Biden Crime Family

[Immanuel Can]

No, my claim is that they have such limited range as to be nothing close to the "danger" that the Left would like us to believe they are. And you're pretty much making that obvious. You're having to work very, very hard at helping locate these "Dissidents," whereas I can rattle off dozens of major media outlets, government departments, academic departments, publishers, and so forth that are supporting the extreme Left.

I am not concerned in what I write, or think about, or read, with what The Left thinks or how it frames those it opposes.

I am. And that was what I was questioning.

...the ideas of the Dissident Right are broadly excluded from the domains that you have listed.

That's precisely my point. The DR aren't even in the public eye. There's no way they're a "danger" to anybody, at least not on a level that would justify the kind of panic-and-hatred rhetoric that the Left is generating right now.

The Left's real problem is the lack of a credible threat from the "Alt-Right." That's because the Left is effective only in opposition, and immediately terrible when they win and become the incumbent or status quo. They have no ideas, cannot build anything, have insane economic views...but whining and protesting is easy. So they constantly need something to protest -- and if there were a credible threat from some sizeable opposition, they would have the straw man they need to justify their own rhetoric.

But they don't have it. If the DR are even potentially a threat, they're not presently or actually one. So the Left finds itself in effective possession of the whole field of public opinion, but with no ideas of where to go from here. So they have to invent an enemy, in order to keep going.

But should we buy what they're trying to sell? It seems unreasonable to do so, unless they can show there's a credible threat from some substantial kind of ideologically unified and dangerous DR, something comparable to Socialism/Wokism/Leftism...which I don't think they can. The public is generally neither aware of, or interested in the activities of the putative DR. That much seems rather obvious, as much as it might gall the DR. They're not winning the PR war. They're not even really in the game. And that turns out to be a PR problem for both the DR and the Left, it seems.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I love those old wood prints! Here, we see the ass's rear exit-point as well as his notable aural receptors.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you help me here?

Apparently not. You seem determined to take topics off in some wild direction, and then you foray into some lengthy monologue about something only you are interested in, and you claim the right to do that, and then you become miffed when anybody tries to stay on track with the topic they actually introduced.

What will fix that? I don't know. Maybe staying on topic, or common sense or basic politeness? It doesn't seem a high bar for anybody to set for you. Why you can't seem to clear it, I just can't imagine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why on earth did you choose that article, then?

Because I am interested in the topical. How many times have I said this? I believe it is good for us (we-plural, people, those in opposed camps) to read and understand how others see and frame things.

The Economist is economic Libertarian if memory serves. But their ideal, their object, is in so many ways what regions and regional peoples are opposing. What is “dangerous” for that objective is certainly the sort of dissident Right tending ideas generally, and the Dissident Right specifically.

Unlike you, apparently, and because I have read their essays and articles, I do not regard the Dissident Right as non-dangerous. But I do not say that for the same reasons as The Left says they are very dangerous and wicked.

An article from The Economist is one reference-point. Others are also possible.

[Immanuel Can]

The Economist is economic Libertarian if memory serves.

Not really. It's much more pro-Left these days than in past. It's leaning very globalist, for one thing. For another, it's really inclined to pick sides in elections, rather than simply reporting progress of all parties in an equitable way. (My wife has a subscription, so I can tell you that first hand.) Like all recent journalism, it seems to have abandoned completely any pretext of impartiality or of just providing neutral information.

What is “dangerous” for that objective is certainly the sort of dissident Right tending ideas generally, and the Dissident Right specifically.

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

Describe how that process we are supposed to understand as "dangerous" would work, so we know whether or not we should fear it. How does this obscure "Alt-Right," as it was originally dubbed, move from where it is in obscurity to being some kind of general national threat?

[Gary Childress]

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

Describe how that process we are supposed to understand as "dangerous" would work, so we know whether or not we should fear it. How does this obscure "Alt-Right," as it was originally dubbed, move from where it is in obscurity to being some kind of general national threat?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Seek those answers from those who have that interest and concern, my Long-Eared friend.

My interest and concern is only as I have stated.

You mention A WIFE.

WTF?!?

[Gary Childress]

BTW, thank you IC. I feel indebted to you now.

[Gary Childress]

Seek those answers from those who have that interest and concern, my Long-Eared friend.

My interest and concern is only as I have stated.

You mention A WIFE.

WTF?!?

Maybe you should seek some answers from those who are concerned with the DR too? Just a random thought that popped out of my head. Maybe it's best to pay it no mind?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Though I am not sure it is wise to underestimate the creature . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

Maybe you should seek some answers from those who are concerned with the DR too? Just a random thought that popped out of my head. Maybe it's best to pay it no mind?

Say more. What questions would I ask?

[Gary Childress]

Though I am not sure it is wise to underestimate the creature . . .

Maybe "donkeys" have "big pointy teeth" too? Guess it's best not to underestimate donkeys anymore? ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

Maybe you should seek some answers from those who are concerned with the DR too? Just a random thought that popped out of my head. Maybe it's best to pay it no mind?

Say more. What questions would I ask?

Ask them why they fear the dissident right. Do you not fear the dissident right?

[Immanuel Can]

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

Describe how that process we are supposed to understand as "dangerous" would work, so we know whether or not we should fear it. How does this obscure "Alt-Right," as it was originally dubbed, move from where it is in obscurity to being some kind of general national threat?

Seek those answers from those who have that interest and concern...

There was never any other question of concern, at the moment. If you were uninterested in making the case for an "Alt-Right" "danger," then there was no point in you speaking up in the first place.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

In my view? It is that the liberalism that we have all lived under, and prospered under, might not be sufficiently appreciated by those filled with zealousness for change. [You insufferable moron, Immanuel, you know this.] Eventually, or so it seems to me (I could be wrong and everything is hopeless), there will arise a significant reaction against (what I term) hyper-liberalism. It will involve right-tending reaction. It has already shown itself (and this is something I applaud). Though I must be aware that often -- perhaps I can say *in life* -- reaction can have an element of retribution. Reaction is always dangerous.

Note that I did not say anything such as the DR would, or could, *rise up* -- that is all your mishegoss.

I cannot engage with your questions because they are not enough ones that interest or concern me much.

I can say that my impression, reading numerous DR writers, is of a certain reactive lack of restraint. Something immature and as I say unrestrained. Frankly (and I deliberately pay attention to this stuff) there is very large movement of those who are concerned about the JQ (the Jewish Question). I have never seen so much discussion and forwarding of somewhat half-baked opinions, as for example in the comments sections of Unz Review and other channels and forums.

Note that I (personally) believe that it is good and necessary to examine carefully, and to reject, Jewish hallucinations about a God ruling over history, determining history, edging the world toward a destructive apocalypse, and all the rest of this sheer madness, however I certainly do not advocate for unreasoned, or violent, reaction. So it is more that I note that there is a tendency when reaction becomes empowered to lose sigh of the sensible mean. In this sense these ideas, which are extremely Jewish, are not only bizarre but also sick in their unique way.

The very idea of a Chosen People who are in an eternal war against Amalek is a very very strange idea when one gets to a point where the hallucinated platform is critically questioned. [However, you are deeply involved in the same thing, essentially, with your extremely weird and hallucinatory 'pictures' that you live in and through, so you are not one in a position to do critical work].

I would advise you to review the video I presented which present only a Jewish Orthodox understanding of the Jewish Mission. It is really really bizarre to observe men so captured, so dedicated to, hallucinated irreality.

However, my point is that I encounter many people who do not have enough of a foundation in a capacity to carefully and not irresponsibly reason, and I certainly fear what irrational action they might take.

There you have one reference to a 'danger' I recognize.

Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

Can't say that I see that (immediately) on any horizon I am aware of. But I do note that numerous Dissident Right writers propose a sort of reverse-Gramscian strategy. To *retake* the "institutions".

But again you are off on your deranged-lite tangents