This is excellent but I really wish the DR would come up with better language around the word “liberalism”.

If you accept that historical (or classical) liberalism has been infiltrated and twisted by Marxist progressives, then it’s sort of doing their work for them to continue using the word without qualification. I would suggest calling it “progressive liberalism” to distinguish from classical “actual liberalism” but I’m hardly a world class wordsmith.

This is further important because a project to replace liberalism in the West will not likely succeed… so therefore liberalism must be purified instead. The post-liberal right commentators seem to always think they will be in the new aristocracy come the revolution, which is a bit like the tankies who think that -their- post revolution job is going to be poet. It’s a little delusional and it’s not a compelling pitch to the public.

But something between 1920s and 1950s US liberalism is a workable starting point. Surely.

Expand full comment

It appears to me that "classical" liberalism always devolves in to progressivism of some point. The whole point of liberalism is to destroy the institutions that would keep progressivism at bay.

Expand full comment

The institutions that 'would keep progressivism at bay' do not seem to do that. Any institute that is big and in the west must adhere. Or rather, what would be these institutions? Because the catholic church does not seem to keep them at bay, they seem to encourage it instead.

Expand full comment

I would say an entrenched and explicit elite.

Expand full comment

Ideologies cannot have goals or objectives or schemes nor can they seek to destroy or create, so I ignored that moronic comment, but you make a good point: Why would we want to preserve institutions that are notorious havens for nonces?

Expand full comment

Moronic seems a little harsh. Why can't [adherents of ideologies] have goals? That doesn't make sense.

Expand full comment

An ideology without a goal is just intellectual fapping.

Expand full comment

The left run training courses in how to infiltrate and absorb institutions. The only way to prevent that is to explicitly exclude the left, which isn't a simple task.

Expand full comment

The question then is what parts of classical liberalism make it devolve in progressivism. For those are the parts that we must excise. I would simply think the parts that feel lefty(egalitarian, altruistic, socially constructivist) are those that should be excised.

Expand full comment

The question is does classical liberalism need the tenets that devolve into progressivism? Like libertarianism does not need the NAP(it needs it to appeal to pacifist modern morals, turn the cheek n all), I doubt classical liberalism needs its lefty tenets, well it needs it to be acceptable to progies. Just like Christianity now needs to love everyone and especially the gay to adapt to the current moral environment.

Expand full comment

The ugly truth I think that all of us are having difficulty facing up to is the free speech tennet of classical liberalism from say John Staurt Mill is the crack of the door that leads all the degenerate evil in. If you had asked me as recently as a couple of months ago I would have said I was a free speech absolutist and that free speech for Angela Davis gaurantees free speech for the dissident right. But ultimately all this freedom is leading to such horrible outcomes (like pedo next as a sexual orientation) that I seriously think we need to have a hard headed realist discussion of whether free speech is progressive liberalisms terrible secret weapon from which all the other bad things follow. Free speech for ones political enemies dulls the friend enemy distinction in a potentially disasterous way.

Expand full comment

There is no ‘always’ in reference historical events, all of which occur under unique circumstances, rather like crimes, which is why applying a universal standard is absurd.

Expand full comment

Yeah but there are plenty similarities between these "unique circumstances".

Expand full comment

Fine. Go read After Virtue by MacIntyre, he gives the most thorough and exquisite situating of the relevant particulars.

Expand full comment
Jun 28, 2022·edited Jun 28, 2022

No. When you're at the point that society is actively and proudly conditioning children to mutilate themselves and engage in degenerate sexual lifestyles and standing on the abyss of normalizing child prostitution and infanticide, there is no going back to some perceived moment in time within a societal order (liberal or otherwise) as a fix. It must be stamped out root and branch, thoroughly. I mean thoroughly. Which is a hard pill to swallow and will not be pretty, but is necessary.

Expand full comment

Society isn't. The left is. Until you identify that is the case and that the vast majority of society finds it abhorent you will keep losing.

And why would you find the extermination of paedophilia and child mutilation "a hard pill to swallow" ? I certainly wouldn't.

Expand full comment

Meh classical liberalism suffers from two flaws:

1. It has no moral framework to judge actions as long as they are consensual and voluntary. This means there is literally no mechanism for excluding communists and sexual deviants. So just like progressive liberalism the end game of classical liberalism is drag queen story hour.

2. The economic reductionism of many "classical liberals" who are really Austrian economics zealots leaves out much that gives life meaning like religion, family, community, wilderness areas to hike in etc. To the economic reductionist a strip mall with fast food joints and costume shops that cater to drag queens is equally as valid a use of space as a community with deep roots like 200 hundred year old churches, intact families, pleasant common areas for a picnic, etc, etc.

So no I 100 percent reject your assertion any form of liberalism is salvageable.

Expand full comment

I would go a step further on your first flaw: classical liberalism entirely lacks "kompetenz-kompetenz".

If you have any other ideology, good or bad, there is a "goal". Take Soviet-style communism, for instance. There was some sort of idea about people having jobs, having free time, being able to engage in the arts and so on.

Obviously, this did not take place. But there was an idea, and a goal. And it's for this reason we can say that communism "failed": The (supposed) goal was to secure better conditions for the workers, but actually the capitalist West did a better job at this.

How are we to apply this to liberalism, or any such system where the idea of "private property" is the supreme good?

Either the goal is, like, economic growth and stuff. But then, private property obviously has to be subordinate to that. In that case, all the stuff that liberalism supposedly believes in ("economic freedom") is really just instrumental and not a core belief, and can thus be cast out to meet other goals.

Alternatively, the goal is really just that - "the freedom of people to engage in voluntary transactions within the economy," or whatever gibberish you like. But this value, by virtue of being the supreme value, can never justify itself. (As such, we should bully libs whenever they attempt to - it should to them be as self-evident as "people should have families" is to us)

In other words, liberalism is (nearly) unique among ideologies, in that it can't really be judged according to its own standard, but merely an external one:

- Communism failed, because it was actually worse for industrial workers

- German national socialism failed, because it lost the war

- Italian fascism failed, because it de jure abolished itself in favor of democracy

- Liberalism succeeded because ... it did liberalism?

The only similar ideology in this regard I can think of would be feminism, which goes something like:

- We ought to give women more rights

- This cuts birth rates and eventually destroys society

- Yeah, OK, but we still ought to give women more rights

If the premise equals the conclusion, then no intellectual work ("reasoning") has actually taken place, and therefore nothing of value exists.

Expand full comment

I don't think anyone disagrees that the new direction factions in the DR seek to bring about must acknowledge and respond to liberalism, but I find this differentiation rather pointless, in most cases, and potentially stunting when we really need to go beyond the shortcomings of liberalism itself.

While there is a shift in thinking in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among liberal thinkers, the presuppositions which led there were present from the start. Take Locke's and Hobbe's points about "man in nature" or the "state of nature" as examples. You can't start a theory by declaring that the sky is green and not run into problems, even if everything else in that theory is solid.

Also I have to object to theory that people in this movement think they will be aristocracy after the revolution. I interact with enough to know that most of them just want to own a plot of land in the countryside. No grand politics, no great philosophizing, just growing some crops and planting fruits in their homestead near a village or town.

Unfortunate or not, there is no re-creating a past state in the manner you describe, to recreate it would be to slide down in the same direction it took. We won't even be able to really predict or plan out the next system as much as we want, it will come through the events of the next few decades. Elements of liberalism may or may not appear in this next system or systems, but I doubt anyone will bother purifying it.

The only thing the public needs to feel about the current order is "there must be something better than this", that's all the sentiment we need to gain control and apply something different.

Expand full comment

Not "progressive" fgs, that is a left phrase

Expand full comment

Whatever happens I sincerely wish the term "liberal" would disappear as progressives are deeply illiberal. While I personally like "demoralised leftbot", which is a mix of various tropes, I think a more formal term is needed.

As usual, perhaps we can to look to leftoid projection and simply mirror whatever accusations they loudly direct at anyone who fails to confirm.

Expand full comment

This strikes me as a highly productive line of thinking, although I prefer a model based on the “Wild” West, that is to say to an extent whereby vigilantism is the default means of conflict resolution (as opposed to snitching to the nanny state), which would result in a swift eradication of the elements will can all agree are undesirable.

Expand full comment

Sounds exciting at first glance but I wonder if such a society would be stable enough to support a symphony orchestra? If we are going to restore a virtuous western culture it also needs to be a high culture IMO. Switching out one debased culture for another really isn't an upgrade.

Expand full comment

Very based, I hope to get really buff and have a bar fight with AA one day.

Expand full comment

I’ve nearly finished reading The Populist Delusion. My only criticism at this point is that the book should probably be twice as big. Well done. I hope you continue to publish.

Expand full comment

pretty cozy list AA

I don't agree about democracy though. The people's will is righteous and anti-elite. It's the manifestation of Clear Them Out.

We simply need a pure enough, great people to put democracy in practice, that is all.

Democracy can be explicitly illiberal. Liberal democracy is simply a manifestation of Westernoid idealism and elite driven.

Expand full comment

Well done AA. Although I think our current dire straits are due to a natural cycle of corruption rather than any particular system. We are in a period of senescence, and it is time for us to rebuild our leadership, and rekindle our civilization. Will you be our Hari Seldon?

Expand full comment

“Yes, he [AA] vigorously chops off what is rotten. He chops off what is slated for destruction. If he didn’t do this, he would not be a Leninist.”

Expand full comment

Based. American Caesar when? When can I stand rank and file in his legion of autistic nazi bodybuilder schizophrenics?

Expand full comment

Honestly leftists like you are just pathetic all you have is grade school level insults. I miss the left who read books and could have an interesting discussion on Max Stirners egoism v.s. Marx's critique of Stirner in the German ideology. Or leftisrs who could talk intelligently about Georgism and who knew what usufruct homesteading meant.

Now all you have is "you are a bad Nazi because current year and you don't want abortion clinics in National Parks" I have talked to modern young gay leftists who don't know who Andy Warhol is, how is that even possible? Social media eroded your minds amazinfly quickly, I remember some of the above more intelligent conversations from as recently as ten years ago.

BTW thanks to AA for letting us free loader people reading for free to be allowed to post, very kind.

Expand full comment

Are you ok mate? Im being 100% sincere. Democracy out. Fascism in.

Expand full comment

Maybe don't call your supposed comrades autistic and schizophrenic?? Just a thought.

Expand full comment

I am an autistic nazi bodybuilder. You wanna make something of it, mate?

Expand full comment

Well I am not a national socialist. That is a dead ideology, I am not into gassing Jehovah's witnesses and college professors.

If you are into edgy Fed posting you'd probably be better off on 8 chan or Daily Stormer. This is a rather more elite and dare I say academic venue. I am not scared or offended BTW I am just telling you most here will ignore Fed posts when we want to talk about big boy tooics like is liberalism dead.

Expand full comment

I will also add I am a heavily armed American who lives in a state with castle doctrine and I live on a large piece of rural land. If anyone comes on my land with aggressive intent I can quadruple tap them before they get within a 100 yards of my door. So if you think you intimidated me that would be no.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

I, personally, cannot improve upon your top ten.

Excellent! You nailed it.

Expand full comment

I would actually argue against several of these.

1. Progressivism, is the belief that we evolve towards the good. I would actually agree, and I will place our collective and accelerating turn towards Tradition, classical philosophy and spirituality as proof of that. The hegelian dialectical process, or whiteheads process and reality.

The irony here. Is that "Progressives " in reality aim to stop history here, while engaging in ever more cringe "advances", which doesn't so much prove that they are evil as point towards their fruit having passed it's prime. Thus the engage in activities which force a reaction which will provide the next opening of an horizon

2. Since theybare not evil, only misguided there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can be reactionary without being reactive. Gains provided by liberalism, such as the concept of rule of law, enshrined indivual rights and also the very concept of the individual can be safeguarded.

3. What is called progress today is nothing more than decay, yes. But to point towards ideology as the cause of that decline is stupid. Ideologies are nothing but a cover over material realities. Degeneration is a result of material conditions. In this case, mostly overcrowded cities progressing towards dystopian hellscapes.

Our love affair with mechanical technology and urbanisation are root causes here. In real terms we tend to define progress as "mechanical advances", and the secondary definition as "increased human rights" is an effect of the first.

4, 5, 6, 7.

Our institutions allow for a steady replacement of our current elites with new people who will be able to slowly turn the ship of state towards more stable waters. A revolution is a leftist dream and should never be advocated.

Or put more bluntly, we are winning a lot of terrain here. The upcoming American midterms will probably see several representatives reach the congress who share our values. The presidency itself is very likely in a few electoral cycles, say 8-12 years.

This slow and steady change of leadership and direction is provided thanks to "Liberal institutions, democracy and the party system ".

Your only real critique here is one of impatience. Do I need to remind you that patience is a virtue?

The rest of your points are irrelevant, but your reading list is excellent.

Expand full comment

Degeneration is a result of material conditions? Marxist detected.

Expand full comment

I can formulate it differently if you wish: by not following the right path, that one set by the Gods, the Rta. Our dharma becomes burdensome and we fall ever deeper into error.

We have abandoned the way of life the Gods set for us, and we suffer this inverted and degenerate cascade of systematic failures, condemned by original sin, us leaving the Garden and the way of life of the first men. All since is but nothing but the devolution where we have fallen ever further away from the good, the beautiful and the true.

One of the key factors, the one I point to in my previous adress, is the one about population densities, that is the biological pressure each human excerses upon itself habitat as a biological organism. All species share in common that enclosure and a too high population lead to aberrant behaviours, such as homosexual behaviour, internal predation and chaotic and disordered group dynamics.

Expand full comment

Now you are just prevaricating. That is not at all what you said above, you clearly said "material conditions," own what you said.

Expand full comment

I do own it. "Material conditions" do not exist in a vacuum nor are economic models of production the only viable interpretation of material conditions here as it would be in a marxist analytical framework. After all, objective realities, ie material conditions is the only thing we can look at as it is the only thing which exists.

So looking at objective realities, ie material conditions, and saying that these have a determinating effect on an outcome I am in no way engaging in leftist "theory", and especially not post modern theory.

Expand full comment

Your bare assertion of:

"After all, objective realities, ie material conditions is the only thing we can look at as it is the only thing which exists. "

is no proof that is in fact the case.

Even in the hard sciences such as particle physics they have moved beyond this clockwork model of discrete particles interacting to a view which emphasizes pattern and relationship between particles/energy which is in a perpetual Hericlitin flux.

Above and beyond that the rapid real time breakdown we see of liberal materialiist socities is a strong indication that the materialist world view does not provide sufficent meaning to promote the stable society necessary for human flourishing.

TL;DR start learning to pray because the end of the unipolar world order based around the hegemony of liberalism and materialism won't be pretty.

Expand full comment

I use "existance" in a very strict sense as only those things which have loci, that is have coordinates in timespace, particularities.

These relationships you mentio don't "exist" in that the ontological sense. They are "Potentialites", in Greek Dynamis or in Norse Kraft. Just like the numbers they ARE on a higher ontological plane than the temporary things they emanate.

Like the Gods, these powers don't exist, they are. The reason you cannot see the Gods isn't that they are hidden behind the couch it is because they are antecedent of the things which exist.

Which also means that the Gods are not objects. They are therefor not Objective manifested Realities (ie, Energia) but unmanifested potentialities (Dynamis) which cause through the participation of the active intellect the "real, sensible world of physis" to actualise.

Said actuality is then what we refer to when we talk about objective reality, the sensible. That which we can see. That which has existance (in greek, loci). That which is "real", actual, instantiated, verklich, energia.

But of course this doesn't in any way shape of form deny the power (dynamis) of the Gods, a crime for which Socrates was unjustly sentenced to death by his inferiors.

Please don't mistake me for a liberal atheist and materialist. I'm a neoplatonist Pagan/heathen with a deep interest in theology. Because I only keep to those ideas who hold up to the most rigorous scrutiny, and materialsm doesn't.

Expand full comment

Ahh, back when the DR may or may not have actually existed.

Expand full comment

All true.

Now what are we going to do about it?

Expand full comment

You have left Edmund Burke off your list of writers who influence the Dissident Right.

Expand full comment

Social media is great at distinguishing those that are something, and those that are trying to be something. This comments section is rife with those who are trying ever so hard to be

Expand full comment

Your point about the need for a renewed spirituality stuck out to me.

I suppose the turn to Catholicism and Christian Identity proves your point.

But no real interest in the actual study of religion or applied spiritual has occurred to my knowledge. I wish that we could have that conversation, but I just don't see it on Gab, Twitter or 4chan. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places though.

Expand full comment

It seems like there's a contradiction between point 5 ("There is no meaningful difference between the establishment parties") and point 8 ("No progressive successes in history are permanent").

Parties aren't set in stone. Like all institutions, they are what you make of them. It's silly for Americans to pin all their hopes on the magic Donald J. Trump, but it'd be an order of magnitude dumber to suggest that there's no difference between him and Jeb! or - as certain take-havers do - to argue that *ackshually*, Jeb Bush would've been better for some incomprehensible theoretical reason.

There's very big gains to be made in hijacking mainstream movements, and by just rejecting party politics as "compromised", you isolate yourself away from society.

Expand full comment

If the Dissident Right believed in the positions of the Dissident Right, they wouldn't be members of the Dissident Right.

The DR convinces people to view Conservatives as tools of the Progressives, but tells people to contain that belief to the domain of political parties. But why wouldn't you extend it to the political philosophies themselves? Why wouldn't you conclude that Conservative ideology is itself a tool serving Progressive ideology? Why wouldn't you conclude that anything Right serves anything Left?

This list of 10 theses is just a list of nags. There's nothing constructive. The Progressives can just take on board all your complaints and then keep on trucking. Want a dictator instead of democracy? The Progressives will pick the dictator. There's no compromising with evil? OK, the Progressives define you as evil so stamp out any opposition. Liberalism is bad? Progressives will be more than happy to enact Communism! Progressivism is evil? Well, Progressives use antiracism to enact racism, equality to enact inequality, and much more; so I'm pretty sure they'll be more than happy to enact Progressivism under the banner of anti-Progressivism! And so on and so forth.

If your 10 theses are correct and the DR is just organised nagging, that implies there's a fundamental structure beneath the Right and the Left which both agree on. If the DR is just nagging then there's a fundamental structure beneath the DR and Progressivism agreed to by both. If that weren't true you'd be trying to push something constructive, but instead you believe that as long as these 10 points are carried out that anything which happens is good! Yet Progressive ideology is compatible with all of them, hence the DR is just a tool of the Progressives.... just as the DR says it is!

The DR is a worldview which, if taken to its logical conclusion, should eat itself alive. The fact that it doesn't should tell you it's just a containment ideology for the Progressives. The DR, and everyone in it, is a Rear Guard Progressive.

The DR is a form of containment. And that's just a fact!

Expand full comment