- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

How the GOP Establishment Created the Dissident Right, & How the Democrats are Supplying its Second Wave

3,900 words

If we go back in time – not far, mind you, just barely over a decade ago – we see a political landscape that looks almost nothing like the one we have today. It is unbelievable how rapidly everything changed in such a short period of time. The date was May 3, 2007, and the place was Simi, California. As springtime was fading into the start of summer, the first debate between the Republican candidates for the 2008 primary field was set to kick off at the Reagan Library. In retrospect, this seems like a quaint time and the calm before the storm. George W. Bush was a beleaguered President who had not won the promised quick and total victory in Iraq, still had a giant black eye from his botched response to Hurricane Katrina, and was about to cap his second term with the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Even by that point, Bush had few fans or defenders left; wisely, no one in his White House entered the race. This left a wide-open field of candidates for the GOP, yet very few were willing to counter-signal Bush, no matter how unpopular he was. It was an odd deference to what no one wanted to (yet) admit was a failed and disastrous presidency.

To set the stage, Q-1 home sales were down, there were murmurs that some of the financial houses were over-leveraged, and some were saying that there was a “housing bubble,” but the Dow Jones was still very high and the economy was in great shape a year and a half before the election. The slate of debate topics from that night are laughable now, given the benefit of hindsight and seeing what we now know would become a decade of pure, non-stop pozzing. Everyone and everything seems so naïve and doe-eyed from that 2007-2008 period. This was a kinder, gentler time, way before Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman threw down at a Florida apartment complex, before tranny bathrooms, and before BLM riots. There were not yet Facebook background filters to virtue-signal, this was prior to the killings of policemen in ambushes, there was no widespread opioid epidemic yet, no “bake the gay wedding cake or else,” and long before the Third World invasion of Europe unleashed by the Syrian “Civil” War. The main issues that night were figuring out how to exit Iraq and how to prevent another 9/11-style attack at home. Everything else seemed quite stable domestically, hardly worthy of raising in a presidential debate.

There was no housing collapse yet, which means there was not yet a financial crisis. Which means that there was no Obama yet. Which means there was no “Tea Party” yet. Identity politics were in their infancy and had not yet been fully and tactically deployed against the Right, who, in the name of respectability, refused to use the same tool. All of these things which are now commonplace were absent then, but would come in rapid succession, acting as the gasoline that set ablaze the way in which Americans were to do politics in the decade that followed.

Each of the candidates represented a faction of what broadly formed the Republican/conservative brand. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson were the “aww, shucks,” Southern candidates with deep accents and evangelical gestures. McCain and Romney were the GOP establishment choices, only having to wait to see which of them would emerge from the pageantry of the early primaries before the big-pocket donors would know who to throw their support behind. Ron Paul’s paleoconservative non-interventionism was preferred by the most optimistic and youngest Republicans, but by virtually no one else within the Party. Giuliani was actually the front runner initially, campaigning solely on the rapidly-fading momentum of appealing to 9/11-themed patriotism and anti-terrorism. Tancredo and Hunter were basically single-issue candidates who ironically ran on calling for a border wall and aggressive deportation strategies, and although these were popular positions even then, it could not catapult them out of the basement of the candidate field. The candidates basically spent an hour and a half discussing the theoretical destruction of Israel at any moment by an Iranian nuke and Creationism. Weird, I can’t imagine how they lost that election!


It was very apparent to anyone paying attention that all of the energy and enthusiasm of those under thirty was breaking along lines of race and sex. The grassroots fundraising and activism was occurring almost exclusively within these age brackets. Young white men were overwhelmingly interested in Ron Paul, while young white women and non-whites of “all genders” were interested in Obama. There was virtually no interest whatsoever in the establishment candidates of either party from the young voters, a trend that repeated in 2012, and that then violently exploded in 2016. The major difference between the two parties in 2008 was that the Democrats allowed their activists, idealists, and optimists to decide who represented them, while the GOP told theirs to shut up and get out.

The true power-brokers and the Deep State did not feel threatened by anything Obama was offering, so he was never attacked. They sensed something threatening in Ron Paul, though, so he was attacked. What were the main differences?

A Ron Paul administration would not have involved itself in Syria, would have jailed rather than bailed out the banks that were defrauding the American public, would not have passed the insurance-lobby subsidy called Obamacare, and would have ended the tribal collection of tribute sent back via “foreign aid” to Israel. Because of these things, all efforts were made to marginalize and drive Paul out of the primaries. The only problem is that he kept getting donations, and his activists did not get discouraged. While the rest of the GOP field folded with no ability to support themselves, Paul remained in the race, state after state, and continued to gather double-digit vote percentages, yet he still was not asked many questions in the debates, even as the field thinned down to four, then three, and finally two – only Ron Paul and John McCain. It was that important for the Party machinery to prevent his counter-narrative message from being heard, especially by conservative audiences, who were carefully managed and corralled by Conservative(INC).™ It was so obvious and painful that the fix was in for those of us who were hardcore Paul backers.

When the same thing happened in the 2012 primary, the repeating of the same process removed the final fantasy that we would ever calmly steer the ship away from the rocks.

If you ever wonder, “What happened to all of those Ron Paul supporters? There used to be so many of them, so vocal, so active online – but I never see them anymore.” That guy who you remember who used to share twenty links a day about Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty, but who now never talks about politics on Facebook anymore – do you actually think he just stopped caring about these things? Care to guess where he ended up when he was denied the opportunity to merely be a “moderate Republican”?


What the GOP establishment did in the handling of Ron Paul will eventually be looked back upon as one of the biggest, high time-preference blunders of all time. For many of us, as young and engaged idealists, this was our first introduction to the “JQ” and the first time we had seen “ZOG” in action. This was a sweet, old man who wanted sensible non-intervention, but even that was too much of a threat to the Likud wing of the GOP. It is honestly as simple as that. Instead of giving passionate young men a place at the table within the party that is nominally attractive to them, they told these white millennials and late Gen-Xers they were not welcome in the GOP . . . because they didn’t sufficiently value Israel’s interests. Perhaps that is why, only a few short years later, there was an audience receptive to a candidate promising a radically different set of priorities that placed – dare we say – America first.

Ten years ago, the GOP establishment could have kept these young, white, libertarian men under the aegis of Conservative(INC)™ by simply letting them become one more new addition to a family filled with other quirky, mostly harmless, issue-focused client groups who reliably vote Republican. They made similar compromises with evangelicals and hardcore NRA types. Instead, they acted like those white boomers who had been raised in a high-trust society and suckled on controlled-media narrative would live forever. They mortgaged the future by ignoring the impassioned youth, and they lost the election . . . twice.

Who do you think is inheriting the GOP as those boomers are beginning to pass away? The same young men to whom they denied political voice, and trust me, those young white men remember precisely who denied them, and why. These are men raised in the Internet age, not an era with only three major networks pushing the same message and directing a binary and easily-manipulated form of consensus. These are men who were forced to interact with the realities of race daily and intimately in a way that boomers never did, and who, because of those experiences, cannot be swayed by the same priestly class or moved by appeals to the superstitions of a different, and more gullible, generation.

These are also the men who saw upfront and firsthand an almost exclusively Jewish neoconservative set of keepers guarding the gates and preventing their access to participating in representative political life. And this experience will stick with them forever.

After having been told (and shown) that they were not welcome by the internal machinery that runs the Republican Party, these libertarians began doing serious soul-searching by reevaluating every one of their fundamental premises. Dispossessed and forsaken, these young men became what the French call in politics les enfants terribles – the bad children.

All the while, the Left hammered away with pozz, combined with racial flashpoints and fractures spouting up like fountains for the next eight years. It was in this incubating climate that that which would eventually be called the “Alt Right” emerged from its womb as the unwanted offspring of the two parents responsible for giving birth to them, and towards whom these enfants terribles held only contempt, even though their existence was only made possible by their two progenitors – George Bush (pure ZOG foreign policy, population replacement immigration, predatory capitalism) and Barack Obama (non-stop pozz, Cultural Marxism, and anti-white domestic policies).

Since there was no political inroad to a major party, there was also no longer any need to revere the sacred bulls and golden calf of society, either – chiefly the taboos surrounding the discussion of unaccountable Jewish power and racial differences. Whereas respectable people had broken out into a sweat and promptly run as far and as fast as possible at the mere mention of those subjects, these things were now finally on the table to examine honestly: to address humorously, irreverently, and without abandon. Is there any point in being politically correct when you are actively denied political access? It is not as though such an action will preserve a respectable political station. And let’s face it, is there any humor more exciting and fun than the most transgressive and taboo? Is there any reaction more comical than that of the self-righteous, shaming zealot, reeling from shocked sensibilities and wounded by affronts to a morality they feel the need to puritanically enforce upon a society in decline?

Like a doctor inducing labor, the GOP establishment had effectively forced these men – suddenly, painfully, and before they were ready – out of the safe and polite world to stand on their own. (Perhaps that is why these fellows place such little value in taking safe and polite positions now.) We had watched Footloose and decided that being Kevin Bacon was way cooler than being John Lithgow. Church ladies exist. They have pink hair, septum piercings, and like a Pentecostal in rapture, “literally shaking,” cannot deal with someone who has a different moral axis. Their Jehovah’s Witness-tier reactions will never be unfunny to trigger.

It was a very strange thing. All these men were having simultaneous and similar evolutions. It was a genuine phenomenon to see identical, organic, and spontaneous responses to the exact same stimuli, at the exact same time, coast to coast, across populations that had never met one another. These atomized individuals soon discovered that none of them were transforming in this way alone. They were undergoing the same mutation; they then found one another, and began forming communities and networks. Troll armies on Twitter emerged.


So why were we all libertarians?

One of the oldest jokes and criticisms of libertarianism was that it appealed (even more so than the Republican Party) to whites almost exclusively (over ninety percent) and males (over ninety-eight percent). Is it possible that we subconsciously saw that particular political philosophy as a roundabout path towards representing the group interests neither major party would, we the “collection of individuals” who “just all happened to be” from identical backgrounds – young, high-IQ white men – the demographic primarily being targeted, squeezed, and replaced in the increasingly anti-white political system?

As it turns out, most of our instincts were quite good concerning the things we opposed. We already had all of the correct enemies. Libertarianism offered us a way to address them without going to the core of the issue, nor offending society’s shibboleths directly. The system also tolerated us in that space as an escape valve since it offered only a minimal threat to ZOG, while also being fully compatible with all of society’s foundational myths concerning race. On the flip side, every time laboratory libertarianism had to interact with the harsh realities of race and group differences, it failed to deliver, and was therefore exposed as fantasy thinking, at least under the current racial composition of the United States. Libertarianism had to evolve – or rather its adherents did, particularly in the face of increasingly racially-defined identity politics. For most of us, we discarded it when it demonstrated its uselessness on the identity-driven twenty-first-century field of battle. We would not fight second-generation warfare with first-generation tactics. Those kinds of bloodbaths and slaughters are for baby boomers and conservatives, duh.

As “libertarians,” we thought we wanted a strict, non-interventionist foreign policy, but what we really wanted was to not have foreign powers, in direct violation of our own interests, dictating how we behaved internationally. We were against the “domestic police state” and the “prison industrial complex,” but realized that, to the degree those things exist, their construction as institutions was a response to the sheer volume and statistical frequency of crime created by the non-whites living among us. These kinds of violent institutions with aggressive posturing struggle to justify themselves in societies and municipalities without large numbers of black and brown people. That very same system that “imprisons people of color” also prevents whites from escaping their presence. Our sentence is a ball and chain, overseen by a man with a gun, ensuring that the white and non-white are forever tethered to each other, no matter how much both dislike the arrangement.

We were against “high taxes” and “welfare” not because they distorted market values of labor and encouraged malinvestment, or whatever other highfalutin arguments we used to offer, but because deep down we understood that those systems take from the productive and give to the non-productive. This, again, had crystal-clear “color coding” regarding which groups of people performed which function. The “surveillance and anti-privacy” laws that we hated were the acts of a schizophrenic State possessing a completely illogical visa and immigration system that refused to account for race, culture, and identity as conditions for entry. Rather than address those foolish policies, that State asked us to become less free and more scrutinized. We were being denied a high-trust, high-productivity society, and our liberties were disappearing under the weight of our increasing “fifty-six percent” flavor of non-whiteness, to which none of us had ever consented.

We could go on and on, but essentially all of the libertarian positions were a proxy for the various battlefronts of diversity eroding livable societies. Libertarianism was the white man’s negotiating tactic to secure minor concessions in exchange for a general surrender. The death of libertarianism was this portion of the body politic finally succumbing to the mental exhaustion of constantly denying race. They simply stopped doing the thing that wore them out. Libertarians were the first to tap out, but they will not be the last. One by one, the rest of the electorate will also lose its tolerance for the strains of diversity. We just got there first.

Jettisoning that deadweight had its own energizing effect. Enter Donald Trump . . . and the emergence of the frenetic “Alt Right” as a legitimate constituency with the ability to sway close elections in swing states, no longer wasting energy on lies and wishful thinking. By 2015, these libertarians had recuperated and gathered, free to battle under a different and more genuine flag. They had officially arrived as an actual political force – a “basket of deplorables.”


Can Democrats learn anything from this?

Without giving the game away, it may be too late, since everything is already in motion. In the same way that the machinery in the GOP actively denied a political home to passionate, high-IQ, high-agency white men in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats repeated this script upon their passionate, high-IQ, high-agency white men in 2016. It was nearly a perfect copy in relation to Bernie Sanders, only more transparent and aggressive, with the Party visibly doing underhanded things to assist the victorious, cheating candidate, and against a more broadly popular candidate who had even wider support within the Party. Will they make the same mistake and do this again in 2020? Are they willing to permanently chase out all straight white men from their midst? Are they willing to donate what will eventually merge into a monopoly of highly-intelligent, highly creative minds to the Dissident Right . . . a group more than happy to welcome them in crafting a third position for politics?

There were several flashpoints in the election that made it quite clear how the Democrats would deal with, first, white men, and eventually, white women as well. The first instance was when several black women grabbed the microphone from Bernie on a stage in Seattle, proceeding to chide the crowd with racially-charged language and pushing Bernie to the back.


The second was when vulgar Jewess (((Sarah Silverman))) and her fellow sexual predator tribesman, (((Al Franken))), stood on the stage at the DNC and likened support for Bernie Sanders to having an STD. They then promptly told the white goyim (because, let’s face it, that’s who Sanders’ constituency is) to shut up, get in line, and cheer the candidate who manipulated the primary process to deny them political will – literally cheer your replacement, weakened position, and lack of a future – or leave. Will these whites take them up on their offer?


The only role for a white man in this Party from this point forward is as a disliked and barely-tolerated auxiliary, working in the baggage train. Sure, you can participate, but only if you remain silent and do not pursue leadership roles. How long do you think exceptionally bright, fiery, passionate, Left-wing white men with good ideas and true leadership qualities are going to be fine with that arrangement? Especially as the Party doubles down on poor strategies that lose elections? Where there is no coherent Left-wing platform, because identity is more important to the “coalition of the ascendant” – a group whose appetite must constantly be sated with red meat – than economic fundamentals? Are these intelligent white guys really going to sit back and say nothing? Or do you think they will pursue another option?

If you don’t think there are millions of other white males, this time on the Left instead of the Right, reevaluating their political positions as a result of their disenfranchisement, you don’t understand politics at all. The same way that the libertarians had to concede that their idealism could not work because of diversity, the Bernie Bros. will learn that their idealism is destined for failure for the same reasons, too. The Dissident Right doesn’t have to do a damn thing but sit back, watch, wait, and find room for these white men and give them a voice and leadership roles after they have had enough of the Democrat Party, which doesn’t want their talents, anyway.

The Democrat Party is so racially charged on every issue that universalist policies are viewed with disdain by the “coalition of the ascendant.” Free college education for all? Free healthcare for all? Guaranteed living wage for all? Nope. The fracture point is the phrase “for all.” The racial spoils system has been nurtured for so long and so aggressively by Democrats to bribe non-whites that the idea of these constituencies sharing anything with whites under a “for all” arrangement is a complete non-starter. There is absolutely no enthusiasm from people of color to contribute towards a colorblind society that would still disproportionately benefit whites, who are for now the numerical majority. White millennials will eventually discover that they are not seen as “allies,” but only as competitors for the distribution of the spoils. Non-whites do not see you as a teammate. They see you as a speedbump to run over along the way to taking control of a political party that works solely for their interests. As we see more “browning of America,” this state of mind will increase, not decrease. Ironically, this is how politics works in shithole countries, too . . . weird, right? It is almost as if societies take on the traits of their component parts.

There will be no socialism and shared progressive safety net without a white supermajority – an “ethnostate,” if you will. People of color controlling elections will happen within the Democrat Party well before it is able to branch out into the larger political landscape. The few remaining whites within it will recognize this when they are eventually no longer able to seat candidates in Party primaries, a point which may have already been crossed. There are certainly some states, and countless cities and counties, where this is already the reality. People of color as voting blocs have demonstrated no interest in gay and transgender issues, GMO food, global warming and the environment, nor anything else urbanite, white, and hipster. City-dwelling liberal whites will not remain in a Party where those things have zero traction or priority. They will want to go somewhere else.

Perhaps they will find a home with the hip and rebellious group that the GOP assures everyone “are not even conservatives.” Many have already made the jump.

Their establishment is effectively pushing these Left-wing white men towards a harsh and painful rebirth where they will have no choice but to become honest about race, just as ours did to us. The Dissident Right is waiting to work with them, our brothers, to come up with the solutions that the future will require. We are glad to welcome you. I suppose that this entire process was inevitable and that the politics of the twentieth century can finally fade permanently, giving way to what will be the inevitable politics of the twenty-first: identity . . . blood and soil . . . whether we will or will not be replaced . . .

Welcome to the fight, fellas!