Re: Joel Berry- the progressive left correctly understands the request for a limiting principle upon itself as an attack, and so refuses to participate in the exercise.
My response would be: My limitation shall be the responsibility of my opposition - fed by whatever concerns always-clumsy government is incapable of addressing. None of us claim to be all things for all people, but perhaps we can be the right thing for our people, who deserve better, right now.
There's the only solution: the realization that normiecon-ism isn't worshipping 18th century secular liberal ideals, but Christian republican ideals. Only a return to Christ will save the Constitution and oppose secularism.
This is also the limiting principle Berry is looking for to avoid becoming Nazis. We believe all men are equal because all men are made in the image of God and share a common ancestry a few thousand years old, and Christ died for all men. That's why we can acknowledge generalities in group difference without becoming DNA obsessed race essentialists: because we are Christians, not materialists
God has many benefits, but He never allows Himself to be a means to another end. He is The End. If you call upon him in order to save the constitution or republicanism He will say no.
I would never say we should return to Christ as a means to an end. I'm saying we, as a nation, need to repent and acknowledge Christ as Lord. Because it's True, and the right thing to do. That temporal blessings flow from having a rightly ordered society is just a fact, not a pragmatic/consequntialist pursuit of gain
Lmao that's like asking Rome to return to it's republican, pagan roots in 450AD. Too stupid to even consider. The times have changed. The conditions have changed. The people have changed. The constitution is so dead it's not even a good joke to invoke it.
In addition to educating WHY and HOW it was created in the first place. Understanding the clauses. "It doesn't work" largely means "I don't understand it". The ways to create change are written in the damn document. Read it
If only he used Christian instead of religious. It would've seemed out of place in his day, Christianity was utterly taken for granted but I think if we look around, that one word difference could've saved us a lot of time.
Outstanding essay. I think that you and Paul Kingsnorth have the clearest articulation of the tragedy of our Age.
I have been wishing that the DR would move beyond Yarvin and you obviously have.
Forgive me this rant, but I cringe when I read people I respect still referencing him positively after his shilling of the covid injections and China’s anti-human draconian lockdowns. That’s not even getting into the obscuring nature of his “cathedral” concept (true at mid and low levels, demonstrably false at elite levels) or the fact that his push for monarchy is irrelevant if the problems elucidated here aren’t corrected.
Totally agreed on this comment. Yarvin should be viewed like a Putnam/Caldwell/Bloom/Lasch. They are all blue staters who see the problems with the liberal religion in various ways (social norms, civil rights law, pop culture, degenerate elites respectively), but they don’t have a coherent world view so they don’t have answers. Instead of putting up the liberal apostates on a pedestal, we need to give real answers which only come from true religion.
He still has some good insights into current events from time to time, based on a rare understanding of the inner workings of the regime. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t said a fair amount of cringe, of course, just don’t think it’s fair to discard him entirely after we’ve gained so much from his original work.
He has certainly had some good insights in the past.
I don’t think he has a good understanding of the inner workings of the Regime, at least not one that he shares with his readers, and that his cathedral concept actually hides just how directly and intensely coordinated the elite levels of power are, despite the obvious existence of factions and the routine use of compartmentalization in operations.
We could list example after example
of elite centralized coordination, and in fact he himself listed one in Gray Mirror- the post 2020 election Time magazine article describing a Zoom call between hundreds of NGO leaders and an anonymous DNC elite where they all “reached consensus” to stand down on J6.
Now why would this anonymous DNC elite want antifa types to do nothing on J6 to counter Maga? Could it have had anything to do with the hundreds of undercover feds present, per Congressman Clay Higgins, who had access to unpublicized data regarding J6?
How about the wall to wall reporting of J6 as an “insurrection” which also happened to dovetail with the Regime’s legal rationales against Trump?
Could this also be related to the nyt reporting that police officer brian sicknick had been beaten to death by Maga with a fire extinguisher before he was even dead, per his own family’s statements (and of course the nyt breaking story was a whole cloth fabrication.)
No centralized coordination here, just a bunch of independent actors giving off the “appearance” of coordination.
The secular/anti-religious bunch are always engaged in this wildly self-important, "We are creating a new future for humanity!" nonsense.
The reality is they're just posting about what they like and dislike on social media, pretending like a tangible reality is going to take shape out of their imaginings of what reality should be.
The truth is that there's a way the world should be that goes back to the beginning of time. It's not man's job to reinvent it, it's man's job to get into alignment with it.
The dissident right isn't dissident anymore. Its ideas are essentially mainstream now, and it never graduated beyond hot takes and easy dunks aimed at a dying species of conservativism and libtards and mentally ill leftists, both of whom are the easiest targets imaginable. It is mentally trapped in 2016 when National Review was still something that had to be discredited, John McCain was still alive, and Trump had not yet turned his back on the things they claim to value or betrayed them in ways that they would never tolerate from anyone else. As someone who used to identify with this thing when I considered it a real movement, I could not tell you what it actually believes or represents anymore beyond self-aggrandizement. It only looks like "something" because its critics are often misguided, and the opposition generally consists of crazies.
You could be the clarifying force for the rest of us instead of its opponents. A lot of the smartest people in the dissident right room I found through you, Dave, Auron, Darryl, Aaron Renn and Alex. I don't know if it helps, but the Donald team and their discontents did you dirty just for pointing out how they would/could lose and their other BS. I know more people know that despite what a # of Twitter Anons and small brains say about you. Please don't live to snipe the weakest IQ of the resistance but do call a spade a spade.
I wanted DeSantis to win badly too, and for people to see policy decisions over swagger. It didn't happen, people what a part 2 revengence or something... I'm voting to see it happens, because the alternative is worse. You were always more dissident right than a majority of the trolls and turds on social media echoing the hot takes.
Probably the same way we give Trump a pass on his bad choices... granted I just doublechecked, I don't see what you mean... Florida you can openly discriminate still, and a Control-F doesn't bring up anything related to Florida or DeSantis... do you mean the Equality Act or some different bill entirely?
Apparently I misremembered a whole bill that never existed in the state legislature. Ouch.
There was HB7. This is the kind of thing Rufo was excited about, laws that say CRT and wokeness are illegitimate due to violating civil rights law. A firmer opposition to civil rights law is a better point to rally around, no?
In one point, I have a different view: I don't see the term 'dissident right' as dead.
Rather, liberal democracy is dying and entering its totalitarian phase. A late bloomer compared to fascism and socialism. Given this trajectory, 'dissident' will become more accurate in the future.
'Right' is important to make sure, that it's not about utopia. We are in search of an organic social order, that fits our human condition.
The only thing that the Dissident Right seems to agree on is that everything is broken and we cannot continue this way. The only thing that unites the Dissident Right is its opposition to the Left's proposed solutions which is just more of the same except gooder and harder. The struggle within the DR is how to fix the problems.
His conclusion appears to be that "certain cultural cancers may have to be forcibly cut out". I think the DR would agree with that. But the question remains, how do we do that? Simplicious thinks one of the first steps would be to somehow do away with the idea of individual liberty in favor of a "what's best for society" ethos. Ok, sounds good if a bit civnattery.
We're still left with the questions, who gets to decide what is good for society and what will the decisions be based upon? Simplicious provides some hints with his references to the Bible, the Puritans and the Quakers and even the Russian anti-LGBT laws. But then he mentions the CCP (the commies!) as also working to root out cultural cancers. I think the DR would agree that an all-powerful central government would not be the best answer to who should get to decide which aspects of the culture are good and which need to be excised. The next leader of the CCP may decide that a weak, feminized polity is easiest to rule and therefore champion homosexuality and feminism. Since there is no basis, no foundation for the reasons behind the decisions they can change with the whims of the ruler.
The biggest current schism in the DR is between the secularists and the Christians. The Christians believe that these decisions (what is best for society) should be based on the commandments and the rules set forth in the Bible. They argue that such a base led to the creation of Western Civ and the foundation of America. The secularists argue that while Christianity was a positive force for a long time, it has failed to capture and motivate recent generations and failed to prevent the Leftist take over of society. There's a bit of a chicken and egg argument in there but, be that as it may, a significant portion of the DR is opposed to Christianity setting the rules for society.
Unfortunately, the anti-Christian DR has yet to provide any coherent alternative, at least I have yet to see one. Rather, they seem to espouse a bunch of life-hacks and common sense ideas, some that are good and some that are just silly. The good ones I've seen are the establishment of a parallel economy; a countercultural movement emphasizing beauty, self-improvement, and truth; a rejection of crude materialism, and a reawakening of our connection to the divine. All good ideas and ones most of the DR could be expected to get behind.
The problem is that there's no plan on how to implement these ideas. Maybe some like a parallel economy and a counterculture will manifest on their own. But what about a rejection of materialism? We got bills to pay. We need a place to live. We need a job that at least can help us acquire the basic necessities. What materialism are we even talking about? Fast cars and big houses or are we talking about knickknacks or expensive art paintings or are we just talking about replacing materialism with some form of spirituality? Honestly, this one is resolving on its own as we all become poorer and poorer by the day. Assuming though that we can turn the ship around and return to a country of abundance, how do we prevent people from living a life glorifying materialism? What would be the reasoning we would use to persuade people that life isn't about obtaining the most stuff?
Or how about a "reawakening of our connection to the divine"? I'm not sure what this even means. Will we all have to agree on the divinity? Does the divinity have any rules? Is this just a wishy-washy admission by the secularists that we'll need a return to a Christian foundation? What about the atheists?
Like Simplicious, I don't have the answers and I've yet to see anyone else propose real, concrete answers to these questions other than the Christians. Full disclosure, I favor a return to Christianity but I don't know how to go about convincing the masses to return to a Christian foundation. And admittedly, its a tough sell with the Vatican flying the LGBT flag and siding with the open borders globalists.
Until the DR figures out a basic, common belief system, there's no way we'll ever get to the point of how to implement our desired changes in society and who to trust to implement these changes. Perhaps the best plan is to act locally and make the changes you want to see in the people you have some influence over. But the decay is in its terminal stage and we may not have enough time to change society before it all implodes.
> Simplicious thinks one of the first steps would be to somehow do away with the idea of individual liberty in favor of a "what's best for society" ethos.
Sounds suspiciously similar to the leftist technocrats. In particular the response to COVID was an attempt to do just that. The justification for all the green nonsense is the exact same things.
Thank you for articulating this so well! It dovetails exquisitely to an extraordinary book I’m reading: The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia by Orlando Figes.
‘He conveys the total shutdown of Soviet society where nobody could trust anyone else - hence the title, The Whisperers. It's a claustrophobic world where everyone is predator/betrayer and simultaneously prey/betrayed.
Many of those ex*cuted or sent to near-certain death in the gulags were innocent. Their betrayers knew their victims were innocent but such was the extreme fear of the Terror they would inform on their nearest and dearest just to divert attention from themselves.
It seldom seems to have worked. Even Stalin's chief enforcers, t*rturers, r*pists and m*rderers suffered the same fate as their many victims. The circle of terror was complete.’
My take is that we are discussing how to dance while our toes are rotting. I appreciate the discussion because the topic is interesting (to me) and there might be a time when "higher" questions might be relevant.
Today, that is not the case. This is simple lawlessness, from the pathological dishonesty of the media to the corrupt behavior of members of the Hydra-like establishment we call the state. When a crime is committed, the police is called in. Not a debate club. The police.
In short, there is no other way out but for the institutions of law and order to reassert themselves. These fine discussions are inconsequential to, for example, every staffer today in the White House, CNN, the NYT, etc. They will lie as they have done repeatedly until they are shown a bench in a courthouse.
Enjoyed the post, it was quite good, and the post-script was my favorite part! The dissident right is here to clear the dead growth away and prepare those of the future for what comes next. I love it and think that's the truth of it. Though it's an admission that the DR isn't going to really accomplish anything it's a refreshingly frank admission about the nature of the thing you are a part of. It's like if a conservative would finally come out and say they believe what they believe to lose and feel good about themselves.
And it's not a bad thing in the least: admittedly the DR was never going to be the next 'populism' that would gain hundreds of millions of followers, it is intensely intellectual by nature and we live in a resoundingly anti-intellectual era (most people have been that way throughout history anyways). But it will reach SOME people, it will change SOME hearts and minds, at the end of the day that is all Christ ever asked of his believers: not absolute adherence, only the souls that are His.
And so the DR forges on victoriously and should never stop: there is always more old growth to clear out (landscapers enjoy great job security) and there are always brilliant minds and those to make big moves in the future searching for forbidden knowledge, and more importantly- the truth- who will know it when they hear it.
Keep trodding on! You and the 'dissident right' will never win the majority but that is of no importance
A bit of a bad mouth feel, but Rectifiers/Rectification is the term I see internally bounced around. This is technically a better descriptor of the big Us.
Re: Joel Berry- the progressive left correctly understands the request for a limiting principle upon itself as an attack, and so refuses to participate in the exercise.
My response would be: My limitation shall be the responsibility of my opposition - fed by whatever concerns always-clumsy government is incapable of addressing. None of us claim to be all things for all people, but perhaps we can be the right thing for our people, who deserve better, right now.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
There's the only solution: the realization that normiecon-ism isn't worshipping 18th century secular liberal ideals, but Christian republican ideals. Only a return to Christ will save the Constitution and oppose secularism.
This is also the limiting principle Berry is looking for to avoid becoming Nazis. We believe all men are equal because all men are made in the image of God and share a common ancestry a few thousand years old, and Christ died for all men. That's why we can acknowledge generalities in group difference without becoming DNA obsessed race essentialists: because we are Christians, not materialists
God has many benefits, but He never allows Himself to be a means to another end. He is The End. If you call upon him in order to save the constitution or republicanism He will say no.
I would never say we should return to Christ as a means to an end. I'm saying we, as a nation, need to repent and acknowledge Christ as Lord. Because it's True, and the right thing to do. That temporal blessings flow from having a rightly ordered society is just a fact, not a pragmatic/consequntialist pursuit of gain
This is absolutely the distinction, great way to put it!
You missed much of Dave's point that the Constitution does not work.
No, I disagree with his point. It works, under a specific set of circumstances, for a specific type of population.
It doesn't work NOW, but just don't buy "if the rule you follow led you to this..." line of reasoning.
The Constitution failed because of liberalism, yes. Theological liberalism, leading to mass apostasy and degeneracy
"It doesn't work NOW, but just don't buy "if the rule you follow led you to this..." line of reasoning"
So the constitution doesn't work. We need to move beyond it.
Right now? No, because we are not a moral and religious people.
Or... return to the conditions that made it possible in the first place.
Lmao that's like asking Rome to return to it's republican, pagan roots in 450AD. Too stupid to even consider. The times have changed. The conditions have changed. The people have changed. The constitution is so dead it's not even a good joke to invoke it.
In addition to educating WHY and HOW it was created in the first place. Understanding the clauses. "It doesn't work" largely means "I don't understand it". The ways to create change are written in the damn document. Read it
If only he used Christian instead of religious. It would've seemed out of place in his day, Christianity was utterly taken for granted but I think if we look around, that one word difference could've saved us a lot of time.
Outstanding essay. I think that you and Paul Kingsnorth have the clearest articulation of the tragedy of our Age.
I have been wishing that the DR would move beyond Yarvin and you obviously have.
Forgive me this rant, but I cringe when I read people I respect still referencing him positively after his shilling of the covid injections and China’s anti-human draconian lockdowns. That’s not even getting into the obscuring nature of his “cathedral” concept (true at mid and low levels, demonstrably false at elite levels) or the fact that his push for monarchy is irrelevant if the problems elucidated here aren’t corrected.
Totally agreed on this comment. Yarvin should be viewed like a Putnam/Caldwell/Bloom/Lasch. They are all blue staters who see the problems with the liberal religion in various ways (social norms, civil rights law, pop culture, degenerate elites respectively), but they don’t have a coherent world view so they don’t have answers. Instead of putting up the liberal apostates on a pedestal, we need to give real answers which only come from true religion.
He still has some good insights into current events from time to time, based on a rare understanding of the inner workings of the regime. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t said a fair amount of cringe, of course, just don’t think it’s fair to discard him entirely after we’ve gained so much from his original work.
He has certainly had some good insights in the past.
I don’t think he has a good understanding of the inner workings of the Regime, at least not one that he shares with his readers, and that his cathedral concept actually hides just how directly and intensely coordinated the elite levels of power are, despite the obvious existence of factions and the routine use of compartmentalization in operations.
We could list example after example
of elite centralized coordination, and in fact he himself listed one in Gray Mirror- the post 2020 election Time magazine article describing a Zoom call between hundreds of NGO leaders and an anonymous DNC elite where they all “reached consensus” to stand down on J6.
Now why would this anonymous DNC elite want antifa types to do nothing on J6 to counter Maga? Could it have had anything to do with the hundreds of undercover feds present, per Congressman Clay Higgins, who had access to unpublicized data regarding J6?
How about the wall to wall reporting of J6 as an “insurrection” which also happened to dovetail with the Regime’s legal rationales against Trump?
Could this also be related to the nyt reporting that police officer brian sicknick had been beaten to death by Maga with a fire extinguisher before he was even dead, per his own family’s statements (and of course the nyt breaking story was a whole cloth fabrication.)
No centralized coordination here, just a bunch of independent actors giving off the “appearance” of coordination.
Could you explain the concept of the cathedral concisely
We must return to our roots, keep what works and move forward without the untruths of our time.
The Christians addressed the Pagan Question this way early on. Take the best, leave the rest.
Very true, maybe that’s why the ancient tales were preserved and passed down. Pagan stories are awesome.
The secular/anti-religious bunch are always engaged in this wildly self-important, "We are creating a new future for humanity!" nonsense.
The reality is they're just posting about what they like and dislike on social media, pretending like a tangible reality is going to take shape out of their imaginings of what reality should be.
The truth is that there's a way the world should be that goes back to the beginning of time. It's not man's job to reinvent it, it's man's job to get into alignment with it.
Wanting to live as the pagan first tribes of men did is the minority position
I feel like I've been at the kitchen table for 2 hours getting a talkin' to...and I know that you are right.
You really are the Dad of the DR.
The dissident right isn't dissident anymore. Its ideas are essentially mainstream now, and it never graduated beyond hot takes and easy dunks aimed at a dying species of conservativism and libtards and mentally ill leftists, both of whom are the easiest targets imaginable. It is mentally trapped in 2016 when National Review was still something that had to be discredited, John McCain was still alive, and Trump had not yet turned his back on the things they claim to value or betrayed them in ways that they would never tolerate from anyone else. As someone who used to identify with this thing when I considered it a real movement, I could not tell you what it actually believes or represents anymore beyond self-aggrandizement. It only looks like "something" because its critics are often misguided, and the opposition generally consists of crazies.
You could be the clarifying force for the rest of us instead of its opponents. A lot of the smartest people in the dissident right room I found through you, Dave, Auron, Darryl, Aaron Renn and Alex. I don't know if it helps, but the Donald team and their discontents did you dirty just for pointing out how they would/could lose and their other BS. I know more people know that despite what a # of Twitter Anons and small brains say about you. Please don't live to snipe the weakest IQ of the resistance but do call a spade a spade.
I wanted DeSantis to win badly too, and for people to see policy decisions over swagger. It didn't happen, people what a part 2 revengence or something... I'm voting to see it happens, because the alternative is worse. You were always more dissident right than a majority of the trolls and turds on social media echoing the hot takes.
Why should people give preference to DeSantis in wake of him passing stuff like the equality act?
Probably the same way we give Trump a pass on his bad choices... granted I just doublechecked, I don't see what you mean... Florida you can openly discriminate still, and a Control-F doesn't bring up anything related to Florida or DeSantis... do you mean the Equality Act or some different bill entirely?
Apparently I misremembered a whole bill that never existed in the state legislature. Ouch.
There was HB7. This is the kind of thing Rufo was excited about, laws that say CRT and wokeness are illegitimate due to violating civil rights law. A firmer opposition to civil rights law is a better point to rally around, no?
Civil Rights Law is still sufficiently sacred that using it to undermine itself is probably the better approach.
Thank you, Dave, for this excellent essay!
In one point, I have a different view: I don't see the term 'dissident right' as dead.
Rather, liberal democracy is dying and entering its totalitarian phase. A late bloomer compared to fascism and socialism. Given this trajectory, 'dissident' will become more accurate in the future.
'Right' is important to make sure, that it's not about utopia. We are in search of an organic social order, that fits our human condition.
Cheers
The Dissident Right and its Discontents (TOC)
The Dissident Right
Antithesis 1: “All politics is based on moral systems which in turn are fundamentally religious.”
Antithesis 2: “Discourse without moral alignment is impossible.”
Antithesis 3: “Human desire, to be healthy, must be restrained.”
Antithesis 4: “Technology, to be fruitful, must be governed.”
Antithesis 5: “Different human groups have radically different behavior. Governments must reflect this difference.”
Antithesis 6: “To be accountable, government must be particular to a people and a place.”
Antithesis 7: “Past social arrangements are sustainable, in a way that contrived alternatives are not.”
Antithesis 8: “Politics involves real winners and real losers, punishments for enemies, rewards for friends; otherwise, it accomplishes nothing.”
The Discontents
Block 1: The Lefty Denialist Delusion
Block 2: The Progressive YIMBY Paralysis
Block 3: The Idealist Conservative Fantasy
Block 4: The Liberal Secular Fake-Fixes
Block 5: The Late-Stage Limbo of Hesitancy
What is to be Done?
Subscribe to Letters from Fiddler's Greene
The only thing that the Dissident Right seems to agree on is that everything is broken and we cannot continue this way. The only thing that unites the Dissident Right is its opposition to the Left's proposed solutions which is just more of the same except gooder and harder. The struggle within the DR is how to fix the problems.
Simplicious provides his thoughts in a typically excellent essay at https://substack.com/home/post/p-145789320
His conclusion appears to be that "certain cultural cancers may have to be forcibly cut out". I think the DR would agree with that. But the question remains, how do we do that? Simplicious thinks one of the first steps would be to somehow do away with the idea of individual liberty in favor of a "what's best for society" ethos. Ok, sounds good if a bit civnattery.
We're still left with the questions, who gets to decide what is good for society and what will the decisions be based upon? Simplicious provides some hints with his references to the Bible, the Puritans and the Quakers and even the Russian anti-LGBT laws. But then he mentions the CCP (the commies!) as also working to root out cultural cancers. I think the DR would agree that an all-powerful central government would not be the best answer to who should get to decide which aspects of the culture are good and which need to be excised. The next leader of the CCP may decide that a weak, feminized polity is easiest to rule and therefore champion homosexuality and feminism. Since there is no basis, no foundation for the reasons behind the decisions they can change with the whims of the ruler.
The biggest current schism in the DR is between the secularists and the Christians. The Christians believe that these decisions (what is best for society) should be based on the commandments and the rules set forth in the Bible. They argue that such a base led to the creation of Western Civ and the foundation of America. The secularists argue that while Christianity was a positive force for a long time, it has failed to capture and motivate recent generations and failed to prevent the Leftist take over of society. There's a bit of a chicken and egg argument in there but, be that as it may, a significant portion of the DR is opposed to Christianity setting the rules for society.
Unfortunately, the anti-Christian DR has yet to provide any coherent alternative, at least I have yet to see one. Rather, they seem to espouse a bunch of life-hacks and common sense ideas, some that are good and some that are just silly. The good ones I've seen are the establishment of a parallel economy; a countercultural movement emphasizing beauty, self-improvement, and truth; a rejection of crude materialism, and a reawakening of our connection to the divine. All good ideas and ones most of the DR could be expected to get behind.
The problem is that there's no plan on how to implement these ideas. Maybe some like a parallel economy and a counterculture will manifest on their own. But what about a rejection of materialism? We got bills to pay. We need a place to live. We need a job that at least can help us acquire the basic necessities. What materialism are we even talking about? Fast cars and big houses or are we talking about knickknacks or expensive art paintings or are we just talking about replacing materialism with some form of spirituality? Honestly, this one is resolving on its own as we all become poorer and poorer by the day. Assuming though that we can turn the ship around and return to a country of abundance, how do we prevent people from living a life glorifying materialism? What would be the reasoning we would use to persuade people that life isn't about obtaining the most stuff?
Or how about a "reawakening of our connection to the divine"? I'm not sure what this even means. Will we all have to agree on the divinity? Does the divinity have any rules? Is this just a wishy-washy admission by the secularists that we'll need a return to a Christian foundation? What about the atheists?
Like Simplicious, I don't have the answers and I've yet to see anyone else propose real, concrete answers to these questions other than the Christians. Full disclosure, I favor a return to Christianity but I don't know how to go about convincing the masses to return to a Christian foundation. And admittedly, its a tough sell with the Vatican flying the LGBT flag and siding with the open borders globalists.
Until the DR figures out a basic, common belief system, there's no way we'll ever get to the point of how to implement our desired changes in society and who to trust to implement these changes. Perhaps the best plan is to act locally and make the changes you want to see in the people you have some influence over. But the decay is in its terminal stage and we may not have enough time to change society before it all implodes.
> Simplicious thinks one of the first steps would be to somehow do away with the idea of individual liberty in favor of a "what's best for society" ethos.
Sounds suspiciously similar to the leftist technocrats. In particular the response to COVID was an attempt to do just that. The justification for all the green nonsense is the exact same things.
Thank you for articulating this so well! It dovetails exquisitely to an extraordinary book I’m reading: The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia by Orlando Figes.
‘He conveys the total shutdown of Soviet society where nobody could trust anyone else - hence the title, The Whisperers. It's a claustrophobic world where everyone is predator/betrayer and simultaneously prey/betrayed.
Many of those ex*cuted or sent to near-certain death in the gulags were innocent. Their betrayers knew their victims were innocent but such was the extreme fear of the Terror they would inform on their nearest and dearest just to divert attention from themselves.
It seldom seems to have worked. Even Stalin's chief enforcers, t*rturers, r*pists and m*rderers suffered the same fate as their many victims. The circle of terror was complete.’
Cheers
Thank you for another insightful essay.
My take is that we are discussing how to dance while our toes are rotting. I appreciate the discussion because the topic is interesting (to me) and there might be a time when "higher" questions might be relevant.
Today, that is not the case. This is simple lawlessness, from the pathological dishonesty of the media to the corrupt behavior of members of the Hydra-like establishment we call the state. When a crime is committed, the police is called in. Not a debate club. The police.
In short, there is no other way out but for the institutions of law and order to reassert themselves. These fine discussions are inconsequential to, for example, every staffer today in the White House, CNN, the NYT, etc. They will lie as they have done repeatedly until they are shown a bench in a courthouse.
Enjoyed the post, it was quite good, and the post-script was my favorite part! The dissident right is here to clear the dead growth away and prepare those of the future for what comes next. I love it and think that's the truth of it. Though it's an admission that the DR isn't going to really accomplish anything it's a refreshingly frank admission about the nature of the thing you are a part of. It's like if a conservative would finally come out and say they believe what they believe to lose and feel good about themselves.
And it's not a bad thing in the least: admittedly the DR was never going to be the next 'populism' that would gain hundreds of millions of followers, it is intensely intellectual by nature and we live in a resoundingly anti-intellectual era (most people have been that way throughout history anyways). But it will reach SOME people, it will change SOME hearts and minds, at the end of the day that is all Christ ever asked of his believers: not absolute adherence, only the souls that are His.
And so the DR forges on victoriously and should never stop: there is always more old growth to clear out (landscapers enjoy great job security) and there are always brilliant minds and those to make big moves in the future searching for forbidden knowledge, and more importantly- the truth- who will know it when they hear it.
Keep trodding on! You and the 'dissident right' will never win the majority but that is of no importance
This is a good read. Loved the antitheses and your breakdown of what you believe is going on.
A bit of a bad mouth feel, but Rectifiers/Rectification is the term I see internally bounced around. This is technically a better descriptor of the big Us.
You might like https://ukresponse.substack.com/p/the-suicide-of-the-west