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.Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with James Lindsay, anti-Communist

James Lindsay, anti-Communist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ConceptualJames

Dec 7, 2025
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.”
Read 13 tweets
Nov 7, 2025
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.
Read 9 tweets
Sep 25, 2025
The United Nations is a lot weirder than you think. A short thread of podcasts about it.
newdiscourses.com/2024/04/occult…
Like, it's really weird.
newdiscourses.com/2024/06/the-gl…
Read 10 tweets
Jul 3, 2025
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.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 26, 2025
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. Image
Image
Like fr Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 21, 2025
It's Saturday, and the world is a mess. Perhaps it's a good time for a little humor with a point. To that end, allow me to reintroduce the "Grievance Studies Affair" to the world. This will be a longer thread (20+ posts) introducing every single paper of the Grievance Studies Affair individually in a new, never-seen-before way.

The Grievance Studies Affair (or, "Sokal Squared") was an academic hoax project done seven years ago by @peterboghossian, @HPluckrose, and I with the help of @MikeNayna, who also produced a documentary (The Reformers, 2023) about what we affectionately named "the project" as we did it.

It involved writing 20+ academic hoax articles and sending them to peer-reviewed journals in the "theoretical humanities," things like gender studies and sexuality studies, to reveal a kind of ideological academic rabies we now refer to as "Woke (Leftism)". In the end 7 of these papers were accepted, 4 were actually published, 1 received recognition for excellence in scholarship in the field of "feminist geography," and 7 more were still under peer review on October 2, 2018, when the Wall Street Journal blew our cover.

What we learned from the project is ultimately that peer review is only as good as the peers. If the peers are corrupted in some way, that corruption will be validated as "knowledge" and passed into the intellectual foundations of society through the existing system. The implications are vast. Of course, while we revealed a form of ideological corruption in academia, there are other forms as well: political, economic, corporate, etc., all of which matter in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons.

While the Grievance Studies Affair itself is now over six and a half years old and thus an article of history, I don't think it has ever been more relevant. To this day, it still has not been reckoned with in the slightest. Our knowledge-producing institutions have ideological rabies and corporatist cancers that will be our undoing. Until we see complete reform or replacement of much of our research, higher-education, and primary and secondary education institutions and apparatuses, we are at risk of complete societal collapse. It really is that serious, and absolutely none of it has been stopped yet.

This thread isn't just a reminder of the Grievance Studies Affair, however. It's also an introduction to a Grievance Studies Portal I have published on @NewDiscourses through much effort of my team. In this thread, each of the 20+ papers will be introduced individually with direct links to their new home on New Discourses so that you can read them and laugh (or cry, or be horrified) and share them with ease. I hope you appreciate them and all the hard work that went into them and their publication here.

For my part, it has been a great opportunity to take a day to reflect and reminisce about one of the most challenging and most fun times of my entire life. I don't think I will ever be blessed with the opportunity to work so hard while laughing my head off ever again, nor will I ever regain the innocence I had going into this project. I thought it was funny when I started. By the middle, I realized it wasn't just serious but a legitimate threat to civilization. I changed my entire life as a result, and not a lot of that has been so funny.

I hope you enjoy this thread. Below, you will find the release video Mike Nayna produced that we put out on October 2, 2018, minutes after the Wall Street Journal outed us. It has been seen millions upon millions of times now and legitimately has changed the world, just not enough. It will serve as your reminder and introduction to the absolute insanity you'll find in the posts below.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Like I said from the start, mostly I hope you'll find this at least as hilarious as it is terrifying, and maybe you'll share it with your friends.

The Grievance Studies Affair has never been more relevant.
The New Discourses Grievance Studies Affair portal is located at the link below. In it, you'll find information about each of us, our motivations, our original write-ups and analysis about the project, as well as every single paper and its peer-reviewed commentary, as available (not all papers made it to peer review).

I hope you will find it a useful and sharable resource about the plague of ideological rabies that has taken over our institutions.
newdiscourses.com/grievance-stud…
What became the Grievance Studies Affair began with a trial-balloon paper that @peterboghossian and I wrote in late 2016, hilariously titled "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct." It's one of the funniest things I've ever written, rivaled only by a couple of the later Grievance Studies Papers (YMMV).

It is not housed on the Grievance Studies Affair @NewDiscourses portal, but perhaps it should be, because it wasn't part of the Grievance Studies Affair properly. It might be its second most-famous contribution, however.

In the paper, Peter and I took inspiration from a real paper that had been published in the highest-ranking gender studies journal, Gender & Society, characterizing menstrual blood as a social construct. We argued that penises are not best thought of as male reproductive organs, in part because "pre-operative trans women" also have them (which was effectively repeated in the Supreme Court argumentation this week in the Skrmetti case). Instead, they should be thought of as social constructs that create toxic masculinity and rape culture and cause all the problems in the world, especially climate change.

This paper was ultimately accepted by means of a related but passed-over academic publishing scandal in a (likely) predatory journal called Cogent Social Sciences after a clear sham peer review process after being rejected and transferred from a masculinities journal called NORMA.

Because of the low quality of the journal and the one-off nature of the stunt, it was left ambiguous if Peter and I had proved any point about gender studies and related fields ("Grievance Studies" fields) at all. We were admonished to write more papers, target serious journals, and be more accurate in our claims, and we accepted this challenge happily.

"The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct" was published in Cogent Social Sciences on May 19, 2017, and by June 7 Peter and I had resolved to start the Grievance Studies Affair to do the job right.
skeptic.com/content/files/…Image
Read 55 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(