Biden Crime Family

[Alexis Jacobi]

Do you not fear the dissident right?

In numerous ways I am a Dissident Rightist. But I *fear* man and what man is capable of when unrestrained.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you were uninterested in making the case for an "Alt-Right" "danger," then there was no point in you speaking up in the first place.

I have aready done just that, sufficiently though only superficially. If you really really want to go into it more I can pull up some material that I believe illustrates only the points I reasonably make, not your over-the-top ones that you desire to make.

[Gary Childress]

Do you not fear the dissident right?

In numerous ways I am a Dissident Rightist. But I *fear* man and what man is capable of when unrestrained.

For now, I'm not a dissident. I have read a lot of writings of what might be called "dissident left". Mostly from Noam Chomsky, but a few others thrown in there too. I also fear some of the things humanity is capable of. However, I'd rather not "restrain" anyone if possible.

May I ask you why you consider yourself a "dissident"?

[Immanuel Can]

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

In my view? It is that the liberalism that we have all lived under, and prospered under, might not be sufficiently appreciated by those filled with zealousness for change.

HOW is this going to happen? HOW is the "Alt-Right" going to be a "danger"? Come on, AJ...get back on topic.

[Immanuel Can]

If you were uninterested in making the case for an "Alt-Right" "danger," then there was no point in you speaking up in the first place.

I have aready done just that, sufficiently though only superficially.

I don't see anything that rises to the level of a "superficial" answer to that question, or to the level of any answer at all.

Do you have an answer?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can’t help you more than I already have my Long-Eared friend. Does your wife provide you with barley and an apple from time-to-time?

Though one tid-bit might help you:

Tucker Carleton broadcast the notion of the Great Replacement. It is, very definitely, a Dissident Right idea that percolated into the so-called mainstream.

The notion of “replacement” (by conscious policy) is radical and threatening, though certainly true.

This is one example. There are others.

Please bray your *response*. I’m always interested.

I do not mention this to bolster any point you desire to make, but only my asserted points: the Dissident Right has influenced the cultural conversation.

Selah

[Gary Childress]

Tucker Carleton broadcast the notion of the Great Replacement. It is, very definitely, a Dissident Right idea that percolated into the so-called mainstream.

It's a good source of paranoia but does it serve any other valid purpose?

[Gary Childress]

What's the "danger"? How is this DR going to suddenly rise up and seize the public agenda for itself? Is this little-known band of DRers suddenly going to storm the capital and install a puppet government? Is it going to corrupt the news, the education system, the political establishment, the economic system, or any other system?

In my view? It is that the liberalism that we have all lived under, and prospered under, might not be sufficiently appreciated by those filled with zealousness for change.

HOW is this going to happen? HOW is the "Alt-Right" going to be a "danger"? Come on, AJ...get back on topic.

I think you gave yourself your answer if you scroll back a little ways to some things I highlighted in red in one of your posts.

From where I'm sitting, it seems probably best for you to leave AJ alone for now. Just saying... ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's a good source of paranoia but does it serve any other valid purpose?

It is likely that you never really investigated the idea, the fact, of “replacement”, and resisted doing so for (?) ideological reasons felt to be “right”.

So “paranoia” is a psychological label. Paranoia is a pathology, no?

But replacement is very real.

What purpose does seeing & understanding what is real serve? How would you answer that question?

[Gary Childress]

It's a good source of paranoia but does it serve any other valid purpose?

It is likely that you never really investigated the idea, the fact, of “replacement”, and resisted doing so for (?) ideological reasons felt to be “right”.

So “paranoia” is a psychological label. Paranoia is a pathology, no?

But replacement is very real.

What purpose does seeing & understanding what is real serve? How would you answer that question?

The word "replacement" is certainly "real", I'm not sure if the same can be said of "replacement theory."

Can you elaborate on why you think it's "real"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can you elaborate on why you think it's "real"?

I have limited patience for your redundant questions. Months back the question came up. Were you to have been genuinely interested in the validity of replacement policy, you’d have used Renaud Camus as a starting-point. Then, you simply rejected the issue through dismissal.

I'm not sure if the same can be said of "replacement theory."

If the issue is important to you, research it and report back. I believe your intention is to waste my time.

Your questions are empty and annoying.

[Immanuel Can]

In my view? It is that the liberalism that we have all lived under, and prospered under, might not be sufficiently appreciated by those filled with zealousness for change.

HOW is this going to happen? HOW is the "Alt-Right" going to be a "danger"? Come on, AJ...get back on topic.

I think you gave yourself your answer if you scroll back a little ways to some things I highlighted in red in one of your posts.

Well, I only listed them because I don't think any of those means are even remotely plausible.

The "Alt-Right," wherever and whomever they are, are never going to have anything near that level of power or influence, no matter what they do. In any case, it's quite evident they have no such power now...nothing close. So the "danger" of "Alt-Rightness" seems to be grossly exaggerated by the Left, who, it seems, cannot even propose who would be a significant threat to their stranglehold on society, and cannot even describe terms on which these people could become a threat.

Nevertheless, they need a manufactured enemy. And it seems the "Alt-Right" meme is the one they're trusting to stick, at least in the minds of people too gullible to check.

But there really does not seem to be good evidence for any real threat coming from that quarter at all. Like "Ultra-MAGA," it seems to be a fiction entirely cooked up by the Leftist propagandists to service their need for an enemy to hate and a crisis to claim. But the evidence for such is just not there.

[Gary Childress]

Can you elaborate on why you think it's "real"?

I have limited patience for your redundant questions. Months back the question came up. Were you to have been genuinely interested in the validity of replacement policy, you’d have used Renaud Camus as a starting-point. Then, you simply rejected the issue through dismissal.

I'm not sure if the same can be said of "replacement theory."

If the issue is important to you, research it and report back. I believe your intention is to waste my time.

Your questions are empty and annoying.

Your answers aren't exactly full and pleasing either.

[Gary Childress]

HOW is this going to happen? HOW is the "Alt-Right" going to be a "danger"? Come on, AJ...get back on topic.

I think you gave yourself your answer if you scroll back a little ways to some things I highlighted in red in one of your posts.

Well, I only listed them because I don't think any of those means are even remotely plausible.

The "Alt-Right," wherever and whomever they are, are never going to have anything near that level of power or influence, no matter what they do. In any case, it's quite evident they have no such power now...nothing close. So the "danger" of "Alt-Rightness" seems to be grossly exaggerated by the Left, who, it seems, cannot even propose who would be a significant threat to their stranglehold on society, and cannot even describe terms on which these people could become a threat.

Nevertheless, they need a manufactured enemy. And it seems the "Alt-Right" meme is the one they're trusting to stick, at least in the minds of people too gullible to check.

But there really does not seem to be good evidence for any real threat coming from that quarter at all. Like "Ultra-MAGA," it seems to be a fiction entirely cooked up by the Leftist propagandists to service their need for an enemy to hate and a crisis to claim. But the evidence for such is just not there.

Fair enough, they did smash some windows and stuff at the Capitol when they broke in but if that's what it takes to make sure Trump can stay in office even though he lost the election, then I guess it's ok. I guess, I'm just not up to date on the new rules of "democracy".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your answers aren't exactly full and pleasing either.

I’m not here to provide you with answers, jerk.

I’ve made it clear: I am here to express my thoughts in the essay form.