The Bitter White Pill

Counterrevolution, or bust!

by Aaron “Ace” Cummings

“Is democracy losing legitimacy on the world stage?” That was the question presented in front of an audience put on by Sovereign House. For one night, commentators came to a debate in Los Angeles that turned into a broader discussion about America’s declining institutions.

In the wake of political tension ramping up during this election year, American blogger Curtis Yarvin and commentator Richard Hanania have provided extensive knowledge on how to understand news stories like the election controversy and the Claudine Gay plagiarism scandal. Rather than talk about Trump or left-leaning journalists explicitly, they tend to focus on these topics as byproducts of America’s institutions. Previously, academia and the media were considered mostly neutral on the fundamental level with activists outside the driver’s seat. Any criticism could be leveled at individual actors, yet never the whole system. The most radical thing that could happen was reform based on democratic consent. However, an increasingly dissident critique has gained popularity among academics, especially the two speakers who agreed to face off for the debate.

What might surprise curious spectators is the wide range of relevancy from a talk on monarchy and democracy. For instance, Hanania was the optimistic voice in the room regarding appeasing populist sentiments. His book The Origins of Woke made waves for its thesis concerning the legacy of Civil Rights legislation. Although it’s specific to the ’60s, many academics have agreed that this thesis applies to many media stories from 2023. Yet, Hanania explained why he refuses to demoralize institutions like Harvard and the electoral system.

“Conservatism is so alienated from mainstream institutions that it motivates a kind of malcontent type like leftism traditionally has,” he stated. A comment that gets at the ethos of a lot of many right-leaning complaints about critical race theory, Harvard, and distrust of the media. To Hanania, these are downstream from legislation, and the idea of being anti-democracy due to liberalism is effectively a nonstarter — meaning, Yarvin’s critique is only effective for those who’ve checked out of the news. Voters benefit from conservative activism, court rulings, and going after school boards within the system. In other words, a democratic strategy against woke standards with policymaking keeps the institutions intact.

“I think there’s been some good coverage of how conservatives have been able to do things like organize boycott campaigns, especially since Elon Musk bought X,” he argued. If there are problems with members of the courts or college administrations, we find better ways to organize as a united front. If the election looks bleak, it’s a lack of performance on the conservative side. No excuses for over-presentation; it’s time to meet them in the arena.

In his book, Hanania concedes that there is room for optimism, despite all the negative press about draconian obstacles thwarting conservatives like Rufo. “The tech industry has produced a disproportionately large number of anti-woke public figures, including Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel,” he states. If the media-industrial complex is as hopeless as Yarvin implies, it hand-waves much of the progress that Rufo, Musk, and even Yarvin himself have made to popularize anti-woke views.

Regardless of the disagreement, it’s telling that all this arrived on the heels of the Tucker Carlson Putin interview, an example of another faction that catches negative attention: journalism. If we take Yarvin at his word that these journalists were always going to be commissars for a corrupt oligarchy, it doesn’t create a strong incentive for conservatives to do anything. Instead, many like Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk have successfully tested people intellectually, speaking out explicitly, in a way that should warrant credit. All in all, Hanania has taken the “white pill” and encourages others, who may be too pessimistic about the election, to do the same.

Interview:

How was your reaction to the dissident right in a live setting?

I’m not sure who the dissident right is, and it seems that the kind of edgy aesthetic has taken over mainstream conservative punditry. But usually I’ve found that people who identify with this movement are some of the nastiest people online. Everyone at the debate, however, was nice and normal-seeming, and it was nice meeting them. Most of them were quite successful and well-adjusted, and I think that probably has something to do with it, as the truly bitter people were priced out. But overall, people are just nicer in person. I found most people are highly interested in what we had to say, and my experience was overall positive.

Given all the negative press from journalists, what do you think is missing in their coverage of this new wave of online organizing?

I think there’s been some good coverage of the ways in which conservatives have been able to do things, like organize boycott campaigns, especially since Elon Musk bought X. I think there’s not been enough coverage of the extent to which the alt-right of 2010–15 actually won. Stuff like the great replacement, anti-immigration, hostility to foreign intervention, etc. These used to be fringe positions, but now people like Charlie Kirk are at least nodding in that direction. The media has discussed this somewhat, but it probably deserves more attention.

With all the topics discussed, how would you relate the efforts to keep former President Trump from participating in the general election as part of your thesis from the debate?

I think the arguments that Trump should be left off the ballot are pretty bad. The thing is, the man is such a violator of all reasonable norms that he occasionally inspires overcorrections. But for the most part, our system is too easy on him, if anything.

Has the ongoing plagiarism scandal been overblown to question the legitimacy of institutions?

I think so. It’s fine to go after Harvard for this, and it was clearly plagiarism. But this is a small part of a much larger struggle.

Has the dissident right’s perspective on the Tucker/Putin interview verified your concerns about reactionary historicism?

This gets back to what I said about not being sure what’s mainstream and what’s “dissident right.” I saw Matt Walsh basically saying things that sound sympathetic towards Putin, and Nick Fuentes saying that he looked awful. Who’s dissident right, and who’s mainstream here? I think sympathy for Putin is more an IQ test than anything else at this point.

After addressing the arguments from Yarvin, what do you see as the biggest liability for Gen Z fans who jump on far-right bandwagons?

The negativity, the incel vibe, the tendency to become mirror images of the wokes. I wonder about the human capital problem of the right, especially among the young. I think it’s a chicken-and-egg thing. Conservatism is so alienated from mainstream institutions that it motivates a kind of malcontent type, like leftism traditionally has. But sometimes an ossified elite can bring the healthiest form of rebellion. Some things, like religious fundamentalism, misogyny, and white identity, will destroy the movement and are good to reject anyway. I’ve been trying to push people in a healthier direction, and help them understand that while society has problems, one thing you shouldn’t do is adopt ideas that have by any standard a much worse record than liberalism, in the classic sense.