Consequences of Being Listened To

The Prudentialist

The Prudentialist

Observing the world from a dissident and realist perspective. Musings on culture, politics, and international relations.

I am usually inspired to write primarily from three areas, the first being that of what I see on my drives across rural North Texas, the second being my life experiences from Church to Friendships, and the third being what I read both online and offline.

Today I came across this thread from Pedro L. Gonzalez of Claremont and Chronicles fame. It was an interesting thread to say the least, given Pedro’s position within the American right’s establishment that isn’t neoconservative. I don’t wish to say establishment in a negative context, just that he works within closer machinations of influence and power than I do, after all I merely exist as an amphibious geopolitical commentator on the internet, a man from flyover country who knows that he will not have a seat at the table of power. However, I wanted to take a look at this thread and see if we could get some takeaways that would lead us, the broader right wing in the United States, in a direction that would lead to actual victories not just pressure release valves offering a temporary high.

Prudent Perceptions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

We must begin with the initial claim,

Seems like the dissident right is imploding or drifting because it much of what it has been saying has been integrated into the mainstream right.

Not knowing who Pedro pays specific attention to, outside of where he makes his guest appearances or who he retweets, I operate in the dark on this claim. For starters, the “dissident” space (which I agree with Pedro’s point about labels) has a wide mix of individuals, ranging from Ethno-Nationalists, Christian and Perennial Traditionalists, whatever is left of the Neo-Reactionaries, Third Positionists, and countless other niche groups that can agree on a few things but not much else. The Nationalist and Ethno-Nationalist spaces over the last few years have seen in-fighting with regards to things like covid, the WEF, and more, but I may be speaking from a much smaller sample size given how social media platforms and personalities can often suck much of the discursive oxygen from a topic. I perhaps don’t see the “implosion” on the part that I may not be able to view it from his more institutional lens, as everyone from Tucker Carlson’s writers and producers to Claremont Fellows follow many of us and who we interact with.

Mr. Gonzalez (I say Mr. out of respect, not condescension) acknowledges the fact that many on the Dissident Right—perhaps a nicer word since Gottfried’s original “Alternative Right” has been turned into a boogeyman and relatively dead grouping/label—have seen much absorption into the mainstream. Whether it’s The Great Replacement, Anarcho-Tyranny, the issues with our current economic system, and the managerial state, they’ve gone pretty mainstream and are being floated to individuals who are not right wing to some degree of success. Yes, people are listening, and Mr. Gonzalez is looking to see where the seen might “evolve” from here on out. A very good question as there is an unfathomable amount of work to be done even from this point on. I do have to chuckle about the issue of infighting from what I mentioned earlier, as he notes;

I’m not sure what happens next, but there will probably be territorial fights over who the “real dissidents” are.

as if that doesn’t happen all the time on twitter, telegram, or youtube regularly. While I’m certainly no fan of the term “dissident right” despite being called that, Pedro has a point on the issue of where we go from here (at least in an American sense of the question).

He’s right to call out the issue of “Notice and Move On” which many have criticized him, other fellows like Auron MacIntyre, and even myself to some degree of engaging in. We do an awful lot of that, pointing things out and moving on to the next thing to point out. Although for many of us, again myself included, we are not in a position aside from the local politics to do much but that with regards to a national conversation. I was surprised as hell when I found myself tagged in a tweet by Jeremy Carl, a senior Claremont Fellow, thanking me alongside much more influential people than myself for helping in terms of inspiring his reply to Curtis Yarvin’s “You Can Only Lose the Culture War.”

As this quick bit of right-wing pontification comes to a close, Mr. Gonzalez notes the importance of change. Essentially the question, “well, now what?” Many of our issues are being addressed, so where are we to go? After all, we are going to go into our areas of interest, whether that be culture, religion, race, or foreign policy. He has a valid point about the issue of doing more of what Chris Rufo and others do on getting things banned, but one of the few things out of Yarvin’s brain that is true is the subject of the institution itself and how it can manipulate procedural outcomes to get a desired result. What good is a ban or using power to fight back against bad institutions if the regime can change the definition of a woman, recession, or justice overnight? Mind you that comes with several decades of a long march through the institutions, but that level of power still stands.

Yet he ends with a call many have been pondering, for a while, which is how do we go above noticing and moving on? From there though, the replies offer the interesting points, many of which remain to be seen. My good friend Charlemagne, a man who helped make Yarvin’s “neoreactionary” ideas more accessible on YouTube, has made the excellent observation that the goal at this point would be to keep pushing the discourse further to the right. The Tucker-Yarvin interview, the appeal to the left whether with Dimes Square Art Folks or the TYT appearance, what would be called “NRx” or “DR” has been co-opted to some degree for the mainstream.

Something of which Pedro points out:

The goal at this point would be to keep pushing the Overton Window to the right. For instance, I’m aware of the fact that at least one (and probably more) Claremont fellows have read Spandrell’s blog and are aware of Bioleninism. Great! That’s a step in an amazing direction, but we can do better.

Quite a few more established and well known poasters/personalities have made excellent points in the replies.

I agree that both of these are true, especially as I call for continuing to push the mainstream right, especially Claremont fellows, Thiel-Types, etc. further. However, doing so does run the course and risk of running roughshod into reality. Clearly every time someone does an “early life” check section on Wikipedia or talks about the innate problems of our elite class operating on ethnic preferences like tech CEOs or having Unions focus on firing Whites first, things will get watered down into the milieu of breaking into the mainstream consciousness. To acknowledge that there is a clear ethnic animus would be stating the obvious. As it seems to many on the DR, those who aren’t that close to the influences or levers of power that really who is allowed to speak on the behalf of the DR’s talking points or those who adhere to these ideas (mainly White men) are being represented by those who don’t look like them. For instance, no White man would have survived the accusation of antisemitism in the way that Pedro did earlier this year against Mr. Murray and Bari Weiss. In fact, I recall on a stream that I was a guest on with Auron MacIntyre, this very same question was asked, and even Auron, who (for the sake of being the boomer whisperer) doesn’t talk about race, had agreed on that question.

I know that there are mainstream “no-no” topics that often get watered down or ignored due to the lack of good optics around them or the difficulty in selling hard facts to the brewing counter-elite that’s out there. A valid goal would be to make those more and more palatable to that crowd, after all, the great replacement is still happening, they’re still castrating children, and anti-White crime is legalized de facto and in some places de jure. I know that listing these things makes me sound like an Ethno-Nationalist. I have said before on countless streams and appearances that I’m not, but I’m sure you’re looking for a way to write me off somehow. However, I would note that the last time that a bunch of disaffected White guys found personalities in a massive and popular fashion (not to mention with algorithmic boosting in an effort to “deradicalize”) that Jordan Peterson was still labeled as a fascist and was pushed to find comfort against woke moralists by taking a steady check at the safe and not radical The Daily Wire. The point that I am trying to make is that the DR, in whatever iteration or realignment that may come on the issues of today and tomorrow, must continue to push things as far to the right as possible while working with methods that are being field-tested right now (Rufo being a prominent example) on how to make those victories actually victories rather than procedural kabuki theatre. For many on the DR, and the far-right in general who get their tweets and takes read by Tucker Carlson’s producers, Claremont, or other influential political operatives, the idea of victory for us anons, semi-anons, and just plain “facefags” who want something better may not be palatable to everyone, but we earnestly believe it has to go in a direction that’s beyond what’s currently happening.

However, the DR, and whatever it may become, will still have many commentators, thinkers, and most importantly anons speaking about the uncomfortable and unpleasant topics, finding ways to move the country away from the oligarchy in democratic veneers. It will, for the most part, continue to be a wide array of decentralized networks of personalities trying to get these ideas past the chattering classes and consumers in order to help move things in a direction that isn’t headed toward disaster and ruin. Cthulhu doesn’t always swim left, actually, and more work must be done to reverse the current or to at least change it in a direction where we aren’t heading towards zombie apocalypse. Astral’s point in the previous image however is correct, what must be done in regard to actually making the US a more viable place to live and govern both at home and abroad will most likely not be done by the likes of those who read our ideas.

As a modest conclusion to this written stream of consciousness, yes, many of the Dissident Right are being listened to. Is it a good thing? Yes, things that are being talked about five years ago that would have gotten us banned, kicked out of events, and disparaged by more public personalities are now their talking points. Does this run the risk of having ideas contained or co-opted, and turned into controlled opposition as it has before? Also yes, which is why I find it important to both keep pushing the Overton Window rightward but also to take meaningful steps in our understanding of power to make longstanding victories. There will always be a commentary class, but many of us are itching to do more, and that’s definitely a good thing.

But what the hell do I know? I don’t know the rich and powerful. I live in flyover country. I am the Volscians that Yarvin writes about, individuals that are “dangerous” to be around the levers of power. I don’t get the meme-able Thiel-bux; I don’t write for Claremont, nor do I work for any three-letter agency in the US that glows. I am merely someone outside whatever is actually going on.

But, I do know that there is a lot of potential energy for something better, and to borrow a lefty term, it’s time to start doing the work.