If we take Yarvin at his word that journalists were always going to be commissars for a corrupt oligarchy, it doesn’t create a strong incentive for conservatives to do anything.
Maybe the dissident right shows discontent because they've got reasons to be discontent. Any political movement that is content isn't a movement at all, and if lolbertarianism and the Gen X Darias have demonstrated anything, it's that people who stand for simply "anti-woke" or resigned false contentment get steamrolled by the discontented forces of degeneration.
It's not enough to be "anti-woke," you must be actively pro-regeneration. Pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-nation, pro-morality, and pro-tradition.
Conquest's "Laws" are excuses for cuckservatives who lack the imagination to conceive of a political machine under which these postulates don't hold true. They originate from National Review, fittingly. Of course any organization of friends, operating openly, will be subverted if it's momentum is unable to overcome authority in the hands of enemies.
The problem with the Hanadia types, (which I categorize being moderate right reformers or disaffected liberals with the best being Rufo with the worst being Lindsey)
They substitute the liberalism of whatever variety they have an affinity to for their metaphysics. Not that democracy is a good government either for a past condition of mankind or a current condition but it is good in and of itself.
Which is profoundly foolish,metaphysics are to deal with the eternal where the political is particular and conditional. one does influence the other, but that is the necessity of a fallen world that we inhabit.
The question is can democracy survive the projected conditions that are going to come around in the next 50 to 60 years I would say no. Because if a society cannot replicate itself, and must become a parasite on other societies in order for it to even continue. raiding the third world for breeding stock well at the same time in the process not making sure that the same contagion that is making your own population want to not reproduce does not infect them which it has and has accelerated.
This fact that these men either ignore or deny, I do not think they are worthy of consideration or thought. The American people deserve better, men of Kind hearts, wills of Steel, and Grim determination. Realizing the reality of the situation and laboring with all their might if not to reverse but maintain what is left of our people and maybe planning of what comes after. I'm afraid though that these men are all that we can produce.
Then it's left to us lesser men to do what we can for no one else will.
Democracy has not existed for many many years. "Democracy" as a Fukayamian soothing mechanism to ensure the continued rule of the Oligarchy, has, per Yarvin, been quite effective since FDR and I see no reason to forecast its demise. Hanania and Rufo etc. know this of course, and are gleefully nominating themselves for sinecures on the right-wing side in exchange for continuing to let "Democracy" carry on it's charade.
I believe it is a mistake to give Richard Hanania any kind of platform or positive coverage. Even if he's correct on some particular subject, the man carries a thinly-disguised resentment for the American right that would probably extend to most of the people reading this post.
This article contained lots of “good Hanania,” but I think he’s wrong to state that conservatives are merely “alienated.”
Conservatives are not “alienated” from the mainstream—the mainstream is deliberately driven leftward by people who oppose not Bushite “conservatism,” but the people who are all painted over as conservative—middle-class, small business owners, family-oriented, religious, non-urban (not simply “rural”), independently-minded, non-conformist, and/or White.
In other words, the people who are more likely to question authority are those who marginalized most by a Regime seeking total control. Hanania should seek to discover why this group is so targeted by the mainstream, for, I promise you, it’s not a phenomenon of self-selection.
People don’t just self-select out of positions of power if they can help it. They need to be pushed out somehow. Mainstream institutions have made it a priority to push out “conservatives” for decades. The electoral process and academia, for example, are each discrete tentacles of the government, which means they can’t afford to brook any major form of dissent from a variety of subpopulations, as that dissent is not just questioning of their integrity, but of the government’s integrity.
Luckily for them, they, with their fellow institutions, enjoy the backing of the US military, too. They can afford to push out the dissenting nonconformists (viz., so-called “conservatives”) because, at the end of the day, if the dissent gets too spicy, taxpayer-funded lead will remove the problems.
I was not aware of Hanania until the Gray Mirror article calling him out. While reading this article, I kept hearing in my head, "Have you ever been sincere?" etc.
He seems like a total clown. At best, a liberal who became disaffected, took the first red pill, then stopped there at dead center if not slightly right of the middle of the Controlled Opposition, and eats up the Cathedral narrative with a spoon. It's really strange to read his answers, it's so clear that he has no idea of how wide the world is. Like he independently confirmed Ben Shapiro's belief system, great job, slow clap. Even after having talked to "the dissident right" face to face, he has no clue who they actually are, or what they believe, or why they are *not* "conservatives." Color me thoroughly unimpressed.
Maybe the dissident right shows discontent because they've got reasons to be discontent. Any political movement that is content isn't a movement at all, and if lolbertarianism and the Gen X Darias have demonstrated anything, it's that people who stand for simply "anti-woke" or resigned false contentment get steamrolled by the discontented forces of degeneration.
It's not enough to be "anti-woke," you must be actively pro-regeneration. Pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-nation, pro-morality, and pro-tradition.
Conquest’s Second Law reigns undefeated.
Conquest's "Laws" are excuses for cuckservatives who lack the imagination to conceive of a political machine under which these postulates don't hold true. They originate from National Review, fittingly. Of course any organization of friends, operating openly, will be subverted if it's momentum is unable to overcome authority in the hands of enemies.
And pro-authority. Something has to firmly tell subversion no, and enforce it.
The problem with the Hanadia types, (which I categorize being moderate right reformers or disaffected liberals with the best being Rufo with the worst being Lindsey)
They substitute the liberalism of whatever variety they have an affinity to for their metaphysics. Not that democracy is a good government either for a past condition of mankind or a current condition but it is good in and of itself.
Which is profoundly foolish,metaphysics are to deal with the eternal where the political is particular and conditional. one does influence the other, but that is the necessity of a fallen world that we inhabit.
The question is can democracy survive the projected conditions that are going to come around in the next 50 to 60 years I would say no. Because if a society cannot replicate itself, and must become a parasite on other societies in order for it to even continue. raiding the third world for breeding stock well at the same time in the process not making sure that the same contagion that is making your own population want to not reproduce does not infect them which it has and has accelerated.
This fact that these men either ignore or deny, I do not think they are worthy of consideration or thought. The American people deserve better, men of Kind hearts, wills of Steel, and Grim determination. Realizing the reality of the situation and laboring with all their might if not to reverse but maintain what is left of our people and maybe planning of what comes after. I'm afraid though that these men are all that we can produce.
Then it's left to us lesser men to do what we can for no one else will.
Democracy has not existed for many many years. "Democracy" as a Fukayamian soothing mechanism to ensure the continued rule of the Oligarchy, has, per Yarvin, been quite effective since FDR and I see no reason to forecast its demise. Hanania and Rufo etc. know this of course, and are gleefully nominating themselves for sinecures on the right-wing side in exchange for continuing to let "Democracy" carry on it's charade.
I believe it is a mistake to give Richard Hanania any kind of platform or positive coverage. Even if he's correct on some particular subject, the man carries a thinly-disguised resentment for the American right that would probably extend to most of the people reading this post.
This article contained lots of “good Hanania,” but I think he’s wrong to state that conservatives are merely “alienated.”
Conservatives are not “alienated” from the mainstream—the mainstream is deliberately driven leftward by people who oppose not Bushite “conservatism,” but the people who are all painted over as conservative—middle-class, small business owners, family-oriented, religious, non-urban (not simply “rural”), independently-minded, non-conformist, and/or White.
In other words, the people who are more likely to question authority are those who marginalized most by a Regime seeking total control. Hanania should seek to discover why this group is so targeted by the mainstream, for, I promise you, it’s not a phenomenon of self-selection.
People don’t just self-select out of positions of power if they can help it. They need to be pushed out somehow. Mainstream institutions have made it a priority to push out “conservatives” for decades. The electoral process and academia, for example, are each discrete tentacles of the government, which means they can’t afford to brook any major form of dissent from a variety of subpopulations, as that dissent is not just questioning of their integrity, but of the government’s integrity.
Luckily for them, they, with their fellow institutions, enjoy the backing of the US military, too. They can afford to push out the dissenting nonconformists (viz., so-called “conservatives”) because, at the end of the day, if the dissent gets too spicy, taxpayer-funded lead will remove the problems.
Such rambling nonsense.
I believe John Doyle to be the most sane.
I was not aware of Hanania until the Gray Mirror article calling him out. While reading this article, I kept hearing in my head, "Have you ever been sincere?" etc.
He seems like a total clown. At best, a liberal who became disaffected, took the first red pill, then stopped there at dead center if not slightly right of the middle of the Controlled Opposition, and eats up the Cathedral narrative with a spoon. It's really strange to read his answers, it's so clear that he has no idea of how wide the world is. Like he independently confirmed Ben Shapiro's belief system, great job, slow clap. Even after having talked to "the dissident right" face to face, he has no clue who they actually are, or what they believe, or why they are *not* "conservatives." Color me thoroughly unimpressed.