This is a thoughtful piece, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of adulation for being Stunning & Brave™—which is probably not your primary goal, but still—so I'll try to just gently pick on couple things, that I hope you can take in good faith.
1. Given that you're a smart woman with online media literacy who talks to a lot of smart people who also have online media literacy, you **must know** that (a) being featured in the NYT in this way basically serves to disavow wholesale that any right-wing thinkers—especially & including the interesting ones your interviewed—have anything worth listening to, and that (b) the goal of the NYT is to accomplish exactly this type of sidelining.
That makes a statement like this:
> I appreciate the work of many writers and thinkers on the right, and I don’t deny that there are serious areas worth exploring
rather worthless, because anyone who is even slightly normie-coded at this point is forever discouraged from listening to any such guests and actually finding out what any of these 'legitimate grievances' are and in what unconventional ways rightists are tackling them.
Now, my best guess is that you did the calculation, and decided this result is worth it. That's pretty disappointing, but that's your choice, and you deserve a lot of pushback because of it.
2. The implicit implication, unless otherwise stated, of every single piece that takes the shape of what you have just written (including some similar essays I've written myself!) is that because X coalition has a populism &/or low human capital problem, then clearly a return to moderation is the best best because look how:
– badly the bad people are messing things up (competence argument); and
– how badly they treat others while they do it (behavior argument); and
– how cynical and depraved they are the whole time thy are doing (moral argument)
"Therefore, let's not try to make anything catastrophically worse by legitimating anything that could empower the worst actors."
If your broader argument is that any large-scale movement has to have excellent foundations so as to avoid descending into slop and chaos that's fine, and I agree. But, importantly, this is not the same as a making a case for why anybody should stop migrating to the fringes.
There is not a single thing that has happened in the past decade that 'centrist institutionalism' has done to equalize out or earn back in excess the trust & credibility it has destroyed in the way it has violated its own commitment to democratic principles to civil liberties to economic freedoms to several other areas.
There is only the same tirade shoved down people's throats—that managed decline is axiomatically better than haphazardly blowing everything, simply because the latter path seems more dangerous on its face.
Your version is phrased more softly:
> I used to agree, but watching the reality of what is happening politically at the end of the funnel of right-wing memes, both in the US and Romania, has been very sobering.
but it contains the same essential message. People (or maybe I'll just say, "I am", to avoid speaking about anyone else, but I'm definitely not alone) are very, very, very, very tired of being held hostage in this way.
Nothing you've presented here actually encourages anyone who has been burnt out of mainstream culture to course correct by, e.g., trying to re-engage with institutions.
3. I've been listening to your podcast on-and-off for a couple years now. The episodes that I've enjoyed the most are tangential to politics: that one nuclear energy guy you had on to talk about policy, Joe Norman on complexity science, that cool 4chan HBD guy, etc. (In fact, I think I've only listened to 2.5 explicitly political episodes.)
This is because those guests talked about real projects they were doing with friends & family to take back power from systems that made an enemy out of them, and **that are still making an enemy out of them**. Many of those guests may have come to similar conclusions about the 'online right'. However, they didn't give permission to some journalist to air their dirty laundry to millions of viewers, they just continued trying to improve their own situation and build alternatives.
Any scene that is initially based upon something real and substantive will undergo an evaporative cooling effect past a certain scale, leaving the losers to hold bag. You've certainly become busy with your family, so it makes sense that you want to move on.
To the extent that you want to continue running a media project, I hope you focus more on platforming 'outsiders' who refuse to capitulate to impotent temperamental conservatism, and that you don't descend into blandly manufacturing consent for a senescent establishment.
This is perfect, every word. I think some people—including decent folks who were initially hopeful about this scene—now understand that this ecosystem is a brainworm generator. Who’s basically left now is utterly cynical: either a paid shill for MAGA; or (even darker) someone who understands how damaging it is to civilization, and is dedicated to that mission. I don’t blame you for not wanting to participate, or even to see these people as allies.
The language these people use is more obnoxious than the blue hair crowd.
It’s all predictable. All preprogrammed. Fed to them through cartoons on the internet.
If you’re reading remember: your life is about to get worse because a mob of chimpy, feral little boys spazzed out when they realized that the real world doesn’t conform to the fake world they console themselves with on their Telly-phones.
And they want to punish you for that. You have to decide if these animals are entitled to punish you for anything.
"Wokeness had already peaked around 2020, and its worldview has since been discredited in the eyes of a vast number of people, including a large proportion of the elite. It’s not dead yet, but a bumbling and cartoonishly evil right might be just the adrenaline shot it needs to reanimate."
I think that people like you, Richard Hanania, and Nathan Cofnas speaking out against the idiocy of Trump and the online right lowers the chance that wokeness will reanimate. So thanks for speaking out. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, but also it will help us avoid another 2020.
Trump is back and this time he’s hell-bent on shaking things up… his version of shock and awe. The left-wing MSM has coalesced around their strategy to push the “chaos“ narrative and alarm the people who find solace in the tranquility of boring times. Time will tell which approach prevails, but for the time being it’s nice to actually see *change*, and I am finding myself enjoying the so-called chaos.
This is the most stupid thought to ever appear on the internet. Congratulations. The Black Death and the Great Depression certainly weren’t boring. I’m sure the children gassed in the camps thought happily that they were living through a brief, yes, but thoroughly interesting adventure.
And it’s ironically fitting to use “shock and awe” to describe Trump. That term was coined at the start of the Iraq War, the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in the last 50 years.
The Iraq War launched with 60% support, even higher in red states. It even had some of the same cheerleaders, like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelley. Sound familiar?
It's easy to blow things up. 100x harder to build.
The fact that you are insulated from the chaos (for now) and can “enjoy” it speaks so much to what is really the problem with hard right and left. No bloody care in the world for people who will be deported by mistake, lose jobs because of tariffs etc. Just like SJWs didnt give a damn about chaos they made. “Im good, lets watch it burn”. That right there is a problem with today’s society.
Why don't you care about Americans who have lost jobs because of Tariffs imposed by other countries on US goods? Who has been deported "by mistake"? The "Maryland Man"? If you're in the US illegally, you are subject to deportation. It's about time we enforced our immigration laws and took action force other countries to eliminate their unfair trade practices. The US can't be the world's sugar daddy forever.
One of you best articles, addressing multiple issues. I wish serious people could gain bigger audiences in the political discourse. Populism and politics as entertainment are the problems with both far left and far right. They should not take decisions on the most important issues.
I agree many on the online right can be toxic and some of Trumps policy decisions probably will not live up to muster… I disagree that he is “government solely based off memes.” I would like to point your attention to four points. Please note everything I say is respectful disagreement and no way meant to disparage you personally or take away from some other great points you made.
1) Trade & Tariffs. Neoliberal free trade has helped to enrich a global upper class and establish the United States as a financial services economy rather than a manufacturing one. Trump and his advisers have talked about turning that around. Not just through “truths.” Many of them have written policy papers and have been associated with luminaries like American Compass, heritage, and other think tanks that thoughtfully think about this. The 10% universal tariffs was something many in the reshore/protectionist movement have talked about for decades and I support it as a way to raise revenue. Steel tariffs have also been talked about for decades. Automotive tariffs were used by Ronald Reagan and this facilitated Toyota building factories in the United States. Reciprocal Tariffs are there for negotiations. I personally do not view them as sound economic strategy if meant to be permanent, but I do believe they can get people to the table. I want to note Toyota and Hyundai are looking to build factories here. Long story short, there are people in Trumps administration who are giving serious thought to this. It’s not all just vibes on Twitter.
2) Immigration. You mention deportations. He is deporting a lot and I do believe it’s having an affect on the ground. Border encounters are down 94%. There are many illegal aliens who have opted to see deport. Several news magazines have reported that “migrant caravans” have turned back. We are starting to have an affect. The memes aside… there are many people vouching for restrictionist immigration making serious policy arguments and those arguments are enacted. Laken Riley Act is one such example.
3) DOGE. I cannot vouch for Elons personal life. I believe Fathers should be married to their wives, raise their families equally with their wives in love, and be present in their childrens life. Getting that out of the way.
DOGE has not communicated well and they have made mistakes. However, they have found government waste and have given the US presidency the tools to deal with that in the future. Dep of education and social security cards for undocumented immigrants. They have spurred the executive branch to change the specification of federal workers to allow them to be fired more easily, asserting executive control of his own branch of government and workers. This has been a policy discussed at length in American populist right for at least a few years now.
I could go on, but too many to list. My point is those who support MAGA are not just knuckle dragging bros online posting “dank memes.” There are many who are thinking about policy and working hard to change things in a thoughtful manner. Many of us disagree with each other (offline) and many of us have policy disagreements.
One area where I do agree with you is the “meme online right” is loud and gets the most publicity. I think they are so prominent because many of us populists made a crucial error. We were so euphoric we won in November that we simply thought we had to keep the “online offensive” going to not give an inch. So we sometimes pushed trolls and memes too often to irritate the opposition. I do believe that has helped US state media depict us as chaotic. It’s even giving some “vibes” that we don’t care at all about serious policy when in fact I think the opposite is the case.
I am mostly trying to respectfully argue that it’s disruptive, but it’s not just mad chaos. There are serious changes trying to be had. Have there been mistakes… yes. Is Trump perfect? No. Is every idea Trump tries good? No. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of good. Overall, I’m cautiously hopeful.
Would love to discuss further. Thank you for always being willing to respectfully debate and discuss.
One other thing… the folding of USAID is a huge game changer. It was an agency that developed in the 60s with the best of intentions and morphed into a social engineering/censorship machine. The re establishment of control by US state may herald a taming of the bureaucratic state. Only time will tell.
Another thing I thought of… 21st century traditionalism has many variants and each country has its own. My right wing Argentinian and British friends are not so keen on tariffs. I am wondering if national experiences and differing historical legacies cause some populist nationalists to be more drawn to different priorities. I know in Portugal a lot of the right is motivated by monarchist sentiment, anti-welfare state, and Eurosceptic policies. Anti-NATO & Anti-American empire advocacy do not necessarily figure into the debate. Could a robust tariff regime just be seen as counterproductive to British or [in your case] Romanian right wing sensibilities? Possibly destructive because they are advocating different priorities? Nations and regions are different so 21st century “right wingism” will always have divergent tendencies.
I think this is a surprisingly thoughtful response and I appreciate that there are some on the New Right / MAGA coalition who are thinking about policy… but you cannot deny that A) the policy wing is a tiny minority, and B) some of the actual policy work is downright moronic, largely because there is such a paucity of human capital in right-wing policy institutions now.
And I say this as a conservative who has always been immersed in policy.
Some of RFK’s personal obsessions have trickled out into the broader right in enormously damaging ways. Utah just banned water fluoridation (and they were supposed to be the high human capital red state!), and other red legislatures across the country are examining the cause of promoting non-GMO crops and vaccine skepticism.
But leaving that aside… I have not seen a single Trump administration official offer a coherent explanation of tariffs, and that is damning. As someone who understands economics, the “Liberation Day” debacle was practically radicalizing. Before that, I believed some version of the oft-repeated story that Trump et al were happy to obscure their true ultimate goals with a veneer of confusion and unpredictability… the “drunk master” theory, the idea that libs and China were getting thrown off by performative chaos while Trump actually implemented his strategy.
Virtually everyone on the right believes this now. They’re dead wrong. On the issue of tariffs at the minimum, this administration is staffed by and lead by blubbering idiots, Navarro in particular. The desperate “4D chess negotiation” memes are the most pathetic example of cope. Trump himself has fallen precipitously since 2015; his mental decline is obvious and acute. I doubt he would score triple-digits on an IQ test these days (although his crowd work is still unmatched).
It’s almost darkly humorous to watch every single unusually intelligent player on the new right come to the same dawning realization. If I am pessimistic for this administration it is because I see them as they are. Hanania has it right.
I assume you are not an idiot, but like most Trump supporters (including folks like JD Vance) the minute you start trying to lay out a defense of Trump you lose 30 IQ points. In this case, you are ignoring what Trump is actually doing and just pretending he is doing stuff that makes sense. I generally disagree with tariffs and don't think they've worked out great for the countries that have tried them, but okay, maybe there is a case for them in theory. But in practice Trump couldn't have done a worse job on the tariff issue if he tried. Manufacturing in the US is ironically the sector that has probably been hurt MOST by the tariffs (along with small businesses).
Same deal with DOGE--apparently they have "found government waste", but mostly they have just fired people and canceled some grants, while the deficit has INCREASED vs last year. Randomly firing federal workers is not going to save money; in the case of revenue drivers like national parks and IRS and Tax Department workers it will lose the government money.
Basically, all Trump supporters start from the premise that everything Trump does is good and work back from there (and handwave the bad stuff away with "I never said he was perfect!") You would think if you actually thought the tariffs were a good idea you'd be upset that Trump is ruining the implementation with insane "reciprocal" tariffs that were in no way reciprocal, refused to offer a coherent goal for the negotiations in the first place, and backed down for the most part almost immediately but with the promise that at some point we'll go through this again. But the flip side to this mindless devotion to Trump is that it filters out the smart people, so you have constant fiascos that no one is allowed to acknowledge.
to invoke another buzzword - "midwit" - we (society) are constantly trying to reduce anything that takes real skill or thoughtfulness to a level where every joker (midwit) can participate. it's everywhere, and the one you are pointing out is much to do with political dialogue. Neil Postman touches on this with his excellent 'Amusing ourselves to Death' when he discusses 'the medium is the message' concept. the result is non-seriousness and watered down slop.
to add to your Genghis Khan quote .. this from Virgil :
The gates of hell are open night and day;
Smooth the descent, and easy is the way:
But to return, and view the cheerful skies,
In this the task and mighty labor lies.
... thoughtfulness and hard work is required, not shortcuts. it requires more labor (and a moral foundation), but the return to cheerful skies is not attainable by any other means. the Christian work ethic was more than merely 'honest work for honest pay' .. it was a recognition of doing the right things righteously.
I just got around to reading the NYT article in question (fortunately not behind their usual paywall). You've got to hand it to the Left (Ms Goldberg, in this case). They never miss an opportunity to cynically exploit any perceived fissures exposed by their opposition. The "Right", which has morphed into a broad coalition (from elitists like Hanania and Cofnas, to blue-collar MAGA "deplorables"), is often vulnerable to this tactic given that they are not shy about airing internal differences. On the other hand, the Left, at least the Democrat party in the US, is quite skilled at squelching dissent within their ranks and presenting a united front (rarely will a Democrat in the congress defect on any issue). To me, this signals that the serious intellectual activity is happening on the Right. A good example supporting this view can be found by comparing the number of radio talk shows and internet podcasts coming from each camp. The Right dominates the space because they actually have something interesting to talk about.
This is simply wrong. The left has loud, public fights all the time. The most recent one is leftists attacking Ezra Klein and Derek Thomson over Abundance. In 2023-24 it was about Gaza. And since 2015 there’s been a low grade civil war between the Bernie/DSA crowd and moderates. Biden made the mistake of elevating some of their people, and it backfired catastrophically.
The difference is the left always comes together in the end. Ezra Klein, no matter how insane everyone to the left of him is, will always support the left politically. He will never sit out an election like Alex or Cofnas or the left left me types. And that’s why the left wins much more often than the right.
The left consistently attacked Kamala last fall over Gaza and many very loudly said they will not vote for her. A cottage industry on X right now is posting screenshots of those tweets over those same activists complaining about Trump.
Another thing you see a lot is leftists complaining that Democrats suck because they aren’t stopping Trump. They only even mention Trump as a backdoor way to yell at Democrats.
They all really, really hate Matt Yglesias. Just yesterday David Klion wrote a Substack blaming him for the rise of Curtis Yarvin. Yarvin can’t just be an independent thinker, you see. It must somehow be the fault of centrist liberals.
And still almost all of them voted for Kamala. As much as the Bernie Bros hate Yglesius and he probably hates them in return, the bros will still vote for an establishment shill and Yglesius would vote for Bernie or AOC if they got nominated. Because they know they are in a war, while the EHC, left left me, and finger wagging centrists think politics is a debating club.
Most of those missing 2 million votes are the result of less money put into the mail in get out the vote and tightening of the mail in voting rules post Covid.
A good rule of thumb before engaging in great questions of civilization and meaning is to: A) Learn a few foreign languages; B) Have numerical skills. Otherwise, you'll just read a few pages of Schmitt and Spengler out of context and delude yourself into thinking you've unlocked the secrets of civilization while just being a midwit fanatic. Another salubrious alternative is to just have a nice time with family and friends and not attempt to dabble in anything abstract.
Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight you should have spread your net wider Alex. My own Substack could be described as being of the "online Right" but is quite simply 0% guilty of any of the things you lament and disavow in this piece. And I believe that is true of many others. What IS true is that all those things you describe can be a fast-track, click baity, cliquey route to being viewed as a significant player on the likes of New Right Poast et al.
Very good. What's I'm seeing, though, is that the United States is no longer capable of governing itself. No, seriously, who do you think should be put in power so that things get better rather than worse? Gavin Newsom, the King of Lockdowns? (Let's not even talk about the EU, please. It's far too depressing. I'm in Europe, just to be clear.)
I believe we're looking at an American edition of Perestroika. I have yet to see any compelling arguments to the contrary. The system will crash, and it's impossible to tell what will be born out of it. Lots of pain is the only thing that's guaranteed.
This is where I am, and I’m more convinced every day. Years ago, I wrote about National Divorce as a reason to talk about building real institutions of autonomy for a Right that no longer shared any values with the Left. I’ve been far too depressed about the Right’s obvious inability to build anything—aside from the infotainment ecosystem Alex describes. I’ve concluded that the renewal and autonomy that was needed can never be created by this movement. It was a sobering thing to realize.
The meme-lords aren’t even the worst part: we now have a billion-dollar podcast industry that is proudly ignorant and credulous of anything that would destroy the credibility not of the Left, but of the country more broadly. The 60 and 50 year old KGB conspiracy theories created to be weaponized to break the minds of Americans and Westerners are now everyday fare; but that’s merely the appetizer: the cognitive opening created by the suspicions and conspiracy-mindedness lobotomized its audience. Some people believe this is an advance or some kind of “win,” but if you spent years talking about the importance of ideas, the assumption was that the way to a better, more sane politics is found in elevating the audience and helping better equip them to participate in politics constructively. We’re now looking at a population that is incapable of serious thought or meaningful participation in civic life because they have become addicted—not only to memes but, most damagingly, to systems of thought that leave them unable to see the reality before them, as they look for more and more convoluted and insane ways of explaining the world.
I figured out a long time ago that the US was the USSR, circa 1983.
Everyone knows that K. U. Chenenko is a senile alcoholic. Everyone knows that drastic reforms have to be made, and soon, but that entrenched interests make any real reform impossible. The Uniparty still appears unified in public, but the knives are out and factions are frantically maneuvering behind the scenes. The old slogans, freedom, democracy, all that are still trotted out and people still mouth along to the old songs, but nobody believes a word of any of it any more, and there is no attempt to implement any of it. The security services are still there, and they still have fearsome powers of repression, which are largely used for political purposes.
A few years later, the open looting of everything not nailed down will start.
The idea of a world without the Soviet Union is still pretty much unthinkable (when A. A. Amalrik published "Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?", he was written off as a nutcase).
A predilection for short term thought will destroy any political movement. This portion of the intellectual world has been very interesting to me as well, although I have noticed a profound dearth of efforts to build alternative institutions. You have correctly identified the effects of social media upon the nature of debate in the world of today. Regardless of politics, the effects of smartphones and social media will destroy our society unless we take stronger measures. Tom Swift was founded to counter these effects. If you are curious, read more here:
Again, I appreciate this article. If there is to be anything beyond liberal modernity, it must be built on solid intellectual foundations for the benefit of future generations.
Do you support the blatant suppression of the right wing party in your own country by "deep state" elements? If not, why have you not made your opposition to its suppression explicit? Why is sniping at incels and other basically powerless online entities more important to you than speaking out against this grave injustice taking place IN YOUR OWN NATION?
“Pathetic” is an emotionally charged term. You shouldn’t take this stuff so seriously. Who cares really about Marine Le Pen or Romanian politics? Just be a good man and have a nice time with your family.
That “establishment” you’re talking about is called independent justice. If you informed yourself about the case using sources other than sensationalist, conspiratorial twitter, you would understand just how seriously idiotic, incompetent, and corrupt Marine Le Pen and her party are.
Aren't those politics exactly what most Romanians find disturbing about him? A lot of Romanians remember Russians as "animals" who raped their way through Romania in 1945, and continue to create trouble in Moldova. Not a lot of sympathy for Russia in Romania.
I spend a lot of time in Romania and Alex is completely right to be disturbed by Georgescu. That man is not "conservative" in any meaningful sense, he is a mentally disturbed child supported by Russian money eager to separate Romania from the EU and also protect Russian interests in Moldova. If Pol Pot is your idea of a conservative hero, than I suppose Georgescu is your man. It wasn't the "deep state" that killed his candidacy, it was Romanian elites in full and transparent view of the whole country. Sometimes elites will stand up to protect their own interests, it's what actual elites do. Elites banding together to protect the traditional hierarchy and squash dangerous populists is about as "conservative" as it gets, so why are American right wingers continuing to belly ache about this?
Saw some restack of this article saying “[if you don’t see how deporting ms-13 isn’t putting the democrats in the seat of sanity you don’t get it]” (honestly their phrasing was worse) which is the embodiment of someone copping with memes and, ironically, missing the point.
Really love this piece. Thanks for writing. I personally have enjoyed the podcast even more since your pivot, which feels honest. I think the vice/empathy ratchet analogies you identified are really helpful
This is a thoughtful piece, and I'm sure you'll get a lot of adulation for being Stunning & Brave™—which is probably not your primary goal, but still—so I'll try to just gently pick on couple things, that I hope you can take in good faith.
1. Given that you're a smart woman with online media literacy who talks to a lot of smart people who also have online media literacy, you **must know** that (a) being featured in the NYT in this way basically serves to disavow wholesale that any right-wing thinkers—especially & including the interesting ones your interviewed—have anything worth listening to, and that (b) the goal of the NYT is to accomplish exactly this type of sidelining.
That makes a statement like this:
> I appreciate the work of many writers and thinkers on the right, and I don’t deny that there are serious areas worth exploring
rather worthless, because anyone who is even slightly normie-coded at this point is forever discouraged from listening to any such guests and actually finding out what any of these 'legitimate grievances' are and in what unconventional ways rightists are tackling them.
Now, my best guess is that you did the calculation, and decided this result is worth it. That's pretty disappointing, but that's your choice, and you deserve a lot of pushback because of it.
2. The implicit implication, unless otherwise stated, of every single piece that takes the shape of what you have just written (including some similar essays I've written myself!) is that because X coalition has a populism &/or low human capital problem, then clearly a return to moderation is the best best because look how:
– badly the bad people are messing things up (competence argument); and
– how badly they treat others while they do it (behavior argument); and
– how cynical and depraved they are the whole time thy are doing (moral argument)
"Therefore, let's not try to make anything catastrophically worse by legitimating anything that could empower the worst actors."
If your broader argument is that any large-scale movement has to have excellent foundations so as to avoid descending into slop and chaos that's fine, and I agree. But, importantly, this is not the same as a making a case for why anybody should stop migrating to the fringes.
There is not a single thing that has happened in the past decade that 'centrist institutionalism' has done to equalize out or earn back in excess the trust & credibility it has destroyed in the way it has violated its own commitment to democratic principles to civil liberties to economic freedoms to several other areas.
There is only the same tirade shoved down people's throats—that managed decline is axiomatically better than haphazardly blowing everything, simply because the latter path seems more dangerous on its face.
Your version is phrased more softly:
> I used to agree, but watching the reality of what is happening politically at the end of the funnel of right-wing memes, both in the US and Romania, has been very sobering.
but it contains the same essential message. People (or maybe I'll just say, "I am", to avoid speaking about anyone else, but I'm definitely not alone) are very, very, very, very tired of being held hostage in this way.
Nothing you've presented here actually encourages anyone who has been burnt out of mainstream culture to course correct by, e.g., trying to re-engage with institutions.
3. I've been listening to your podcast on-and-off for a couple years now. The episodes that I've enjoyed the most are tangential to politics: that one nuclear energy guy you had on to talk about policy, Joe Norman on complexity science, that cool 4chan HBD guy, etc. (In fact, I think I've only listened to 2.5 explicitly political episodes.)
This is because those guests talked about real projects they were doing with friends & family to take back power from systems that made an enemy out of them, and **that are still making an enemy out of them**. Many of those guests may have come to similar conclusions about the 'online right'. However, they didn't give permission to some journalist to air their dirty laundry to millions of viewers, they just continued trying to improve their own situation and build alternatives.
Any scene that is initially based upon something real and substantive will undergo an evaporative cooling effect past a certain scale, leaving the losers to hold bag. You've certainly become busy with your family, so it makes sense that you want to move on.
To the extent that you want to continue running a media project, I hope you focus more on platforming 'outsiders' who refuse to capitulate to impotent temperamental conservatism, and that you don't descend into blandly manufacturing consent for a senescent establishment.
Be well.
This is perfect, every word. I think some people—including decent folks who were initially hopeful about this scene—now understand that this ecosystem is a brainworm generator. Who’s basically left now is utterly cynical: either a paid shill for MAGA; or (even darker) someone who understands how damaging it is to civilization, and is dedicated to that mission. I don’t blame you for not wanting to participate, or even to see these people as allies.
DeSantoid shill, you were never hopeful.
“DeSantoid shill”
The language these people use is more obnoxious than the blue hair crowd.
It’s all predictable. All preprogrammed. Fed to them through cartoons on the internet.
If you’re reading remember: your life is about to get worse because a mob of chimpy, feral little boys spazzed out when they realized that the real world doesn’t conform to the fake world they console themselves with on their Telly-phones.
And they want to punish you for that. You have to decide if these animals are entitled to punish you for anything.
Honestly the rabid anti-DeSantis idiots are the worst.
Whenever they attempt to actually describe their complaints against him, it always comes out as incoherent screeching.
Of course their real complaint is that DeSantis was in the way of their idol.
"Wokeness had already peaked around 2020, and its worldview has since been discredited in the eyes of a vast number of people, including a large proportion of the elite. It’s not dead yet, but a bumbling and cartoonishly evil right might be just the adrenaline shot it needs to reanimate."
I think that people like you, Richard Hanania, and Nathan Cofnas speaking out against the idiocy of Trump and the online right lowers the chance that wokeness will reanimate. So thanks for speaking out. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, but also it will help us avoid another 2020.
Trump is back and this time he’s hell-bent on shaking things up… his version of shock and awe. The left-wing MSM has coalesced around their strategy to push the “chaos“ narrative and alarm the people who find solace in the tranquility of boring times. Time will tell which approach prevails, but for the time being it’s nice to actually see *change*, and I am finding myself enjoying the so-called chaos.
I agree that the "may you live in interesting times" argument is the most compelling one for Trump
This is the most stupid thought to ever appear on the internet. Congratulations. The Black Death and the Great Depression certainly weren’t boring. I’m sure the children gassed in the camps thought happily that they were living through a brief, yes, but thoroughly interesting adventure.
It's a joke, obviously.
Apologies! I guess *I’ve* just posted the stupidest thing to ever appear on the internet…. 😁
Yes, I’m hoping the curse of “living in interesting times”, turns out to be a blessing long-term.
Unfortunately hope is not a strategy
This comment is just memes. Shock and awe, the MSM narrative, the cult of action for action's sake.
The alternative media is orders of magnitude more influential than CNN, but the right needs victimhood to sustain itself.
Don't ask questions, just consume memes and get excited for next memes!
And it’s ironically fitting to use “shock and awe” to describe Trump. That term was coined at the start of the Iraq War, the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in the last 50 years.
The Iraq War launched with 60% support, even higher in red states. It even had some of the same cheerleaders, like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelley. Sound familiar?
It's easy to blow things up. 100x harder to build.
None of this will end well.
The fact that you are insulated from the chaos (for now) and can “enjoy” it speaks so much to what is really the problem with hard right and left. No bloody care in the world for people who will be deported by mistake, lose jobs because of tariffs etc. Just like SJWs didnt give a damn about chaos they made. “Im good, lets watch it burn”. That right there is a problem with today’s society.
Why don't you care about Americans who have lost jobs because of Tariffs imposed by other countries on US goods? Who has been deported "by mistake"? The "Maryland Man"? If you're in the US illegally, you are subject to deportation. It's about time we enforced our immigration laws and took action force other countries to eliminate their unfair trade practices. The US can't be the world's sugar daddy forever.
One of you best articles, addressing multiple issues. I wish serious people could gain bigger audiences in the political discourse. Populism and politics as entertainment are the problems with both far left and far right. They should not take decisions on the most important issues.
I agree many on the online right can be toxic and some of Trumps policy decisions probably will not live up to muster… I disagree that he is “government solely based off memes.” I would like to point your attention to four points. Please note everything I say is respectful disagreement and no way meant to disparage you personally or take away from some other great points you made.
1) Trade & Tariffs. Neoliberal free trade has helped to enrich a global upper class and establish the United States as a financial services economy rather than a manufacturing one. Trump and his advisers have talked about turning that around. Not just through “truths.” Many of them have written policy papers and have been associated with luminaries like American Compass, heritage, and other think tanks that thoughtfully think about this. The 10% universal tariffs was something many in the reshore/protectionist movement have talked about for decades and I support it as a way to raise revenue. Steel tariffs have also been talked about for decades. Automotive tariffs were used by Ronald Reagan and this facilitated Toyota building factories in the United States. Reciprocal Tariffs are there for negotiations. I personally do not view them as sound economic strategy if meant to be permanent, but I do believe they can get people to the table. I want to note Toyota and Hyundai are looking to build factories here. Long story short, there are people in Trumps administration who are giving serious thought to this. It’s not all just vibes on Twitter.
2) Immigration. You mention deportations. He is deporting a lot and I do believe it’s having an affect on the ground. Border encounters are down 94%. There are many illegal aliens who have opted to see deport. Several news magazines have reported that “migrant caravans” have turned back. We are starting to have an affect. The memes aside… there are many people vouching for restrictionist immigration making serious policy arguments and those arguments are enacted. Laken Riley Act is one such example.
3) DOGE. I cannot vouch for Elons personal life. I believe Fathers should be married to their wives, raise their families equally with their wives in love, and be present in their childrens life. Getting that out of the way.
DOGE has not communicated well and they have made mistakes. However, they have found government waste and have given the US presidency the tools to deal with that in the future. Dep of education and social security cards for undocumented immigrants. They have spurred the executive branch to change the specification of federal workers to allow them to be fired more easily, asserting executive control of his own branch of government and workers. This has been a policy discussed at length in American populist right for at least a few years now.
I could go on, but too many to list. My point is those who support MAGA are not just knuckle dragging bros online posting “dank memes.” There are many who are thinking about policy and working hard to change things in a thoughtful manner. Many of us disagree with each other (offline) and many of us have policy disagreements.
One area where I do agree with you is the “meme online right” is loud and gets the most publicity. I think they are so prominent because many of us populists made a crucial error. We were so euphoric we won in November that we simply thought we had to keep the “online offensive” going to not give an inch. So we sometimes pushed trolls and memes too often to irritate the opposition. I do believe that has helped US state media depict us as chaotic. It’s even giving some “vibes” that we don’t care at all about serious policy when in fact I think the opposite is the case.
I am mostly trying to respectfully argue that it’s disruptive, but it’s not just mad chaos. There are serious changes trying to be had. Have there been mistakes… yes. Is Trump perfect? No. Is every idea Trump tries good? No. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of good. Overall, I’m cautiously hopeful.
Would love to discuss further. Thank you for always being willing to respectfully debate and discuss.
One other thing… the folding of USAID is a huge game changer. It was an agency that developed in the 60s with the best of intentions and morphed into a social engineering/censorship machine. The re establishment of control by US state may herald a taming of the bureaucratic state. Only time will tell.
Another thing I thought of… 21st century traditionalism has many variants and each country has its own. My right wing Argentinian and British friends are not so keen on tariffs. I am wondering if national experiences and differing historical legacies cause some populist nationalists to be more drawn to different priorities. I know in Portugal a lot of the right is motivated by monarchist sentiment, anti-welfare state, and Eurosceptic policies. Anti-NATO & Anti-American empire advocacy do not necessarily figure into the debate. Could a robust tariff regime just be seen as counterproductive to British or [in your case] Romanian right wing sensibilities? Possibly destructive because they are advocating different priorities? Nations and regions are different so 21st century “right wingism” will always have divergent tendencies.
Don’t want to forget… but Happy Easter!
Too bad you know nothing about Usaid but nice try
It's so great to see respectful good faith debate, don't stop!
I think this is a surprisingly thoughtful response and I appreciate that there are some on the New Right / MAGA coalition who are thinking about policy… but you cannot deny that A) the policy wing is a tiny minority, and B) some of the actual policy work is downright moronic, largely because there is such a paucity of human capital in right-wing policy institutions now.
And I say this as a conservative who has always been immersed in policy.
Some of RFK’s personal obsessions have trickled out into the broader right in enormously damaging ways. Utah just banned water fluoridation (and they were supposed to be the high human capital red state!), and other red legislatures across the country are examining the cause of promoting non-GMO crops and vaccine skepticism.
But leaving that aside… I have not seen a single Trump administration official offer a coherent explanation of tariffs, and that is damning. As someone who understands economics, the “Liberation Day” debacle was practically radicalizing. Before that, I believed some version of the oft-repeated story that Trump et al were happy to obscure their true ultimate goals with a veneer of confusion and unpredictability… the “drunk master” theory, the idea that libs and China were getting thrown off by performative chaos while Trump actually implemented his strategy.
Virtually everyone on the right believes this now. They’re dead wrong. On the issue of tariffs at the minimum, this administration is staffed by and lead by blubbering idiots, Navarro in particular. The desperate “4D chess negotiation” memes are the most pathetic example of cope. Trump himself has fallen precipitously since 2015; his mental decline is obvious and acute. I doubt he would score triple-digits on an IQ test these days (although his crowd work is still unmatched).
It’s almost darkly humorous to watch every single unusually intelligent player on the new right come to the same dawning realization. If I am pessimistic for this administration it is because I see them as they are. Hanania has it right.
I assume you are not an idiot, but like most Trump supporters (including folks like JD Vance) the minute you start trying to lay out a defense of Trump you lose 30 IQ points. In this case, you are ignoring what Trump is actually doing and just pretending he is doing stuff that makes sense. I generally disagree with tariffs and don't think they've worked out great for the countries that have tried them, but okay, maybe there is a case for them in theory. But in practice Trump couldn't have done a worse job on the tariff issue if he tried. Manufacturing in the US is ironically the sector that has probably been hurt MOST by the tariffs (along with small businesses).
Same deal with DOGE--apparently they have "found government waste", but mostly they have just fired people and canceled some grants, while the deficit has INCREASED vs last year. Randomly firing federal workers is not going to save money; in the case of revenue drivers like national parks and IRS and Tax Department workers it will lose the government money.
Basically, all Trump supporters start from the premise that everything Trump does is good and work back from there (and handwave the bad stuff away with "I never said he was perfect!") You would think if you actually thought the tariffs were a good idea you'd be upset that Trump is ruining the implementation with insane "reciprocal" tariffs that were in no way reciprocal, refused to offer a coherent goal for the negotiations in the first place, and backed down for the most part almost immediately but with the promise that at some point we'll go through this again. But the flip side to this mindless devotion to Trump is that it filters out the smart people, so you have constant fiascos that no one is allowed to acknowledge.
yes.
to invoke another buzzword - "midwit" - we (society) are constantly trying to reduce anything that takes real skill or thoughtfulness to a level where every joker (midwit) can participate. it's everywhere, and the one you are pointing out is much to do with political dialogue. Neil Postman touches on this with his excellent 'Amusing ourselves to Death' when he discusses 'the medium is the message' concept. the result is non-seriousness and watered down slop.
to add to your Genghis Khan quote .. this from Virgil :
The gates of hell are open night and day;
Smooth the descent, and easy is the way:
But to return, and view the cheerful skies,
In this the task and mighty labor lies.
... thoughtfulness and hard work is required, not shortcuts. it requires more labor (and a moral foundation), but the return to cheerful skies is not attainable by any other means. the Christian work ethic was more than merely 'honest work for honest pay' .. it was a recognition of doing the right things righteously.
I just got around to reading the NYT article in question (fortunately not behind their usual paywall). You've got to hand it to the Left (Ms Goldberg, in this case). They never miss an opportunity to cynically exploit any perceived fissures exposed by their opposition. The "Right", which has morphed into a broad coalition (from elitists like Hanania and Cofnas, to blue-collar MAGA "deplorables"), is often vulnerable to this tactic given that they are not shy about airing internal differences. On the other hand, the Left, at least the Democrat party in the US, is quite skilled at squelching dissent within their ranks and presenting a united front (rarely will a Democrat in the congress defect on any issue). To me, this signals that the serious intellectual activity is happening on the Right. A good example supporting this view can be found by comparing the number of radio talk shows and internet podcasts coming from each camp. The Right dominates the space because they actually have something interesting to talk about.
This is simply wrong. The left has loud, public fights all the time. The most recent one is leftists attacking Ezra Klein and Derek Thomson over Abundance. In 2023-24 it was about Gaza. And since 2015 there’s been a low grade civil war between the Bernie/DSA crowd and moderates. Biden made the mistake of elevating some of their people, and it backfired catastrophically.
The difference is the left always comes together in the end. Ezra Klein, no matter how insane everyone to the left of him is, will always support the left politically. He will never sit out an election like Alex or Cofnas or the left left me types. And that’s why the left wins much more often than the right.
The left consistently attacked Kamala last fall over Gaza and many very loudly said they will not vote for her. A cottage industry on X right now is posting screenshots of those tweets over those same activists complaining about Trump.
Another thing you see a lot is leftists complaining that Democrats suck because they aren’t stopping Trump. They only even mention Trump as a backdoor way to yell at Democrats.
They all really, really hate Matt Yglesias. Just yesterday David Klion wrote a Substack blaming him for the rise of Curtis Yarvin. Yarvin can’t just be an independent thinker, you see. It must somehow be the fault of centrist liberals.
And still almost all of them voted for Kamala. As much as the Bernie Bros hate Yglesius and he probably hates them in return, the bros will still vote for an establishment shill and Yglesius would vote for Bernie or AOC if they got nominated. Because they know they are in a war, while the EHC, left left me, and finger wagging centrists think politics is a debating club.
Kamala got 6 million fewer votes than Biden got in 2020. Trump got 2 million more than in 2020.
This idea that the left is in lockstep is nonsense.
Most of those missing 2 million votes are the result of less money put into the mail in get out the vote and tightening of the mail in voting rules post Covid.
Um, Musk, Ackman, RFK Jr.
A good rule of thumb before engaging in great questions of civilization and meaning is to: A) Learn a few foreign languages; B) Have numerical skills. Otherwise, you'll just read a few pages of Schmitt and Spengler out of context and delude yourself into thinking you've unlocked the secrets of civilization while just being a midwit fanatic. Another salubrious alternative is to just have a nice time with family and friends and not attempt to dabble in anything abstract.
Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight you should have spread your net wider Alex. My own Substack could be described as being of the "online Right" but is quite simply 0% guilty of any of the things you lament and disavow in this piece. And I believe that is true of many others. What IS true is that all those things you describe can be a fast-track, click baity, cliquey route to being viewed as a significant player on the likes of New Right Poast et al.
Listen, pal...
?.... I'm listening?
From someone who's gone on a similar journey, thank you for writing this.
Very good. What's I'm seeing, though, is that the United States is no longer capable of governing itself. No, seriously, who do you think should be put in power so that things get better rather than worse? Gavin Newsom, the King of Lockdowns? (Let's not even talk about the EU, please. It's far too depressing. I'm in Europe, just to be clear.)
I believe we're looking at an American edition of Perestroika. I have yet to see any compelling arguments to the contrary. The system will crash, and it's impossible to tell what will be born out of it. Lots of pain is the only thing that's guaranteed.
This is where I am, and I’m more convinced every day. Years ago, I wrote about National Divorce as a reason to talk about building real institutions of autonomy for a Right that no longer shared any values with the Left. I’ve been far too depressed about the Right’s obvious inability to build anything—aside from the infotainment ecosystem Alex describes. I’ve concluded that the renewal and autonomy that was needed can never be created by this movement. It was a sobering thing to realize.
The meme-lords aren’t even the worst part: we now have a billion-dollar podcast industry that is proudly ignorant and credulous of anything that would destroy the credibility not of the Left, but of the country more broadly. The 60 and 50 year old KGB conspiracy theories created to be weaponized to break the minds of Americans and Westerners are now everyday fare; but that’s merely the appetizer: the cognitive opening created by the suspicions and conspiracy-mindedness lobotomized its audience. Some people believe this is an advance or some kind of “win,” but if you spent years talking about the importance of ideas, the assumption was that the way to a better, more sane politics is found in elevating the audience and helping better equip them to participate in politics constructively. We’re now looking at a population that is incapable of serious thought or meaningful participation in civic life because they have become addicted—not only to memes but, most damagingly, to systems of thought that leave them unable to see the reality before them, as they look for more and more convoluted and insane ways of explaining the world.
I figured out a long time ago that the US was the USSR, circa 1983.
Everyone knows that K. U. Chenenko is a senile alcoholic. Everyone knows that drastic reforms have to be made, and soon, but that entrenched interests make any real reform impossible. The Uniparty still appears unified in public, but the knives are out and factions are frantically maneuvering behind the scenes. The old slogans, freedom, democracy, all that are still trotted out and people still mouth along to the old songs, but nobody believes a word of any of it any more, and there is no attempt to implement any of it. The security services are still there, and they still have fearsome powers of repression, which are largely used for political purposes.
A few years later, the open looting of everything not nailed down will start.
The idea of a world without the Soviet Union is still pretty much unthinkable (when A. A. Amalrik published "Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?", he was written off as a nutcase).
Hey Finster this is Rick Steven D from Rod Dreher's old TAC blog. Great to see you are still making terrific comments.
Thank you for the kind words.
A predilection for short term thought will destroy any political movement. This portion of the intellectual world has been very interesting to me as well, although I have noticed a profound dearth of efforts to build alternative institutions. You have correctly identified the effects of social media upon the nature of debate in the world of today. Regardless of politics, the effects of smartphones and social media will destroy our society unless we take stronger measures. Tom Swift was founded to counter these effects. If you are curious, read more here:
This is a program I hope will solve the problem:
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/tom-swift-is-on-the-move
These are my thoughts on digital involution:
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/digital-involution
Again, I appreciate this article. If there is to be anything beyond liberal modernity, it must be built on solid intellectual foundations for the benefit of future generations.
Do you support the blatant suppression of the right wing party in your own country by "deep state" elements? If not, why have you not made your opposition to its suppression explicit? Why is sniping at incels and other basically powerless online entities more important to you than speaking out against this grave injustice taking place IN YOUR OWN NATION?
I don’t actively support it, but in this case, I see it as an incidental blessing, considering who we’re talking about.
Pathetic.
Don't be angry, Andy. It's Easter Eve. Enjoy the blessings of this life and have a nice time.
I'm not angry, just observant.
“Pathetic” is an emotionally charged term. You shouldn’t take this stuff so seriously. Who cares really about Marine Le Pen or Romanian politics? Just be a good man and have a nice time with your family.
"Pathetic," as used here, is an objective observation of the facts.
Do you feel likewise about the French establishment using lawfare against Marine Le Pen? Is that also an "incidental blessing," in your assessment?
That “establishment” you’re talking about is called independent justice. If you informed yourself about the case using sources other than sensationalist, conspiratorial twitter, you would understand just how seriously idiotic, incompetent, and corrupt Marine Le Pen and her party are.
When it comes to Calin Georgescu, aren't his politics regarding NATO and Russia more important right now than his organic farming vision?
Aren't those politics exactly what most Romanians find disturbing about him? A lot of Romanians remember Russians as "animals" who raped their way through Romania in 1945, and continue to create trouble in Moldova. Not a lot of sympathy for Russia in Romania.
And yet, Georgescu was slated to win the election in Romania.
Lasconi probably would have won. Funny thing is a lot of elites were more concerned with her winning than Georgescu.
If you really think that it is necessary to overturn election results and ban a candidate that wasn't likely to win, well.
I spend a lot of time in Romania and Alex is completely right to be disturbed by Georgescu. That man is not "conservative" in any meaningful sense, he is a mentally disturbed child supported by Russian money eager to separate Romania from the EU and also protect Russian interests in Moldova. If Pol Pot is your idea of a conservative hero, than I suppose Georgescu is your man. It wasn't the "deep state" that killed his candidacy, it was Romanian elites in full and transparent view of the whole country. Sometimes elites will stand up to protect their own interests, it's what actual elites do. Elites banding together to protect the traditional hierarchy and squash dangerous populists is about as "conservative" as it gets, so why are American right wingers continuing to belly ache about this?
Saw some restack of this article saying “[if you don’t see how deporting ms-13 isn’t putting the democrats in the seat of sanity you don’t get it]” (honestly their phrasing was worse) which is the embodiment of someone copping with memes and, ironically, missing the point.
Really love this piece. Thanks for writing. I personally have enjoyed the podcast even more since your pivot, which feels honest. I think the vice/empathy ratchet analogies you identified are really helpful