I take some pleasure in explaining to everyone here what the "Dissident Right" culture warriors eagerly mislead people about: America is, in fact, based upon an idea.
That idea is simple: free people are capable of governing themselves such that prosperity follows.
Americans, in the nationalist-spiritual sense, are people who are citizens of this country who believe in this and uphold the covenant it implies: if you take care of your own, the state will stay out of your affairs except to secure your ability to take care of your own without the unjust interference of others.
Thinking this idea would work is often called "the American Experiment," which is a grand social experiment to see if it works. It mostly has.
Having faith in this idea is called "the American Dream." The American Dream is the confidence in the return on investment hoped for as a result of taking responsibility and engaging in self-governance in such a way that we each are mutually productive members of society.
This idea didn't come out of the ground with the American founders, but they clarified and codified it. It was their tradition, which they inherited from the broader tradition of English liberalism, and which they tweaked and clarified specifically to undo the ravages of the various theories of elitism that dominate European and other politics. They didn't so much depart from this tradition as refine and clarify it.
In framing the United States, through over a decade of debates, they codified this great experiment in self-government, including provisions for new citizens to share in its covenantal promise: come be productive, govern yourself, be American, and you can have a shot at American prosperity. Nothing is guaranteed except that you get a shot, but a shot is more than you'll get in most other systems.
The codification of this idea in the American Constitution represents the boldest experiment in politics in human history, and the return on investment, for all the trouble it has caused, has been enormous. More prosperity, responsibility, and sense of generous duty has arisen from the American ethos than from any other ethos in history, including every other form of narrow nationalism. They got something very right.
The Woke "Dissident Right" wants people to believe with thinly veiling intellectualism that this experiment and this dream only work for certain people who are part of the American "heritage" or of European (or English?) descent, but this is visibly proved false everywhere one looks. For every failure of diversity and multiculturalism one can point to, there are abundant stories of success, some modest and some great, from people of all walks of life who embraced the American Experiment and stepped into the American Dream.
What sets them apart from others? Is it some in-born characteristic? Is it being of the right background? Not necessarily. It is willingness to put faith in the American idea of self-governance and to walk that faith by governing oneself and becoming productive in the service to others, as free to profit from this spirit as they are to take it up or abandon it. Faith without works is dead, but it's darkest blasphemy to blame faith, or God, when you claim to believe it but aren't walking in it.
So, in fact, America is based on an idea, and that idea is open to all people who are willing to embrace self-governance. Citizenship is rightly an ordeal because it requires imbibing of this covenant and adopting it. America is not a spectator sport.
The "Dissident Right" isn't popular right now because it's evil, though. It's popular because it's speaking into a collapsed faith with dark temptations. As Jesus was tempted in the desert by Satan, so shall we all be tempted. The struggle, though, is real, and not just the struggle of temptation.
It is the American duty to uphold our covenant, and we haven't been. We must.
It is the American duty to protect our covenant, and we haven't been. We must.
It is the American duty to proclaim our covenant, and we haven't been. We must.
As we have fallen away from our own faith in the American idea, in Liberty First, we have reaped the rewards of lost faith and a broken covenant. Just as with Israel of old, as we step back into our faith and uphold our covenant, we have every right to expect we'll receive its rewards as well.
Put your faith in America and its founding idea. Do your duty to this country to hold that faith and to walk in it, first in your own lives and then around you. Resist the poisonous words of false shepherds and the temptations of evil. Faith doesn't merely drive out fear; it is the absence of fear. America can and is being made great again, and it begins and ends with each one of us remembering who we are and what it means.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From my Woke Encyclopedia, an explanation of the "friend-enemy distinction" of Carl Schmitt, which is the Woke political logic. Link at the end!🧵
(1/13) The friend-enemy distinction refers to the cornerstone object of the political and judicial philosophy of a German theorist named Carl Schmitt, who wrote a number of works of right-wing political philosophy and thought before becoming such an enthusiastic Nazi in 1933, just after Adolf Hitler took power, that he earned the informal title “the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich.”
Though most of his significant political thinking was done both before and after he was a Nazi, during the years when he was a part of Hitler’s National Socialist movement and Party, he contributed strongly to the legal theory that justified the Nazi “total state,” including writing the 1933 piece that gets rendered in English as “The Legal Basis for the Total State,” which is significantly based upon the friend-enemy distinction.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(2/13) Schmitt’s thought is primarily of interest on the Woke Right, where he is a favored thinker and model political mind. He is vigorously forwarded for a handful of his political concepts, perhaps most visibly his “friend-enemy distinction” as the essential criterion of what makes politics political. This idea is first presented and developed in full detail in his 1927/32 book The Concept of the Political.
Friend-enemy distinction:
(3/13) For Schmitt, what makes the politics political is the distinction between (public) friend and (public) enemy, where enemies are defined as those who are interested in destroying one’s way of life and friends are defined as those who are willing to band together in its defense.
Schmitt specifically compares the essential nature of this distinction in politics to the distinction between good and evil in morality, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, and profitable versus non-profitable in economics.
That is, politics is only political to the degree that it recognizes the possibility of factions that exist in mutual enmity underwritten by the potentially existential threat of violence. Of course, that means that Schmitt believes the essential criterion of politics is war, which he reveals also in part by making his point by completing the identity contained in von Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war is politics by other means.”
All radical movements find themselves in a pinch: they can only really advance when people don't know their true intentions, but they can only really advance by going public with what they're doing. It's an intrinsic dilemma that only rare figures in rare circumstances can win.
Mamdani is a good example of a rare figure (extremely good at presenting himself disingenuously while looking real) in rare circumstances (terrible primary opponent, then running against a terrible combination of Cuomo/Sliwa, then still not winning by huge margins).
The primary reason NYC got Mamdani isn't something to do with the electorate, the climate, or anything else. Mamdani, with tons of weird money, ran a very strong campaign (rare figure) in very weird circumstances, most of which were candidate-specific, not conditional.
Fun fact: If you had a time machine and could go back in time to this day in 2019 but couldn't take any physical evidence with you, you could not convince almost anyone to take the Woke Left threat seriously and would get mocked and yelled at for trying, even by friends.
Your left-leaning friends (if you have any) would make fun of you for not getting it. Your right-leaning friends would laugh at you for making a mountain out of a molehill. No one really understood there was a serious problem with the Woke Left until after summer 2020.
The reason I know this is because I was there and doing this full time already by that point in my life.
Introducing to you two of the "intellectual" Woke Right's favorite contemporary thinkers: Patrick Deneen (left) and R.R. Reno. Here, they demonstrate their inability to see what is plainly in front of them—a Marxist insurgency through Leftist elitist capture—because of their preference for theories of cultural rot and decay.
These kinds of theories about why we are where we are aren't just dangerous misdiagnosed; they're also self-flattering humblebrags, saying in effect, "things got bad because everyone went to shit except people like us who are better than that." Typical Woke virtue signaling except in "modest" conservative form.
Yes, they are popular with Woke Right propagandists.