Sunday, July 15, 2018

Galless Gauls

A lot of people on the dissident right were hoping for a Croatian win in the World Cup. The sentiment is understandable. Despite being under the thumb of the Soviet Union for half a century and part of the doomed conglomerate, Yugoslavia, that gave us the term "balkanization", Croatia is a real country today.

France, on the other hand, increasingly is not. While it is no longer a nation, it does represent the vision for the future that our rulers have in store for us:


Indeed. They are winning the war. The invading Africans took over the "French" soccer team just as they've taken over Paris, Toulouse, and other major urban centers throughout the nation formerly known as France:



Since the video will likely be taken down soon, here are some still frames:


The mayhem and destruction that would result from the legacy French population forcibly deporting the invaders would make ructions like these look like child's play.

That does not mean it shouldn't happen, only that it will likely never happen. France has been conquered and colonized.

31 comments:

216 said...

This is fundamentally why NATO must be abandoned. Russia must liberate the patriotic Europeans, and drive out the decadence and the invaders.

216 said...

Les Bebe Boomers are responsible for this, having given Macron his biggest margin of support.

https://twitter.com/alessabocchi/status/1018572839115526145

216 said...

You will have sportsball, or you will have a homeland. You will not get both.

https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun/status/1018542813208809473

This foreigner needs removed from our lands at once.

216 said...

This one is the kicker, the rubbing it in.

https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun/status/1018540593897705473

Every last one of them must be removed.

Michael said...

The referee won the world-cup by giving the first two goals to the French team (see Die Welt "Die umstrittenen Szenen vor Frankreichs ersten Toren"). The stakes were too high for the globalists.

Tim said...

Yep, the French cheated their way to the world-cup, but they couldn't have done it without some help from the referee:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/world-cup/fans-lash-antoine-griezmann-for-alleged-act-of-deceit-that-turned-the-world-cup-final/news-story/0819f44f904fe614a7bb91c93f921792

Hail said...

By one possible count, the France 'national' team was 16% French (French ancestry within full-White players; excluding French partial ancestry in mixed-race players) and 10% other non-French recent European ancestry in full-White players. If this is how we define the 'French' component of the team (French ancestry within White-Christian players), it's notable that Muslims alone are 33% of the team...

(This was for the full 23-man roster. Actual starters [11 men] were often majority White.)

____________________
Racial stock of the France-2018 World Cup team:
33% White-European ancestry [7.6/23.0]
—– of which six players (26%) are fully White-European;
52% Subsaharan African ancestry [11.9/23.0], origins across Francophone Africa
11% North African ancestry [2.5/23.0], all from Algeria and Morocco
— 4% Southeast Asian ancestry [1.0/23.0], from the Philippines

Seven Muslims (30%) (7.5, 33%, if counting Mbappe, a half-Muslim of unclear affiliation, as 0.5); Muslim players outnumber fully-White-Christian players (six players).

France national team’s White ancestry
— 23% French ancestry for team [69% of White component incl. mixed players]
— 9% Other ‘Latin’ countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy) [28% of White component]
— 1%+ Germany [Griezmann]

Note: Taking the six full-White players only [26% of the team], French ancestry is 62.5% of these six. The French-ancestral component among the full-White players comprises only 16% of the French ‘national’ team (62.5%*[6/23]). [Full player-by-player analysis]
_____________________

Jim Bowery said...

https://files.gab.ai/image/5b4ca652aea6d.png

snorlax said...

216 -

Far from driving out the invaders, Putin has let in millions more invaders than any other European leader, including Merkel. Russia is now 15% Muslim, the highest in Europe. He certainly hasn't driven out decadence either. Thus far his contribution to "liberation" has been to slaughter thousands of white Ukrainians, Georgians and Dutchmen, not to mention all the Russians sacrificed in his cuck-mission to Syria and to crime and degeneracy.

Corvinus said...

White "Sportsball" fans, especially American whites, only want their teams to win championships. They do not care if it is by trades, via the draft, signing free agents...or importing "ringers". And, obviously, you can have both a homeland and sportsball. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

Joe Suber said...

@snorlax: Russia started with a much higher percentage of muslims than any other European country, and shares borders AND Soviet-era economic ties with muslim nations. This 15% you quote seems low given the precursor conditions.

Putin has driven out and pissed off much of Globo-Homo in favor of the Orthodox church.

The Ukrainian situation is a pretty measured Russian response to Hillary's State Department and CIA-funded overthrow of the once-Russia-friendly government in Kiev. The Donbass region has a legitimate beef with Kiev.

Georgia was an in-out operation in defense of his people.

Cuck-mission to Syria? How about a completely successful mission to support his ally Asaad and maintain his naval bases there.

And he is trying to do all this while rebuilding the defense industries under a significant sanctions regime, and keeping his budget fairly well balanced and inflation rate under control. His people enjoy a 13% flat tax any conservative here can only dream of. Russia has increased its gold reserves too.

Feryl said...

"@snorlax: Russia started with a much higher percentage of muslims than any other European country, and shares borders AND Soviet-era economic ties with muslim nations. This 15% you quote seems low given the precursor conditions.

Putin has driven out and pissed off much of Globo-Homo in favor of the Orthodox church.

The Ukrainian situation is a pretty measured Russian response to Hillary's State Department and CIA-funded overthrow of the once-Russia-friendly government in Kiev. The Donbass region has a legitimate beef with Kiev."

Russia is a large country with some ethnic diversity. But it's diversity rooted in the historical intersection of Christian (e.g. more Teutonic) Eastern Europeans, Muslims, and Asians that you see in Central to East Eurasia. It's in the much less historically diverse (e.g. more geographically isolated) regions of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Britain that you see the worst cucking. Although you'd think that the historical efforts of Mediterranean Euros to beat back Muslims would pay more dividends, the reality is that those conflicts are considered ancient history by modern people in SW Europe. It's really only among Slavs that you still see animosity towards aliens. It could well be that post-WW2 guilt has infected all of Western Europe, whereas once commie Russia can't be ridden with guilt over something that they had nothing to do with (in addition, Christian Russkies had already had a long history of dealing with Muslims and Asians in their backyard, and thus didn't buy into Hitler type hysteria about the need to "purify" Russia's dominant ethnic group; imagine how laughable Hitler's psychotic drivel about Jews threatening purely Nordic Germans must've sounded to Slavs.

There's another lesson here, BTW; A country can manage ethnic diversity as long as there's a mutual effort to not step on each other's toes too much. However, a sudden intrusion of diversity (e.g. too many immigrants and invaders), which immediately begins to destabilize any sense of cultural and ethnic continuity, will eventually blow up in the host nation's face.

Had the 1960's not happened in the Western world, Australia and America from about 1930-1960 had developed ways to manage a multi-ethnic society. But that got screwed up by guilt-ridden whites trying too hard to benefit non-whites (at the expense of whites). Instead of a mutually peaceful co-existence, we ended up with whites encouraging hostility towards themselves for a perceived failure to not do enough to fight racism. Of course white people hating themselves sent the message to non-whites that whites did not deserve respect, or even peace and quiet. And thus non-whites began to feel more and more entitled to harass whites. White majorities not defending their co-ethnics has resulted in places like the US, England, and Sweden being over-run with uppity aliens feeding at the white trough.

Looking at various places in various times, it's evident that majority populations cucking towards the existing minority populations, and permitting rapid increases in diversity, are what causes racial unrest.

Feryl said...

Quite possibly a bigger lie than "diversity is a strength", is the notion that America's foreign policy since the early 2000's has not been a complete dumpster fire.

Putin has largely acted to counter the monstrously inept performance of the neo-liberal West in the Middle East and Africa. Putin understands that it's in the best interests of historically white countries to preserve secular and liberal strong men in the MENA, who can maintain some semblance of order in the region. Whereas the Pentagon has made alliances with fascistic maniac Saudi Arabians and Israelis who wish to exert greater control of the MENA to the detriment of the US and Europe.

Saudis and Israelis have repeatedly mucked around in everyone's affairs (the US included), and are never held to account for such. We bury incidents of them hurting us, while we fabricate skullduggery of countries which aren't on the Pentagon's payroll.

There's a local talk show host here who frequently has a Deep State soldier as a guest. It's become unlistenable, as neither speaker will ever question the overall performance of the military and intelligence agencies. We aren't the "good guys" anymore. Certainly older people who buy into the whole we beat the Nazis stuff can still delude themselves. But lord, all's people have to do is read "alternative" media on the internet to understand how fricking stupid our foreign policy has been since GW Bush.

Feryl said...

"Putin has driven out and pissed off much of Globo-Homo in favor of the Orthodox church."

Yes, as a general rule we should support whoever the neo-liberal media is against.

I define "support" as merely leaving them alone. The Pentagon wants to push greater and greater efforts to knock out the leaders of Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Why? The US is in bed with S. Arabia, Israel, and China. Who do you think these countries don't like?

The Saudis, Israelis, and Chinese are often outrageously disrespectful of us (spying on us, funding anti-Western terrorism, stealing our technology, sponging off our military resources, China allowing sweat shop labor practices that under-cut American labor and American made goods, etc.). Yet modern West elites wish to continue to suck up to these slimy bastards by preaching animosity towards these country's rivals.

In addition, the Pentagon has a massive grudge towards those countries which have mostly resisted getting too tight with the Western Deep State. "We" briefly held sway over Iran (in the 1970's) and Russia (in the 1990's), before these countries wised up and told the Pentagon to get lost. And the Pentagon would have the hubris to blame bad leaders of these countries, rather than admit that the populace of many countries (up to and including Iran and Russia) does not want to be tightly bonded with the West. Thus the non-sense about how it's "undemocratic" when countries are ruled by regimes who wish to keep their distance from the West. And it's also "undemocratic" when Western rulers began to heed the call of populism by withdrawing their unconditional support of Reaganite neo-liberalism.

jonathan.sirius.centauri@gmail.com said...

President Macron said today that without the blacks on the team that French Surrender Monkeystan would never have won this year's ball sports thingy. Now back to live action of riots and looting.

This is CNN.

Joe Suber said...

At the risk of mounting of a troll-hill, I must say that without neocon and neoliberal cold-warriors dominating the thought-culture and deep-state, we would be cheering on Putin and teaming up with him against all flavor of hordes. Even the 2% variety. And winning. Maybe even rigging world cup games AGAINST diversity!

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Europeans (expansively including Russians here) aren't going to fight one another ever again!

Yes, sportsball is a masturbatory outlet for the healthy tribalism/in-group preference middle Americans need to start asserting yesterday. For the sake of maintaining my own purity I'll incidentally note that I didn't watch a second of the world cup. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even know where to go to watch it.

And thanks a lot for alerting me to that exploding mohammad's existence. I just wasted ten minutes twattering at him!

Tim and Michael,

I'm too ignorant to comment.

But I should point out that, to the extent that this plays a bit role in future of ourselves and our posterity, it's good that "France" won so that the world could see, on full display, what France has become.

Paul Kersey regularly references how South Africa sold their future for a rugby championship. White men, IT IS NOT WORTH IT! Let's go the East Asian route and let the Sun People win at children's games.

Hail,

Thanks for that. Good to hear from you.

Jim Bowery,

Worth it because we--WE!--won!

Feryl,

And it's also "undemocratic" when Western rulers began to heed the call of populism by withdrawing their unconditional support of Reaganite neoliberalism.

That does a pretty good job explaining the hostility towards Trump's foreign-policy. Trump is, of course, deeply "undemocratic" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean in the context of one world leader dealing with another).

Joe,

The ones who love, love, love to hate Russia!

Wency said...

Correction:
It is not accurate to say Yugoslavia was under the Soviet thumb. Yugoslavia was never really occupied by the Soviets, and Tito broke with Stalin shortly after WW2, later becoming a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Gabriel M said...

@snorlax

I agree that the uncritical worship of Putin on the dissident Right is odd, especially since the central premise (Putin is going to stick it to Israel) is plainly false as well as idiotic. There are plenty of much better badboy rulers around to idolise if that's what you are into. Personally, I like Duterte. On the other hand, I'm inclined - actually rather more than inclined - to the view that while Russia is a shitty country full of drunks and AIDs-infected-junkies, it's less bad under Putin than democracy. Many trends are already positive and the even where it's not things may be improving at the 2nd or 3rd differential.

Specifically regarding Muslims, the Putin's approach to Chechynya is as close to exemplary as you are likely to get (unless you consider extermination to be on the table) and while his commitment to getting hundreds of Russian mercenaries blown up in Syria is excessive, he has mostly been responding to western policy which - since it is explicitly premised on supporting people WHO DON'T EVEN EXIST - is the definition of insane.

Putin's worst crime - by far was blowing up MH17. It's not surprising that his defenders don't mention it much; what I find odder is that his critics never do either, instead it's all 'he kills journalists' this and the gheys that.

Feryl said...

"Europeans (expansively including Russians here) aren't going to fight one another ever again!"


I assume this is a joke, and I'm not sure what prompted that joke.

That being said, it's safe to say that Western Europeans (and their worldwide diaspora) have been at war with each other since the mid-late 1970's. What kind of war, do you wonder? A class war. A war of primarily white and often arrogant aristocrats (and those whose aspire to be among them) against those who desired to maintain the idealistic and equitable culture of the 1930's-1960's.

With every passing year since around 1976, fewer and fewer protections have been given to the vulnerable. And fewer and fewer people have been willing to forgo ostentatious markers of wealth, and the ability to accumulate and hang onto absurd amounts of it, for the sake of maintaining camaraderie and trust in neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces.

The financial crisis of 2007-2011 scared the bejesus out of elites, fearing that a reckoning was at hand for 30 years of negligence. But as we made a superficial recovery, the Left opted to go all in on race and gender politics, lest anyone noticed how abysmal the Left became on economic issues in the Reaganite era. As per the fractious and corrupt climate, most of the current Left buys into hysteria about "xenophobia", as they themselves hurl invective at prole whites who feel under siege economically and culturally.

Feryl said...

What's fascinating is that modern liberal elites are ringing alarm bells about "authoritarianism" and such, even though the anti-Robin Hood values of neo-liberalism have virtually nothing to do with old-school Leftism. Here we are to celebrate the continuing privilege and domination of elites and aspiring elites, who ruthlessly climbed over and spat on those below. Neo-liberalism has resulted in:

1)carnage (school and workplace shootings, colonialist wars, murder by cop)

2) massive and largely unasked for displacement of millions of Westerners (esp. in America) from good jobs (disappearing unions, falling wages and benefits), from their families (high divorce rates), and from the basic element of an equitable society, freedom (mass incarceration on often dubious grounds).

3) A flippant attitude towards moral decay and perversion. Gambling, drugs, promiscuity, etc. even when not legally sanctioned as they often are, still receive the tacit approval of most elites. And here we see something really perverse about the Reaganite era: Reactionary harsh punishment towards proles was permitted as a simultaneous way to superficially protect the public while also feeding into corporate profits (the prison industry mushroomed in the 80's). Yet the elites who produce and market dangerous prescription drugs are not punished. FIRE vultures who habitually defraud and abuse the public are rarely punished. Vice raids targeting establishments and industries which cater to elites, or some group favored by decadent elites (such as gays), have become much less common since the late 70's (folks, the GI generation which generally called the shots before the late 70's was the generation who as middle aged police sergeants/chiefs and politicians directed their subordinates in the 1940's-early 1970's to shut down gay bars, pornography production, and the like). Even the LAPD and SFPD, well into the 70's, were notoriously derisive towards deviants. It was the pressure applied by muh feelings Silents and Boomers, who began to supplant GIs in leadership roles in the late 70's, which resulted in the PC mentality of insisting that almost everyone had an equal right to be treated with deference. Only in cases of outright violent and property crime were people to be judged and punished. We're all the same, ya know? Drug users and non-drug users, gays and straights, men and women etc. You have no right to act as if allowing large numbers of druggies and homosexuals to congregate and mingle for hours on end is a bad thing. They're people too, you know. Just because they accept needles in their veins and/or dozens of penises in their butts doesn't mean that they are inherently.....Damaged. Unclean.

Here also we see that in the advancing stages of the Reaganite era, the diminishing importance of GIs became devastating. In the very late 80's we saw degenerate shit for brains Boomers like Oprah Winfrey preach the gospel of tolerance towards AIDs ridden fags. Acting as if this plague came out of nowhere, as opposed to acknowledging that the political and moral authorities of the day had allowed urban areas to become Sodom-like (the "values" cucks of the day were too busy pressing their suits in the suburbs to bother banding together and pressuring institutions to shut down gay bars and bath houses. Let alone pushing the authorities to quarantine dangerous gays and drug users). The bath houses finally did get shut down in some areas in the later 80's, well after it had become a major problem. But when was the last time that the authorities in any major city shut down a gay bar for the expressed reason that it harbored dangerous perverts? You'd probably have to go back to the early-mid 1970's.

Feryl said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bar

It looks as if teetotalling video gaming Gen X-ers and Millennials are chiefly responsible for shutting down bars, not the Boomer authorities.

When Boomers sowed their oats in the late 60's-80's, bar business (gay or otherwise) soared and many new bars opened. By circa 1990, early Gen X-ers were in college and they weren't partying, drinking, or drugging like Boomers did. Many X-ers would develop greater problems with drugs and booze eventually, but they didn't turn it into a party-hardy lifestyle choice. How could they, when their peers though they were decadent losers? With Millennials, bars are in even greater trouble, since Millennials accentuate the Gen X pattern of not wanting their hedonism to be out in the open and admired by peers. And most Millennials don't do these things "in private", either.

216 said...

Feryl,

Unsure wrt bars and millennials, craft breweries and brewpubs can't be getting by on aging Boomers alone. Once a rarity, they are quite common even in areas like Northeast Ohio that are hardly known for lots of disposable income. What has declined is the small bars popular with the working class, I'd credit that to wage stagnation causing the youth to drink craft beer at home. Wage stagnation/deindustrialization is a lesser known root cause of the "restaurant boom" of the first half of this decade, overeager banks full of helicopter money is another.

I can't imagine anyone harassing a gay bar even over Health Department violations, people fear being called a bigot more than death. When it comes to injecting drugs, the trend is headed towards "safe injection sites". I'd be less hostile to it if the assets of the Sackler family were seized to pay for it via an escrow fund similar to what was done with tobacco.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

216 writing that NATO needed to be abandoned (agree), and that Russia needs to rid Europe of its degeneracy. I assume he meant figuratively through cultural influence or something, but the lame joke on my part was directed at the idea that Russia needed to militarily conquer Europe.

Audacious Epigone said...

Wency,

Fair, I'm not well-versed in the specifics of Yugoslavia's history so I won't dispute that characterization.



Jig Bohnson said...

Bars as a whole are most definitely not on the way out, as brewpubs and other night spots are sprouting like mushrooms and are always packed in every part of the country that I have been to.

What has almost disappeared entirely from the American landscape is the neighborhood working class watering hole. That would definitely be an interesting topic for (quantitative?) investigation, because there are many factors at play, all of which are prevalent in the American working class:
- move from alcohol to harder drugs like opioids and meth
- reduction in disposable income, making the difference between paying $2 for a coors light at a bar vs. $0.79 from the Pony Keg meaningful
- move from socializing outside of the home to video games
- demographic turnover in old downscale neighborhoods (whites out, Hispanics in)
- raising of the drinking age to 21
-

snorlax said...

Gabriel M (1/2) -

I hate (hate!) the term "dissident right" and the like (alt-right, paleoconservative, red piller, identitarian...). We've fallen victim to the spergy tendency to overthink things. The word we should be using to describe ourselves is "conservative." That's what we are, and far more genuinely than others who use the term. It's also a term without negative associations, except to those who despise anything that tilts starboard.

Made-up terms like "alt-right" leave us vulnerable to be tarred by association with the first Richard Spencer who shows up. Moreover, they inherently have a whackjob sound about them. They're the whackjobs, not us. Let's reclaim the word, our word, "conservative" from the preening TrooCons, let them be tarred by association with us for a change, and pretty darn quick they'll cop to being the liberal leftists they are. (A process that's already occurring, but no thanks to any "dissident rightists").

Anyway, disagree that "Putin is going to stick it to Israel" is the central premise behind the conservative affection for him. The motivations are more what I call the Hanoi Jane Fallacy and the Prester John Fallacy.

Us conservatives largely formed our foreign policy views in reaction to the catastrophic errors of the Bush and Obama years. The "bipartisan foreign policy consensus," always insane, now bordered on malevolent. Against this consensus it could get hard to see the shades of gray, and it became a pervasive temptation to assume that because America's foreign policy was stupid and wrong, therefore America's enemies — Russia, Qhaddafiy, Iran, even North Korea — were good. (NB: Just because Kwa'adaffee was a bad actor and America's enemy does not mean it was a good idea to overthrow Ghadaphi!) This is the Hanoi Jane Fallacy.

Whether you've read your Moldbug, or a simultaneous inventor like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or just understand the demographic trends, it's difficult for conservatives to escape the conclusion that there's little hope of resolving our situation by democratic means. So instead we'll need to find some other means. Putin, the vaguely right-of-center, vaguely autocratic ruler of a vaguely Western, vaguely powerful nation, is just the kind of inscrutable figure to whom we can attribute our own views and aspirations. Putin will come to save us! This exact sentiment, the Prester John Fallacy, can be found in this very thread.

I don't believe that even many antisemites think that Putin will directly destroy Israel. Rather their hope is that he'll do so indirectly by backing Iran. This is a good example of the Hanoi Jane Fallacy — it's abundantly clear Iran's rulers desire to destroy America with nuclear fire nearly as much as they do Israel. Certain types have a bit of a murder-suicide complex going on, it seems.

snorlax said...

(2/2) -

Orbán is undemocratic! Bibi is undemocratic! Brexit is undemocratic! That Burma lady used to be democratic, but now she's not! If Hungary or Israel (or for that matter Russia) elect leftist governments, then they'll once again be democracies! Inasmuch as "democracy" means "the Cathedral" then sure, Putin's better than democracy. Low bar. Oft-repeated among conservatives is the claim that Putin is Russia's best leader of the last century. That's setting the bar somewhere in the Marianas Trench, and it's at best debatable whether he clears it: Stalin and Brezhnev had the most foreign policy success, and Khrushchev the most domestic success.

While democracy's a toxic brew, just because some Western influences are poisonous doesn't mean all are. When judging Russia's leadership, I grade on the curve of comparable countries. A country like Poland is vastly better governed than Putin's Russia, even with the millstone of democracy around its neck. (But then Putin's let in millions of Muslims and Poland hasn't so who's to say who's more democratic?) Maybe in the long run Poland will end up worse off, but in the long run we're all dead. And besides, kleptocracy vs. democracy is a false dichotomy if there ever was one.

Putin is also, if not a democratic leader, very much a demotic one. No previous Russian leader cared so much about image and opinion polls. Neither are his elections particularly rigged by global-historical standards. His position is maintained by the strict control of information. No doubt that if every American channel were Fox News, Trump would have an 80 or 90% approval rating too.

The outcome in Chechnya was indeed about as good as one could've hoped for without resorting to Stalinesque measures. But still, allowing the Kadyrov clan to build a massive Russia- and worldwide organized crime network under state protection, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Putin's war in Syria does have a lot to recommend it from a foreigner's perspective, namely realistic and concrete goals. But while it might be good for the world or for Syria, it is extremely cucked from a Russian perspective. Hundreds of dead, tens of billions spent — why? Some naval base? What are they going to use it for? If any Western leader did that we'd be screaming CUCK! and for good reason. Hell, if Putin wants a naval base so bad I'm sure Israel would give him one in exchange for not supporting Assad, and so would Turkey. Cyprus would probably host the Russian Navy no strings attached.

WRT to US goals in Syria, at least pre-Trump they were a predictable kind of majoritarian fallacy that America always falls victim to. We need to put the Sunnis in charge of Syria, because they're the majority! Put the Shia in charge of Iraq; they're the majority! Put the Pashtuns in charge of Afghanistan; they're the majority! This particular brand of idiocy leads to catastrophic results as seen in e.g. South Vietnam (put the Buddhists in charge; they're the majority!). A ruling minority understands their hold on power is inherently tenuous, so they'll fight like hell to maintain it. See: Syria. Anyway, at least the Trump administration has discarded this dogma and is now backing the actual "moderate rebels" (or close enough), the Kurds.

Agreed that MH17 was really egregious, and it did much to solidify my anti-Putin POV.

Gabriel M said...

@snorlax.

My use of the term dissident right is a reflection of my enduring affection for John Derbyshire, my first gateway drug. However, pushed to defend my use of the term, I will thusly:

By 'dissident right' I include people with ideologies as diverse as Teddy Roosevelt style nationalism, Nazism, fascism, catholic traditionalism and old-style Calvinism, anti-Semitism and Kahanism, agrarian populism and technofuturism, cavaliers and roundheads, Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians, Legitimists Orleanists and Bonapartists and, well, you get the jist. The intellectual diversity on the 'outer right' is a good deal greater than in the rest of the political spectrum put together and the only thing that unites them [is Nick Land a conservative] is that they are right wing and would fail to get a job in any mainstream think tank, political party or media outlet, absent dissembling, so, 'dissident right'.

As to what to call 'ourselves' when speaking normatively or rhetorically, I don't have a good answer, but I don't need one. In the thousands of political conversations I have had I don't think I have ever had to define my political ideology.

Regarding Putin's demotism, it's important to remember that politics is path dependent. Putin had a situation in which democracy fell apart before a mature cathedral system could generate itself. Therefore he could gain solid power by making deals with oligarchs and monopolising the media. A similar situation pertained in Italy after WW1 and that's what Putinism really is, fascism minus the distorting effect of German bullshit and Hitler's personal psychopathy. Experimenting with silly ideologies that you don't actually implement (guild socialism vs. Duginism) and fighting pointless wars in shithole countries is part of the parcel. Now, it's possible to do fascism without the silly stuff, hence Singapore, and that's better of you can pull it off. Hungary might do it, but it's harder.

I like Prester John fallacy.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

The context the labels are embraced is important. Among normies, identifying as "conservative" brings with it all kinds of lazy assumptions you'll have to work actively to correct without eliciting any curiosity from the people your identifying as conservative with. Good luck distinguishing "conservative" from "neoconservative" to anyone who would be put off by the use of a term like "alt right", "dissident right", "neoreactionary", "paleoconservative", etc.

"Alt right" is now approaching a similar point.

"Dissident right" sounds intriguing. Even though it does tend to be on the spergy end of the spectrum, the phrase itself doesn't sound particularly so.

Corvinus said...

"Among normies, identifying as "conservative" brings with it all kinds of lazy assumptions you'll have to work actively to correct without eliciting any curiosity from the people your identifying as conservative with."

So, basically you are advocating the use of propaganda to shape the opinions of normies/the mushy middle because in the end they will not actively investigate the information they are being peddled. Sure, that will work (rolling of eyes).