The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

So you took this scientifically based survey when? I know that it's BS because most MAGA people can't even spell identitarians.
But the real truth is all those that hate anyone, including those anti-Semitic, on the planet for any particular reason are just ignorant of human differentiation. Because understanding those facts makes us all equal.

No “science-based research”. But years of paying attention, listening and watching.

Most of the “identitarians” I am aware of do not hold to race hatred. But they try to develop an ethical pro-White stance and to get out from under the predominant anti-White stance. Things are often different from how they are portrayed by the media.

Anti-Semitism is a complex topic. Do you ever make Matzo Ball Soup? I used to a lot and want to get back into it. Schmaltz, you know? Wherever you are can you get hold of a box of Manischewitz matzo mix? If yes also pick up sparkling water. It is the mystic key to fabulous matzo balls. Organic chicken and celery. Let’s go!

[Alexiev]

I get it. To some Americans an ideal America is white and Christian.

You know this is a bit tiresome for me: explaining the former America. America BEGAN as a country for "any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen." (the Naturalization Act of 1790).

“This language is found in the first Naturalization Act, passed by the U.S. Congress on March 26, 1790. The act limited naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character."

What you do not get is that with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a demographic reengineering project began, and The New America emerged. Superseding that former America.

My reading of the Dissident Right is quite varied, as is my reading of the ultra-hyper-liberals. I would say that many on the Dissident Right are race-realists but not all are racist or haters of people of different races. They have a very developed, and coherent, discourse about why they have “preferences” (Jared Taylor for example). They are “pro-White” and favor “White well-being”.

Their platforms become problematic when only 60% of the American demographic is now White. In 1965 it was 95% more or less.

One factor is excessive immigration and too rapid demographic change.

I'll grant that I have never read the pro-White intellectuals who favor "white well-being". Nor do I plan to. Based on your description, they sound horrible. I will also grant that some intellectual circles -- like university literature programs that have abandoned the Western Canon -- have gone too far. It is reasonable to expand our literary tastes -- we don't do so by refusing to read and honor the great writers of our own cultural past, who may speak more directly to us than those from other cultures.

Based on your description, it seems that your proponents of the "Dissident Right" are mirroring the left wing's infatuation with identity politics.
Perhaps both groups should emphasize it less stridently.

Of course racism was fashionable in America's past. Did racism lead to slavery, or slavery to racism? Did white people have to invent black inferiority to justify their treatment of slaves? Discrimination often leads to prejudice, although most people think the reverse is more common.

[Alexiev]

I'm sure the MAGA supporters do want to retain their cultural values. Unfortunately, racism and xenophobia are key "markers" for those values. Perhaps it is best that they are not retained.

Your view is too “broad-brush”. There are some open racists (Lana Lokteff of Red Ice Radio for example). But Nick Fuentes follows Catholic Social Doctrine and says that hatred of anyone is contrary to Christian values. You will find that the larger percentage of MAGA people are not “racist” but they are (or begin to be) White identitarians. It is not at all the same.

Do you ever get out of Portland?

Since I don't live in Portland, I am often outside of it.

[Immanuel Can]

You know exactly what I'm talking about.

I do not.
Now, if I were unkind, I'd imagine you were trying to portray the democratically-elected president as Hitler. But that would surely be childish, and to imagine somebody would be that silly would be insulting to their intelligence, so I'd never do that...unless that's what you're telling me to do, in which case, I'd laugh, and then I'd say, 'Isn't it amazing that the people who claim "democracy is being destroyed' are the ones who can't seem to accept the results of a democratic election?"

The current duly elected presidential results was directly proportional to his lying and the ignorance of those that were taken in by it.

Ah, I see...you only believe in democracy when it yields the results you like. Otherwise, you're against it.

I've got the picture.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So you took this scientifically based survey when? I know that it's BS because most MAGA people can't even spell identitarians.
But the real truth is all those that hate anyone, including those anti-Semitic, on the planet for any particular reason are just ignorant of human differentiation. Because understanding those facts makes us all equal.

No “science-based research”. But years of paying attention, listening and watching.

Most of the “identitarians” I am aware of do not hold to race hatred. But they try to develop an ethical pro-White stance and to get out from under the predominant anti-White stance. Things are often different from how they are portrayed by the media.

Anti-Semitism is a complex topic. Do you ever make Matzo Ball Soup? I used to a lot and want to get back into it. Schmaltz, you know? Wherever you are can you get hold of a box of Manischewitz matzo mix? If yes also pick up sparkling water. It is the mystic key to fabulous matzo balls. Organic chicken and celery. Let’s go!

I'm a foodie much to my chagrin, though I've been loosing weight. As far as the soup goes, I'm not really familiar with any recipes that are of Jewish origin. I grew up eating an American diet that wasn't necessarily a rich mans food. Some country dishes because my mom was from the country, and things my dad liked. I'm sure the pork we ate is distasteful even to your minds eye. Actually I'm lucky we never had such rules as it makes making meals much easier. Still I grew up big, strong, and healthy.

Actually the only Manischewitz I've ever had was a wine. It was a long time ago. And you just let me know that the name is also associated with other foods.

Actually my ignorance of the Jewish people is great. All that I know of is Hanukkah, I know what a menorah is but not the significance of it's 9 candles, a yamaka I had to wear once when I was a teenager, I was a pallbearer for a Jewish woman that didn't have much family left, she was buried in a non orthodox cemetery, so we didn't have to place Ivy on her grave. Actually as a kid I liked the orthodox side better because I didn't have to mow those graves. kids! The adult that ran the place didn't trust us kids to prune the Ivy. As a kid I was surprised to learn that Hamburger was actually a Jewish family name, Cohen was easily known due to my knowing of some people in entertainment.

But I've never had anything against any culture or religion. Because I understand religion for what it is, culture, history. Someone that is born to a particular culture usually adopts that cultures belief system, in all it's particulars.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I do not.
Now, if I were unkind, I'd imagine you were trying to portray the democratically-elected president as Hitler. But that would surely be childish, and to imagine somebody would be that silly would be insulting to their intelligence, so I'd never do that...unless that's what you're telling me to do, in which case, I'd laugh, and then I'd say, 'Isn't it amazing that the people who claim "democracy is being destroyed' are the ones who can't seem to accept the results of a democratic election?"

The current duly elected presidential results was directly proportional to his lying and the ignorance of those that were taken in by it.

Ah, I see...you only believe in democracy when it yields the results you like. Otherwise, you're against it.

I've got the picture.

No you don't, I absolutely hate liars, and I saw how he treated a black woman when he was on the Celebrity Apprentice. He made her cry just because he said that she failed him, but it was the demeaning way in which he did so. The guy's a fucktard Period! I wouldn't wipe my dogs ass with his tongue. There's a recording where he says that because he's rich he can walk right up to a woman and grab her pussy. And he set things up so he could run one of the Miss America contests, then purposely walked in on them getting dressed, he's a scumbag. There's rumors that he's screwed his daughter and with his connection with Epstein, I wouldn't doubt it. It's probably how he got his Russian Wife. Then the way he sucks up to Putin, while Ukrainian children die. He was found to deny Black people from being accepted into his rental property, just because they were black. The list goes on an on as to why he's a scumbag. As you said, you're in a different country, it would seem you haven't kept up with US events that's followed his life. That's your problem. I live here and have seen him in the news for many years long before he ever thought about running for president.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The current duly elected presidential results was directly proportional to his lying and the ignorance of those that were taken in by it.

Ah, I see...you only believe in democracy when it yields the results you like. Otherwise, you're against it.

I've got the picture.

No you don't, you're either playing devils advocate, not very smart or you're serving up vindictiveness due to our past encounters.

I absolutely hate liars, and I saw how he treated a black woman when he was on the Celebrity Apprentice. He made her cry just because he said that she failed him, but it was the demeaning way in which he did so. The guy's a fucktard Period! I wouldn't wipe my dogs ass with his tongue. There's a recording where he says that because he's rich he can walk right up to a woman and grab her pussy. And he set things up so he could run one of the Miss America contests, then purposely walked in on them getting dressed, he's a scumbag. There's rumors that he's screwed his daughter and with his connection with Epstein, I wouldn't doubt it. It's probably how he got his Russian Wife. Then the way he sucks up to Putin, while Ukrainian children die. He was found to deny Black people from being accepted into his rental property, just because they were black. The list goes on an on as to why he's a scumbag. As you said, you're in a different country, it would seem you haven't kept up with US events that's followed his life. That's your problem. I live here and have seen him in the news for many years long before he ever thought about running for president.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll grant that I have never read the pro-White intellectuals who favor "white well-being". Nor do I plan to. Based on your description, they sound horrible. I will also grant that some intellectual circles -- like university literature programs that have abandoned the Western Canon -- have gone too far. It is reasonable to expand our literary tastes -- we don't do so by refusing to read and honor the great writers of our own cultural past, who may speak more directly to us than those from other cultures.

I respectfully suggest that your avoidance of reading the works of your opponents and even enemies is a mistake. You (“one”) should always read primary sources so you should not rely on my description or second-hand opinion either.

I will also grant that some intellectual circles -- like university literature programs that have abandoned the Western Canon -- have gone too far.

Some others have taken the gist of what you express here to further points and also read right-tending political and social theory.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually my ignorance of the Jewish people is great. All that I know of is Hanukkah, I know what a menorah is but not the significance of it's 9 candles, a yamaka I had to wear once when I was a teenager, I was a pallbearer for a Jewish woman that didn't have much family left, she was buried in a non orthodox cemetery, so we didn't have to place Ivy on her grave. Actually as a kid I liked the orthodox side better because I didn't have to mow those graves. kids! The adult that ran the place didn't trust us kids to prune the Ivy. As a kid I was surprised to learn that Hamburger was actually a Jewish family name, Cohen was easily known due to my knowing of some people in entertainment.

But I've never had anything against any culture or religion. Because I understand religion for what it is, culture, history. Someone that is born to a particular culture usually adopts that cultures belief system, in all its particulars.

A couple of thoughts. If you are unknowledgeable about Jewish history it will not be hard for you to understand that the same is so for most people. It is curious: Can you (can one) even define what a Jew is? The answer is actually no. And yet to be able to answer that question is really fundamental to understanding something foundational to Occidental culture -- literally to civilization. You may have noticed that lately I have been trying to get people to listen to some of Nick Fuentes' diatribes. Quite literally that is what they are:

diatribe (ˈdaɪəˌtraɪb)
n
a bitter or violent criticism or attack; denunciation
[C16: from Latin diatriba learned debate, from Greek diatribē discourse, pastime, from diatribein to while away, from dia- + tribein to rub]

There are two aspects to his diatribes. One is that they do have a 'learned' aspect. That is, that his views, especially of Jewish and Israeli influence within American policy, is entirely real, accurate and also fair. In my mind there is no doubt about this. It hardly needs to be debated. But to understand Fuentes, and through Fuentes to his overall young, male American audience (but note that he has international reach mostly in the English-speaking world), one must understand that these people do not have a well-rounded understanding of about Jews, Judaism, Jewish history in Europe, and the influence of Hebraism:

3. The culture, spirit, or character of the Hebrew people.
4. Judaism.

Having spent a good deal of time reading and listening to people in this class, I notice a few things. One, they do not have a 'fair' understanding of the intense influence of Hebraic thought on Europe. Two, to the degree that they reject the spirit of Christianity they must concomitantly reject what is essential in Judaism (I prefer Hebraism). To the degree that they reject both Christianity and Judaism is the degree to which they quite literally reject things that are foundational to their own selves: i.e. to the literal construct of personality, outlook, ethics and values. And to the degree that they are severed from these understandings, is also the degree to which they become susceptible to what can fairly and realistically be described as genuine 'antisemitism'. But as I say: antisemitism is a very complex and fraught topic. In no sense is it simple. But here is a curious fact: with the advent of the Nietzschean perspective intellectual Europe did in fact veer toward a resounding condemnation of the Christian matrix. It extends far beyond mere 'belief' (i.e. being a 'believing and practicing Christian). To reject both Hebraism and Christianity is also to reject elements in the very foundation of the European self.

Now, try to make that perspective intelligible to the young Groypers! It is a hard sell. I will offer one reference: Adam Green of Know More News. (He used to have a platform on YouTube but was kicked off and posts in other places, and he is not technically a Groyper because he throughly rejects Christianity and Judaism). I am aware that people who participate here do not follow significant 'influencers' like Green, like Fuentes, like Greg Johnson (Counter-Currents) and I should point out that the real influencers for a great deal that we see in our present have roots not only in Green, Fuentes and Johnson, but in reality in thinkers that are hardly household names and anteceded them. These are the right-tending political theorists whose works are not read and whose ideas are suppressed. The so-called "march through the [Occidental] institutions" is the reason for this.

I try to point out to Alexiev that he must understand his opponents. But as he puts it he resolutely refuses. When you refuse to understand you negate a perspective. And when you negate perspectives you negate people. And people do not react well to this. Fact. Now this becomes problematic, yet interesting, because he (Alexiev) represents here the Hyper-Liberal Academic Establishment that dominates the American university. They are dreamy, idealistic, rather stoned, and quite lopsided. These people are informed by one main current. They are not rounded thinkers. Here on this forum I could reference Flash -- a total reactionary -- but also Gary and numerous others. These are people who have been intensely indoctrinated in one camp of thought. They literally cannot see beyond the parameters of their indoctrination. So, they are unable to understand what is rising around them, politically, socially and also spiritually. They retreat into fortifications of misunderstanding where conversation with others is rendered impossible, because they refuse.

I could develop these ideas even more. I mean I could explain in detail, but not necessarily in negative terms, why Europe rejected Christianity and why the Nietzschean perspective became, allow me to say, necessary. I could present thinkers who offer coherent analysis of what the recovery of pagan being entails, but if I did that I would, quite literally, have to refer to that right-tending political and social theory which in our present is classified as fascistic. And indeed it is. But to speak fairly about the contrast between Liberalism (or hyper-liberalism) and structured right-tending political and social theory is, in fact, a forbidden conversation.

So, when you (when 'one', when 'we') repress viable, significant, defensibly and contrary modes of thought -- this hyper-liberalism certainly does -- it goes underground and festers. And then it erupts. And its eruption is reactionary.

But I've never had anything against any culture or religion. Because I understand religion for what it is, culture, history. Someone that is born to a particular culture usually adopts that cultures belief system, in all its particulars.

Sure, I understand this. But the fact of the matter is that the present issue, the present conflict which is playing out in American culture today and centers around a groundswell of idea and feeling against Israeli and American pro-Zionism ( a highjacked foreign policy), is of tremendous consequence for what I have called 'the Jewish project'. You ("one" "we") cannot understand the relevance of America to the historical Jewish project unless you have studied Jewish history, and thus you cannot understand the function of Israel and, indeed, the profound problem that Israel now presents and represents. A battle is just beginning and it is one of real consequence.

It is a very difficult conversation to broach for numerous reasons. Any conversation on such matters is seen in a very negative light. It is contaminated and radioactive. And it must be understood that no one writing on this forum has any background in these issues to the degree that they can speak with even vague authority on the topic. They would have to be 'educated' and this would take weeks and months of reading.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Based on your description, it seems that your proponents of the "Dissident Right" are mirroring the left wing's infatuation with identity politics. Perhaps both groups should emphasize it less stridently.

In fact you contradict yourself (to a degree). To hold the Western Canon in esteem and to defend it against the onslaught brought against it requires a deep plunge into ideological battles with profound implications in many areas. I ti likely that you are unqualified to have such a conversation because of your established prejudices.

What you call 'infatuation' is actually a morally and ethically defensible defensive posture. You are mistaken that 'identity' should be suppressed, among any people, ever, and if you were to explain your reasons you might find that they are based in activist postures and ones that are quite destructive, indeed anti-human, though they tart themselves up in idealistic costumery. I would not say that all such idealism is negative or bad, in fact a sane posture against excessive identity positions is ethical. But I do suggest that if you were to try to explain or rationalize your ideological positions (that favor your apparent positions) you would wind up in a territory difficult to defend.

Of course racism was fashionable in America's past. Did racism lead to slavery, or slavery to racism? Did white people have to invent black inferiority to justify their treatment of slaves? Discrimination often leads to prejudice, although most people think the reverse is more common.

It was impossible to have seen primitive tribal Africans, without written language and technologically completely inferior to Europeans and Americans, as being anything but 'inferior' in the accurate sense of the word. I.e. on a lower level. So a conversation on the reasons for a slave industry, and about the importation and exploitation of slaves to work in the 'plantations of the White man's will', and thus to have gotten a place in the Americas generally, is a conversation that can hardly be undertaken in our present, simply because it is far too 'hot'.

So a fair conversation on the southern sector of the United States and the way that it both held slaves and also incorporated Africans into the Occident and certainly into "Occidental categories" in all senses, is similarly fraught to the point of impossibility.

[Immanuel Can]

The current duly elected presidential results was directly proportional to his lying and the ignorance of those that were taken in by it.

Ah, I see...you only believe in democracy when it yields the results you like. Otherwise, you're against it.

I've got the picture.

...I saw how he treated a black woman...

I'm sorry -- I'm not seeing what this has to do with the fact that your countrymen elected him by democratic vote...an overwhelming one, as I recall. His opponent didn't make an advance in a single state in the whole US, which really is a record. So whether you like the man or not, or whether he "made a black woman cry" (which you'll find isn't really very hard, be a woman black or white), or whether he had the habits of a Bill Clinton doesn't really have anything to do with the fact of his being elected by your own electoral process. He could be the worst pervert in the history of perverts, and you still elected him.

So again, yeah, I have the picture: if you like the candidate, you're all for democracy. And if you don't, you hate democracy. The only leftover question is whether or not that means you like democratic political procedures at all.

[Alexiev]

Based on your description, it seems that your proponents of the "Dissident Right" are mirroring the left wing's infatuation with identity politics. Perhaps both groups should emphasize it less stridently.

In fact you contradict yourself (to a degree). To hold the Western Canon in esteem and to defend it against the onslaught brought against it requires a deep plunge into ideological battles with profound implications in many areas. I ti likely that you are unqualified to have such a conversation because of your established prejudices.

What you call 'infatuation' is actually a morally and ethically defensible defensive posture. You are mistaken that 'identity' should be suppressed, among any people, ever, and if you were to explain your reasons you might find that they are based in activist postures and ones that are quite destructive, indeed anti-human, though they tart themselves up in idealistic costumery. I would not say that all such idealism is negative or bad, in fact a sane posture against excessive identity positions is ethical. But I do suggest that if you were to try to explain or rationalize your ideological positions (that favor your apparent positions) you would wind up in a territory difficult to defend.

Of course racism was fashionable in America's past. Did racism lead to slavery, or slavery to racism? Did white people have to invent black inferiority to justify their treatment of slaves? Discrimination often leads to prejudice, although most people think the reverse is more common.

It was impossible to have seen primitive tribal Africans, without written language and technologically completely inferior to Europeans and Americans, as being anything but 'inferior' in the accurate sense of the word. I.e. on a lower level. So a conversation on the reasons for a slave industry, and about the importation and exploitation of slaves to work in the 'plantations of the White man's will', and thus to have gotten a place in the Americas generally, is a conversation that can hardly be undertaken in our present, simply because it is far too 'hot'.

So a fair conversation on the southern sector of the United States and the way that it both held slaves and also incorporated Africans into the Occident and certainly into "Occidental categories" in all senses, is similarly fraught to the point of impossibility.

This is all nonsense.

First: Defending the Western Canon does not demand "a deep plunge into ideological battles with profound implications in many areas". Canonical literature is canonical because it is fun to read. IN addition, to understand oneself one must understand one's culture. Of course understanding other cultures can lead to an understanding of the human condition (I have a masters degree in cultural anthropology), so we can learn about ourselves in many ways. Also, one point of the canon is that it creates common ground among educated people from the same culture. I enjoy discussing Shakespeare, or Milton, or Jane Austen. Because the new, multi-cultural canon has yet to be developed and vetted, it is so diverse that this common ground does not exist.

In addition, the tendency to identify works of literature with the "identity" of the author is an example of what critics used to call "the personal heresy". Literature stands on its own. Of course novels or poems or plays are influenced by the personal life of the author, but proponents of the decolonized canon often choose books written by people from minority groups or the third world, but educated in a Western manner. Is this really promoting diversity?

Your racist comments about "primitive tribal Africans" are silly. Slavery was common in the past. It was not based on racial categories in Greece, or Rome, or China. The so-called "primitive" Africans were enslaved not because they were "inferior", but because their lack of Western technology led them to be unable to defend themselves. My suggestion: the slavery preceded the prejudice, and caused it.

Your notion that I "should" read proponents of the "dissident right" is misguided. Why bother? Aren't there more interesting books to read? I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either, and it is certainly an influential work. I have no objection to reading theories with which I disagree or about which I disapprove. But we only live once (unless we are IC). I can think of reading material in which I am more interested.

[Alexis Jacobi]

First: Defending the Western Canon does not demand "a deep plunge into ideological battles with profound implications in many areas".

You misread, or better put you misunderstand. To defend the Western canon was made into an issue of ideology. The attacked canon, and indirectly an attack on the civilization that created that canon, and soecifically the men who created it, required an ideology-based response. Defensive action and ideation. And when those “attacked” did their research what they discovered working against them, seeking to undermine them through guilt-slinging and delegitimization were activist ideological premises.

Canonical literature is canonical because it is fun to read. In addition, to understand oneself one must understand one's culture. Of course understanding other cultures can lead to an understanding of the human condition (I have a masters degree in cultural anthropology), so we can learn about ourselves in many ways.

A silly comment in my view. There is far more to that canon than mere “fun”. Within that canon one discovers our fundamental grounding and foundation. Our selves were constructed and put together through our relationship to it.

Your paragraph reads so much like a saccharine professorial statement. A way to speak to children. I definitely gather you’ve spent much time in university settings.

Also, one point of the canon is that it creates common ground among educated people from the same culture. I enjoy discussing Shakespeare, or Milton, or Jane Austen. Because the new, multi-cultural canon has yet to be developed and vetted, it is so diverse that this common ground does not exist.

You make it sound gamish. A pleasant but rewarding pastime.

The canon — our fundamentals — creates the man who associates with those of his culture and civilization. The ground is what is shared, agreed upon, believed in. The way you put it has it somewhat backward.

You seem to have been largely unaware of the intensity of the cultural, and ideological, struggles. In much of what you write — please don’t take offense — I notice shallowness. You don’t seem to notice the intensity of the cultural battles.

Your notion that I "should" read proponents of the "dissident right" is misguided. Why bother?

You can read what the heck you want. However, if you desire to understand what is going on in the present time, I suggest again: familiarizing yourself with the writing of these “dissident rightists” is essential.

This is all nonsense.

Even if that were true, it would be a question of degree. Absolutely dismissive comments like this, and the attitude of such dismissal, is bad intellectual practice IMHO.

[Alexiev]

First: Defending the Western Canon does not demand "a deep plunge into ideological battles with profound implications in many areas".

You misread, or better put you misunderstand. To defend the Western canon was made into an issue of ideology. The attacked canon, and indirectly an attack on the civilization that created that canon, and soecifically the men who created it, required an ideology-based response. Defensive action and ideation. And when those “attacked” did their research what they discovered working against them, seeking to undermine them through guilt-slinging and delegitimization were activist ideological premises.

Canonical literature is canonical because it is fun to read. In addition, to understand oneself one must understand one's culture. Of course understanding other cultures can lead to an understanding of the human condition (I have a masters degree in cultural anthropology), so we can learn about ourselves in many ways.

A silly comment in my view. There is far more to that canon than mere “fun”. Within that canon one discovers our fundamental grounding and foundation. Our selves were constructed and put together through our relationship to it.

Your paragraph reads so much like a saccharine professorial statement. A way to speak to children. I definitely gather you’ve spent much time in university settings.

Also, one point of the canon is that it creates common ground among educated people from the same culture. I enjoy discussing Shakespeare, or Milton, or Jane Austen. Because the new, multi-cultural canon has yet to be developed and vetted, it is so diverse that this common ground does not exist.

You make it sound gamish. A pleasant but rewarding pastime.

The canon — our fundamentals — creates the man who associates with those of his culture and civilization. The ground is what is shared, agreed upon, believed in. The way you put it has it somewhat backward.

You seem to have been largely unaware of the intensity of the cultural, and ideological, struggles. In much of what you write — please don’t take offense — I notice shallowness. You don’t seem to notice the intensity of the cultural battles.

Your notion that I "should" read proponents of the "dissident right" is misguided. Why bother?

You can read what the heck you want. However, if you desire to understand what is going on in the present time, I suggest again: familiarizing yourself with the writing of these “dissident rightists” is essential.

This is all nonsense.

Even if that were true, it would be a question of degree. Absolutely dismissive comments like this, and the attitude of such dismissal, is bad intellectual practice IMHO.

More blather. I specifically avoided an "ideological response" to defending the canon. The canon represents a wide variety of ideologies. Its attackers may have ideological (or political) reasons for their disapproval, but it needs no defense other than that of artistic and aesthetic merit. As Westerners, our aesthetic appreciations are heightened by our training; we have learned how to appreciate art forms with which we are familiar.

Whether I notice the intensity of cultural battles is irrelevant. Nor do I think these battles are more intense now than they have been throughout the past. Indeed, world communism used to be a cause; it no longer is. Legal discrimination in public schools, busses, and places of business used to be a cause; it no longer is. Trump has tried to revive the racist fears of the past. It has worked to some extent -- but it's a blip in the road to moral progress.

Nobody can carefully study everything in this information-rich age. We must all pick and choose. I choose not to care much about cultural battles fomented by racists.
.

[Alexis Jacobi]

More blather. I specifically avoided an "ideological response" to defending the canon. The canon represents a wide variety of ideologies. Its attackers may have ideological (or political) reasons for their disapproval, but it needs no defense other than that of artistic and aesthetic merit. As Westerners, our aesthetic appreciations are heightened by our training; we have learned how to appreciate art forms with which we are familiar.

You are speaking in platitudes. You really have professorial rhetoric down pat. My opinion? Your analysis is extremely shallow.

Its attackers most certainly have ideological reasons for their attack, and at the same time, of course, it contains artistic and aesthetic “merit” as you put it.

Yet there are far more consequential issues at stake though clearly none of that draws you attention. You are totally free to make your own choices.

Whether I notice the intensity of cultural battles is irrelevant.

It is definitely irrelevant insofar as your own choices go. However these issues that play out today cannot be encapsulated or reduced as your preferences dictate. The intensity of the battles are certainly relevant in a larger picture. And I made no statement as to the present battles being more or less intense compared to other junctures. Each time is unique.

Nobody can carefully study everything in this information-rich age. We must all pick and choose. I choose not to care much about cultural battles fomented by racists.

For this reason alone I do not see your choice as sensible. What you encapsulate, misleadingly, under the heading of “racism” must be examined and better understood (especially by those in your camp).

Your choices are yours to make, Alexiev.