence showing that what the mainstream considers correct is horrifically wrong – including debunking entire studies that serve as the basis for whole lines of thought. The reality is a lot of people have become comfortable with the idea that what is being shouted through the megaphone is typically a bunch of lies, or at least willful misinterpretations, which are just lies by a different name. We don’t have a science problem or even, strictly speaking, a government problem: we have a progressive white people problem, because they are the ones enforcing platitudes even after those ideas have been unmasked.

      • “We don’t have a science problem or even, strictly speaking, a government problem: we have a progressive white people problem, because they are the ones enforcing platitudes even after those ideas have been unmasked.”

        Precisely, which is why I am not so worried about demographic change or burning Cathedrals. Good events have bad results and bad events have good results. Progressive whites undermine their own influence and genetic fitness with mass immigration and liberal ideology. Those who cannot judge a book by its cover will waste a lot of time. A waning Christianity highlights the importance of religion through spiritual degradation.

        The real history of the world is much more interesting than the 2,500 year tale that is told. Caucasians have ebbed and flowed across the world for more than 100,000 years. Egyptian Pharaohs, Ghengis Khan, and even Mohammed had red hair. Buddah had blue eyes. There are more European genes out there today than ever before. We’re simply in a retrenchment period.

        • Thinning out the herd is far from a bad thing, especially when self-selection is factored in. Right now in Britain, some greenies are publicly pledging never to have children in order to save the planet. I am applauding and encouraging this with every fibre of my being.

        • Progressive whites don’t seem to have undermined themselves through massive immigration so far. I don’t know about their genetic fitness. But most of us aren’t focused on the more interesting 100,000 years when we are being threatened and oppressed in the next 24 hours for being white and dissident.

    • Agreed, moral parables easily eclipse any untethered list of facts…but weave the two into a narrative with real demonstrable causes and effects and …we get deplatformed.

      When given the opportunity we dominate any open forum and have always done so no matter how poor a showing we may initially make. Our problem is less what we say and how we say it, than it is access and regularity. If we have a rhetorical problem it’s that we have too many chiefs in the teepee. We have spokesmen playing general when they should be peeling potatoes. Some just lack maturity, some are borderline crazy.

      If Zman, some individuals who post here and some of the counter-currents guys were allowed to write nationally syndicated columns, even occasionally, it would completely alter the national debate.

      If the TRS guys had actual free market access to the airwaves Limbaugh would be in retirement.

      Even a bit more access would cause cable outlets to initially go apoplectic but then they’d have to face the hard realities of our numbers. Jared Taylor and others would suddenly find themselves included on panels – to be whipped boys…but we could hammer that sort of treatment through our own national outlets. The Hissy Fit interviews would eventually subside.

      When Normies hear our message the first time it’s shocking. Within a week they’re quoting things. After that first steps red pilling takes a month, tops.

      Our biggest problem is access. The second is who represents us. Fix those two and the arguments will take care of themselves.

      We’re still offering our enemies an olive branch. This can still be settled through our institutions, maybe. The people willing to go that route are decreasing. It may be that that bird has already flown some time ago. I’d like to think not.

    • … maybe it’ll even become a crime to study race differences.

      Oh, come on. You can’t be serious. Next you’ll be saying it could become a crime to question the Holocaust.

  39. Dissident is better but still has a tinge of grumbling outsider attached to it. We aren’t the freaks, we’re the normal ones. We see the world not like the last 2 generations but in line with the previous 1000.

    We have a label, many of them: Westerners, huWhyte, European, American, Dutch, Nordics, Latins, Mid-Westerners, etc.

    We should be renaming outsiders and those natives who reject their stewardship of the West in favor of foreign influence and the worship of mammon.

  40. Certainly one of the principal anchors of traditionalist conservatism is not a German philosopher, but an Irish philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke.

    • Speak for yourself fucko, you are either intentionally trolling (TinyFuck?) or you are confused between the aforementioned ‘alt-right Nazi larping preppies’ and the far more astute dissident right which includes most readers on this forum plus many others through our various ‘badthink’ networks. Which is it?

      • Kleist is obviously trolling. The answer he claims to seek, or definition he rejects, is adequately elaborated in Z-man’s posting. If there really is a legitimate question/disbelief by Kleist, the appropriate response would be to cite a counter example and allow Z-man to rebutt—but this is not the purpose of trolling. Kleist got his dopamine hit with his posting and is probably off on another blog repeating himself. And that is the small world that low IQ individuals such as Kleist inhabit.

        • Do you ever ask yourselves why Zman never mentions the only guy in this administration who can be counted on to speak up for and advance policies that align with our preferences? The reason is that there’s no market for the “dissident right” without proposals to either get rid of the Jews or at least make them shut the hell up. Notice the huge comments turnout for yesterday’s orgy of bashing Norman Podhoretz. This is America. You don’t have to like Jews. My wife hates Catholics, she just hates them and there’s nothing I can do about it. But that’s not science.

  41. One of the commenters on the Chateau Heartiste blog said that thezman had been deplatformed by WordPress. Obviously, it isn’t true (for which I am grateful), and he later corrected himself. Any basis for the report?

      • I did not see that, but yes, there was a problem at the hosting service. They say my traffic is exceeding their bandwidth. Instead of solving that issue, they just shut down my account. Not a savvy bunch, but not surprising. They could be lying, but that’s the official answer.

        I am making plans for adding more horsepower to the site.

        • All I can say is “Whew!”- because today’s post proves it. Sterling.
          I can hardly wait for the comments.

    • The sad reality……..whenever I find a site like Zman’s (or Sailer, or a handful of others) not responding, my FIRST thought is: HE’S BEEN DEPLATFORMED!!. Not an internet/hosting/traffic issue, which would be your first inkling anywhere else.

  42. “Nationalist Right” is the most accurate and appealing label for what we want, which is a nation of people who are on the same wavelength generally….The fact that we had that when the country was 90% white is apparent, but need not be put front and center…

    • The word “Nationalist” is associated with Nazi. Stupid, yes. Unfair, yes. Reality, yes. Using “Nationalist” in your label is PR suicide. You’ll scare away normies immediately.

        • I’ve always been fond of that label. The smartest, most talented people always seem to be the most humble about what they know.

        • Which opposed mass immigration because of its destructive effects on wages and civil life….They knew plenty…

      • Btw, I hate that Nationalist has been so tainted, because you’re right, it is the correct label. It’s what we all believe, and it’s a good thing. But for now, we have to bow to optics.

        • @CSC
          Exactly right Brother perception at this stage in the game is everything…I think we need a positive vibe not a negative one but thats just my opinion…Like we are the Right Stuff Rebels or something along those lines…Shake it up since whatever we are doing isn’t waking enough people up…JMHO

      • Well if you are not a nationalist, you are a globalist it would seem, and globalists are in favor of open borders and multiculturalism, which are cultural suicide…

Comments are closed.