"The Politics of the Psyche": Part 3. The Dissident Right are the Party of Oedipal Man.
The Dissident Right are not "Woke Right."
"Being American, the neo-Freudians have no such conservative respect for culture; they are all too ready to tinker with its machinery of repression in the name of individual fulfillment."
—Rieff: Freud: The Mind of the Moralist.
"The elites of the emergent culture--if they do not destroy themselves and all culture with a dynamism they appear unable to control--are being trained in terminologies that have only the most tenuous relation to any historic culture or its incorporative self-interpretations."
—Rieff: The Triumph of the Therapeutic
The Radical Progressive Party of Narcissus vs. The Dissident Right
In Part 1 and Part 2 of the Politics of the Psyche series, I outlined Lasch’s use of psychoanalytic concepts as a way to describe the motivations and personality make-up of the political Left and Right and the rise of a third party—the party of Narcissus— which can be seen as the contemporary (and mainstream) progressive radical Left who control the Democratic party. In the wake of the election of Donald Trump in November, and the current vibe shift that has been noted by writers and political pundits towards a more masculine-oriented, heavy-handed, realpolitik political and traditional cultural ethos, a discourse has emerged online drawing attention to what has been labeled as the Woke Right (see also) or the Dissident Right.
Within this discourse, there is a strong concern that this emerging fringe group of mostly anonymous social media personalities go beyond an embrace of this strident, yet still benign vibe-shift towards a darker, more antisocial hyper-masculine, hyper-nationalistic, Christian-nationalist, and fascist orientation. It is argued that this ‘darker’ characterization is who the “Woke Right” are and that they reflect a mirror image of the Woke left in the context of the ultimate desire for authoritarian control via a rewriting of American history and the content of the (binding) narrative defining our national identity.
In this essay, I will provide some key distinguishing features between the Woke Left and what I prefer to refer them to as—the Dissident Right—and why concerns over the Dissident Right are disproportionate to their ‘authoritarian threat’ (or their threat to derailing the Trump ‘America First’ agenda) despite the fact the most extreme members of this heterogeneous grouping of individuals (see below) do reflect some more clearly antisocial personality elements, especially in their online discourse.
Who are the key figureheads comprising the “Woke Right”?
Despite repeated use of the term “Woke Right” on social media rarely do we see any clear demarcation of just who the “Woke Right” are (although see here). That said, one can infer based on who is referenced when using the term (e.g., quote tweeted) that there is a clear group of individuals who might be classified rather unambiguously as “Woke Right” or more preferably for my tastes, the Dissident Right. While an exhaustive listing is simply not possible, key individuals often associated with the “Woke Right” would likely include: Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Mike Cernovich, Nick Fuentes, Darryl Cooper, Curtis Yarvin, Auron MacIntyre, Anne Coulter, and online personas Bronze Age Pervert (BAP), L0m3z, and Raw Egg Nationalist. More recently, online personas Captive Dreamer and Coddled Affluent Professional have emerged as popular members of the Dissident Right. Given that this group of individuals is a highly heterogeneous group in terms of political attitudes, beliefs, and viewpoints, we might ask what is common to them that results in them being considered “Woke Right.”
While others have described the common thread uniting the Woke Right as consisting of antisemitism, U.S. historical revisionism, and a desire for national isolationism, here I draw upon the work of an unpublished master’s thesis to highlight what I believe are the core distinguishing personality factors separating the “Dissident Right” from the “Woke Left.” This distinction is important inasmuch as it illustrates the fundamental politico-personality differences that distinguish the two groups rather than their position on any selected political issue or historical event.
The Politico-Personality of the Dissident Right
In 2015, Christine Andary-Brophy completed a master’s thesis at the University of Toronto entitled “Political Correctness: Social-Fiscal Liberalism and Left-Wing Authoritarianism.” Core to the thesis was an attempt to empirically construct a measure of the construct of political correctness (PC). Importantly, this was done by generating new items to define the PC construct that drew upon both beliefs and attitudes that were commonly associated with both left-wing and right-wing political ideology and orientation. While a full discussion of the methodology of the thesis is outside the scope of this piece, the key outcome from Andary-Brophy’s empirical investigation was the development of a 36-item PC scale that was best defined by two factors (dimensions in geometric space) on which the constructed PC items varied named “PC-liberalism” and “PC-authoritarianism.” Crucially, in defining these two factors, Andary-Brophy noted:
The first and second PC factors seem to characterize the same desire for equality. Where they differ is in their preferred end-state and position on the social policy that will get them there. The [PC] Liberalism factor supports the belief that demographic differences are due to culture, and seeks equality to achieve diversity. Contrarily, the [PC] Authoritarianism factor favors biological explanations, and seeks equality to achieve uniformity. Their differing fundamental beliefs and ultimate goals lead to distinctive policies. Though both appear to favor obedience to authority and the use of government to legislate morality, the Liberalism factor supports more democratic means, while the Authoritarianism factor relies on dictatorial measures. Subverting the permanence of differences in biology, to achieve uniformity, necessitates a more coercive governing style.
and
The two-factor solution splits the PC factor over the two social political beliefs factors to make: PC-Liberalism and PC-Authoritarianism. Both factors consist of a general inclination to be offended, and as such produce a general desire to be politically correct. Where they differ, is in the subject matter that predominantly spurs this sensitivity. PC Liberals take offense to language that discriminates against historically disadvantaged groups. They are sensitive to statements that undermine their goal of diversity. Contrarily, PC Authoritarians take offense to the mockery and misappropriation of terms representing their puritan, hierarchical beliefs.
The key takeaway from these findings as they relate to the current discourse around the “Woke Right” can be summarized in the following way: The Woke Left see all disparities (i.e., demographic differences) as the result of a ‘sick society’ (i.e., culture) and seeks equality (i.e., in reality the Woke Left use of ‘equity’ as a stand-in for ‘equality’) to achieve diversity; that is to fix the ills of society (e.g., consider the Leftist concepts of ‘systemic racism,’ ‘health equity',' and ‘restorative justice.’) In contrast, the Dissident Right favor biological (i.e., genetic) explanations and seek equality (here the original meaning of the word) and adherence to meritocratic principles to achieve uniformity (i.e., a coherent national[ist] identity).
To the extent that the bulk of the evidence on human group behavioral, cognitive, and health differences supports one side or the other, the bulk of the empirical evidence is clearly in favor of the Dissident Right. That is, the environment matters relatively far less for these outcomes than does one’s genetic make-up and biological constitution (there are exceptions at the extreme negative end of environmental quality). Said differently, genetic influences (or proxies of them) will almost always trump environmental constructs in relative influence on human behavioral or cognitive outcomes in a properly constructed empirical model that attempts to explain these outcomes. This is, for example, why
has called for a ‘hereditarian revolution’ among the intellectual elites of society to correct the ills of Wokeness that have degraded the Academy and the larger Western political and cultural milieu.The Dissident Right as the Party of Oedipal Man
In terms of Lasch’s taxonomy of the Politics of the Psyche, the Dissident Right may be seen as a more strident variant of the party of the superego. As Lasch described the relationship of the party of the superego with the contemporary political right at the time of his writing (1984):
“Many right-wingers have no faith in the superego at all. Either they seek to enforce moral and political conformity through outright coercion or, in the case of many free-market conservatives, they take the same libertarian view of culture that they take towards economics, asking only that everyone enjoy the freedom to follow his self-interest. The first approach relies not on conscience but on pure compulsion. The second cannot properly be called conservative at all, since it traces its roots back to nineteenth-century liberalism.”
Because the mature formation of the superego is theorized to be a function of the degree of successful resolution of the Oedipus Complex, that is the internalization of the father-figure and his moral prohibitions, the Dissident Right might be described as the Party of Oedipal Man in our taxonomy of the politics of the psyche. Specifically, the Dissident Right are characterized by an exaggerated Protestant (work) ethic and a stronger emphasis on morality, law and order, as well as loyalty to one’s parents, childhood home, and country.
Feminist psychoanalyst, Jessica Benjamin, in critiquing Lasch’s “The Culture of Narcissism” described Lasch’s view of Oedipal Man as:
“This social critique, best articulated by Christopher Lasch in The Culture of Narcissism, argues that the unleashing of narcissism reflects the decline of Oedipal Man. The Oedipus complex, this critique continues, was the fundament for the autonomous, rational individual, and today’s unstable families with their less authoritarian fathers no longer foster the Oedipus complex as Freud described it. The individual who could internalize the father’s authority into his own conscience and power is an endangered species. Whereas Oedipus represented responsibility and guilt, Narcissus represents self-involvement and denial of reality. At times, the popular versions of this critique presented a view of narcissism amounting to little more than a caricature of self-indulgence, whether in the counterculture of youth revolt or in the solipsism of therapy addicts…
The comparison between Oedipal Man and the New Narcissist is permeated with nostalgia for old forms of authority and morality…Lasch’s analysis is a variation on the older theme of the fatherless society, a theory which explained many phenomena, including the popularity of fascism in Germany, as responses to the absence of paternal authority.”
The contemporary ethos of the Party of Oedipal man is best reflected in Tucker Carlson’s speech at the Turning Point Rally for Trump in which he likened Trump's potential victory to a father's return to home to discipline unruly children who had torn asunder the house creating a mess.
Carlson said when Dad Trump comes home, he's pissed but "not vengeful" and "loves his children, disobedient as they may be". The father figure would need to let the child (country) know that he's very disappointed in their behaviour.
Yet, as I noted in part 1 of this series, if the superego becomes a militant (harsh and punitive) psychic enforcer of moral strictures rather than as a balanced guide of a healthy morality:
It is precisely this risk, this possibility, that gives rise to much of the hesitation with the Dissident Right, and the fear of many who caricature them, that they will usher in an authoritarian, fascist regime. Indeed, some already see the current Trump administration as characterized by patrimonialism, a system of governance in which all political power flows directly from the leader, and the state is treated as the personal property of the ruler. Basically, authoritarian-light. A key distinction, however, in discussing the Dissident Right as the party of Oedipal Man, is harsh and punitive with moral values versus harsh and punitive without moral values. The latter is what would characterize a failure of successful resolution of the Oedipus Complex and what Benjamin described when she noted:
In Lasch's version [of Oedipal Man], the ‘emotional absence of the father’ who can provide a ‘model of self-restraint’ is so devastating because it results in a superego that remains fixated at an early phase, ‘harsh and punitive’ but without moral values.
Seen in the context of the superego as the locus of one’s sense of morality, it should not surprise then that the loss of creedal meaning is what ostensibly motivates some of the more fundamentally religious Dissident Right. Integralists, Christian nationalists (cf. Candace Owens; Jack Posobiec) and post-liberal Catholics would be included here. Their grievance was presaged by Philip Rieff decades ago:
“The central Christian symbolic was not ascetic in a crude renunciatory mode which would destroy any culture. Max Scheler described that culture accurately, I think, when he concluded that ‘Christian asceticism—at least so far as it was not influenced by decadent Hellenistic philosophy—had as its purpose not the suppression or even extirpation of natural drives, but rather their control and complete spiritualization. It is positive, not negative asceticism—aimed fundamentally at a liberation of the highest powers of personality from blockage by the automatism of the lower drives.’ That renunciatory mode, in which the highest powers of personality are precisely those which subserve rather than subvert culture, appears no longer systematically efficient.”
"...our culture has veered toward an expressive-impulsive organization. We are privileged to be participant-observers of another great experiment of Western humanity upon itself; Not class position, but creedal preoccupation...is the driving force of moralizing movements."
A generalization of this grievance is the disenfranchisement of White males by Woke Leftism that has been the dominant ethos and guiding ideology in all of our cultural, educational, and political institutions. Consider: the prototype normie white male from a rural town or semi-rural town degraded by globalism. The outsourcing of working-class labor and manufacturing and the dissolution of community bonds and communal sharing spaces that this labor outsourcing has directly led to. Social anomie. A fragmented national identity.
"So far as a civilization encourages problems of self-identity, it may be fairly labeled 'neurotic'." --Rieff, Freud: The Mind of the Moralist.
Vice-president J.D. Vance and journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon are the first that come to my mind as political avatars for these views, though I am sure readers of this piece would also list many others. Steve Bannon, off the top of my head, for example.
This leads to the natural logic of whether one sees the institutions as capable of being rehabilitated or, alternatively, punished (i.e., torn down and rebuilt anew). As
remarked in his piece on the Dissident Right:“I suppose the effort to hold back a radically disruptive societal change does make sense in the light of the precautionary principle. But do we really want to keep a system that is fundamentally at odds with reality and humanity? Wouldn’t we rather just be done with it? Would not the truth be better if it was out, so we could build a better future for our species?
That sounds like dangerous thinking, which is probably why I am a dissident, or on the “dissident right”. But these ideas are not really about me, or any novel concept that I developed, it’s just noticing basic things that would be common knowledge to every well-thinking man before the 19th century.”
Nonetheless, the larger point here is that the Dissident Right understand the need for institutional hierarchy. In contrast, the Woke Left abhor hierarchy and are defined by a tyranny of structurelessness.
The Dissident Right and Ethno-Nationalism
The Woke Left seek liberation from perceived illusory shackles imposed by a ‘sick’ (aka discriminatory society) whereas the Dissident Right seek a purity of culture in the context of genetic ancestry, traditional hierarchical beliefs, customs, and cultural mores. The former is divorced from human nature and biological-genetical reality; the latter aligns more closely with human nature and genetic reality (i.e., hereditarianism, discussed below).
In effect, this amounts to a political orientation favoring ethno-nationalism. This does not imply ipso facto cultural purity through authoritarian means (I think you can be ethno-nationalist but not “Woke Right” in the derisive meaning of the term), but the potential exists given the emphasis on the use of raw political power to countervail Woke Leftist progressivism. This threat has lead some conservative political commentators like Jonah Goldberg to make a finer distinction between patriotism and nationalism and remark that:
“ethno-nationalism is not benign nationalism…[the problem with] nationalism in arguments about political organization is that they have no limiting principle. And that’s very unconservative…[it is] backdoor utopian…nationalism and socialism as historical movements are kindred and often interchangeable movements…I see nationalism as the philosophy of the mob…”
-The Remnant Podcast: Buckley’s Book Club Episode
Earlier in the same podcast1, guest Christopher Scalia references English novelist and poet George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda in which Eliot’s character plot highlights her own view of the importance of nationalism, and for nations/ethnicities to retain their unique identity. Notably, this view of nationalism is delivered in the novel using Zionism as the national identity. As Scalia notes:
“And she [Eliot] talks about something called separateness with communication. She applies it mostly to the Jews, but I think it’s applicable to all nations, which is this understanding that you, in some regards, you have to maintain a separateness from other people, but you must also communicate with them, engage with them. If you want to go back to trade-offs or balancing…it’s something along those lines.”
Nonetheless, Goldberg persisted in his concerns about American ethno-nationalism, illustrating the tension that exists between the Dissident Right and conservatives like Goldberg who undoubtedly would be classified as “Alt-Centre” (see below).
“…And so, if all we’re ever talking about is good nationalism, that’s great. Fine, okay? But like the problem is, is that not all nationalism is good, and the logic of nationalism often leads to bad things…First of all, American, I think you would agree, ethno-nationalism in America is a problem. [Scalia: Yes, I agree]…”
As a final example of this tension, in earlier podcast entitled “Dishonor Among Nations” in which Goldberg discussed his disillusionment with the current Trump administration’s dealings with the Russia-Ukraine conflict he laments:
"[I] had either not known or forgotten when I went down this little rabbit hole recently about Nietzsche is I knew Nietzsche didn't like nationalism, which is ironic given how so many nationalists kind of embraced Nietzsche.
Actually, now that I think about it before when I was talking about anthropomorphizing nations and stuff, the way in which a lot of radical movements, I mean the Nazis being the most obvious, used Nietzsche to anthropomorphize the nation state, right? It's like basically turned Germany into the Ubermensch, right? The will to power became the national will to power kind of thing is a good example of the dangers of anthropomorphizing nations."
Yet, there is a different view of the Russia-Ukraine situation in general, and Putin’s behavior in particular, which might loosely characterize how the Dissident Right (and myself) see things which I remarked upon in my X-post on Ethno-nationalism & Putin.
Manichaeism in American Politics: The “Alt-Centre” & the Realities of Hyperpolarization
As loosely defined by
the “Alt-Centre” are:“…a class of pundit that has emerged since the Biden presidency that we will call the ‘alt-centre.’ These are classical liberals on the edge of elite circles who are trying to pull conservatism variously towards HBD (human biodiversity), race realism, or IQ fetishism while steering conservativism away from the illiberal right…This is the basic reasoning of the alt-centre: (1) liberalism is the worldview of competent people, (2) competent people believe true things, (3) liberalism is the most truthful worldview.”
While they highlight three individuals in their piece as representative of the Alt-Center (Richard Hanania, Anatoly Karlin, and Nathan Cofnas), one can think of many such examples in the current political landscape including the likes of Claire Lehman, Jonathan Chait, Jonah Goldberg, Cathy Young, Jesse Signal and others. Though not perfect replicas of the three individuals highlighted by
, each of these additional examples shares a common element: an unwavering, yet naive belief, that moderate ‘nuanced’ discourse will solve various problems caused by Wokeness. This is no better epitomized than by Young’s recent piece on gender ideology described here by journalist .Anyone reading this piece would almost certainly agree that our politics, and correspondingly our views on national identity, are extremely fragmented and polarized. There are various reasons for this, but the most salient reasons would include mass immigration over time, the Left’s focus on intersectionality in educational, cultural, and political institutions, and uniquely polarizing political figures like Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Because the Woke Left see the world purely in terms of social determinants, that is, a “Blank Slate” view of human nature, any viewpoint that departs from this mindset is dismissed as fascism, upholding White Supremacy, and the like.
That leaves a large group of people on the “Right” who, to varying degrees, understand that human nature is more or less biologically ingrained and not under the sway of social influence. What differentiates the Dissident Right from the “Alt-Center” is that the Dissident Right, properly understood, understand human nature can be ‘carved at the joints’ in the extreme. Speaking sociologically, they understand in the need for hard limits—social interdicts—upon human behavior. In the words of Philip Rieff:
“A culture in crisis favors the growth of individuality; deep down things no longer weigh so heavily to slow the surface play of [social] experience. Hypothetically, if a culture could grow to full crisis, then everything could be expressed and nothing would be true. To prevent the expression of everything: that is the irreducible function of culture. By the creation of opposing values—of ideals, of militant truths—a seal is fastened upon the terrific capacity of man to express everything…By ‘God-terms’ I mean values that forbid certain actions and thereby encourage others. ‘God-terms’ express those significant inhibitions that characterize us all within a culture. They are compelling truths.”
In some contrast, the “Alt-Centre” retain a belief in classical liberalism to contain and proscribe human behavior via principled discourse and social policy. They believe it remains possible to engage in nuanced discussion with the Woke Left to arrive at solutions that sidestep the need for more direct authoritative discourse and social policy. However, this mentality has become effectively and pragmatically useless to combat the Woke Leftism that permeates and saturates all of our sense-making educational, cultural, and political institutions. This is because of the impossibility of contemporary Woke Leftism to acknowledge anything other than ‘social influences’ on human behavior and their abject refusal to tolerate limits that contour the need for social conformity to a true normativity and to shared universal truths.
It is becoming increasingly a reality that there is no space for nuance in political discourse given our current multicultural situation which has become oversaturated due to mass immigration, increasing secularization, and a hyperfocus among the Left towards an intersectional worldview that is intrinsically divisive and fragmenting to any sense of shared identity. Hence the more strident, combat-oriented personality of the Dissident Right, recognizes the possibility that classical liberalism is increasingly limited to resolve the problem of Woke Leftism degrading American culture.
As
noted:“Multiculturalism guarantees identity politics. The illiberal [Dissident] right is willing to fight fire with fire, and this is the only real cure for wokeness.”
In a similar vein, Christopher Lasch in The Minimal Self describes the notion of pluralist fantasy:
“Thus, Peter Clecak, whose recent study, America’s Quest for the Ideal Self, follows in the footsteps of Shils and Gans, celebrates the diversity of American culture while discounting the possibility that it may intensify ethnic and religious conflicts. Most Americans, he claims, do not approach religion in a ‘sectarian’ spirit—a remarkably misguided statement in view of the long history of American sectarianism, but one that fits snugly into a theory of pluralism, derived not merely from Shils and Gans but from Louis Hartz, Daniel Boorstin, and Richard Hofstadter, that emphasizes cultural consensus as opposed to conflict and exalts American practicality and the alleged American indifference to ideology…Like other pluralists, Clecak minimizes the persistence of ideological conflict by pretending that the exercise of cultural ‘options’ has no consequences, since one choice never seems to preclude another. For most people, unfortunately, things seldom work out so smoothly. Those who choose, for example, to raise their children Christians claim that mass media and the schools subvert their efforts by propagating hedonism and ‘secular humanism,’ while modernists believe that demands for the restoration of the death penalty, strict laws against abortion, and the teaching of ‘creation science’ threaten everything they believe in. In real life, as opposed to pluralist fantasy, every moral and cultural choice of any consequence rules out a series of other choices. In an age of images and ideology, however, the difference between reality and fantasy becomes increasingly elusive.”
Why the Dissident Right are not “Woke Right”
The Dissident Right are not “Woke Right” (i.e., a mirror image of the Woke Left). They are a much more heterogeneous group whose grounding—whether they know it or not, is biological and genetic reality (hereditarianism), not ‘cultural anthropology’. Though explicitly ethno-nationalist in varying degrees, they retain the fundamental understanding that hierarchical forms of social governance are necessary for civilizational survival. In contrast, the Woke Left is a much more homogeneous cult defined by their desire for complete liberation from all forms of hierarchical and social conventions in the hopes of leading to a promised utopia. Woke Leftism is an all-encompassing social determinant view of human nature in which anyone who disagrees is thoroughly impugned in all aspects of their life. It is inherently nihilistic and ‘devouring’ in its total adherence to a single worldview that is fundamentally disconnected from reality about human nature.
hits some of these points in his piece “Bats are not Birds: : Why There is no Woke Right” but what is lacking is a description of the underlying politico-personality differences between the Woke Left and the Dissident Right that drive downstream differences in political ideology, attitudes, and group behavior organized by these attitudes.Most of the individuals that would fall under the rubric of the Dissident Right would likely qualify as militant in disposition, but otherwise not explicitly engaging in behaviors either online or in real life that cross the line into frank misogyny, racism, antisemitism, and/or conspiracy theorizing. In fact, one can interpret a good deal of the online Dissident Right’s trolling as a purposeful attempt to showcase the latent bourgeois morality (and online virtue-signaling) of the contemporary Woke Left, thereby publicly exposing their Winnicottian “false self.”
Nonetheless, there are exceptions that blend a militant ideological orientation and online trolling with clearly discernible attempts to be explicitly antagonistic, divisive and/or confrontational. That is, with a more clearly decisive antisocial personality element to their behavior. I have previously written about one of these fringe right figures, Andrew Tate. Another example is Candace Owens and her obviously manipulative use of the “Christ is King” slogan.
It is this fringe right minority, more directly a handful of highly followed social media influencers, that conflate the Dissident Right with something else in degree. In fact, this has created a quandary for the Right to effectively marshal the political impact of the Dissident Right as a unified faction to counter Woke Leftism in the institutions and in the cultural milieu. As
describes the dilemma :has made a somewhat similar argument in his theory of Elite Human Capital (EHC) as the purveyors of a liberal democracy which by his own definition would exclude the Dissident Right as outlined here because:“One of the reasons why it has been so hard for race realism to get a fair hearing is because, as I noted, most self-identified “race realists” are not actually realists, but below-average-intelligence JQ (Jewish Question) obsessives whose beliefs have little to do with science. Virtually every genuine scholar of race is one or (at most) two degrees of separation removed from deranged crackpots and neo-Nazis, which makes it difficult for intellectually responsible outsiders to know whom to listen to. Even Lynn and Rushton produced some profoundly flawed scholarship and often exercised poor judgment about their associations. With the exception of Aporia—a magazine and podcast that was founded a couple years ago—race-realist institutions tend to be either officially anti-Semitic or closely associated with anti-Semites. (American Renaissance is not anti-Semitic, and it is an important center for high-quality discussions of race. But many JQers attend and speak at its conferences.) Most normal people have no interest in sorting through this mess, so they just dismiss the whole thing. Successful leaders will have to make a greater effort to distinguish themselves from thugs and crackpots, even if, in the short run, this alienates some of their would-be followers.”
Western elites, on the one hand, and communism, woke, and religious and nationalist movements, on the other, need to be treated as conceptually distinct. EHC is the default culture that people destined to disproportionately influence society form when left to their own devices, but highly intelligent ideologues who care about ideas can create authoritarian systems or epistemologically closed movements that try to resist the more general trend.
In short, Hanania dismisses anyone who does not possess the requisite ‘cultural experiences’ to bequeath them with the correct wisdom for societal organization and governance even if they possess a superior intellect because they behave in ‘uncultured’ ways or hold political attitudes and views consistent with the Dissident Right. The problem, then, is their personality make-up, which is more truculent, combat oriented, nationalistic, fundamentally religious, hyper masculine etc. which carries with it, of course, the public’s perception of a less cultured, backward, MAGA “Deplorable.” One online persona Hanania likes to use as a prototype for this sort of uncultured, stupid individual is Catturd (see also Marjorie Taylor Greene). The natural question his thesis brings to mind is:
The Party of Oedipal Man as Cofnas’ ‘Counter-Elite’
In his piece on “Was I Wrong about Woke ?”
argues that what is needed to combat Woke Leftism is a ‘hereditarian counter-elite’ who operate from a race-realist perspective on human behavior. Importantly, he ends this piece with the following:“The only elites who currently side with the right in significant numbers are the tech bros. It is an open secret that this community is aware of race differences. Elon Musk frequently promotes HBD (human-biodiversity) X accounts. To the extent that the right has won the support of elites—people who were instrumental in Trump’s victory and in setting his agenda—it may be due to the diffusion of information about hereditarianism. Far from being something that has been tested and failed, hereditarianism has proved itself to be the most potent means of de-wokifying elites.
I’m not saying that someone like [Chris] Rufo should necessarily start publicly talking about race differences. People have different roles in the movement. But I would urge him and other activists to accept that race realism is going to be an integral part of a successful strategy.
Rufo says that “Conservatives...should begin educating and organizing a counter-elite of their own.” But he has no viable plan for doing this. As of now, we don’t have enough raw human capital to educate and organize an intellectual force capable of resisting the left. Rufo says that the principles of his proposed “counter-revolution” are “family, faith, work, community, country,” and “The task for the counter-revolutionary is not simply to halt the movement of his adversaries but to resurrect the system of values, symbols, myths, and principles that constituted the essence of the old regime.” This message isn’t going to win the elites, most of whom don’t care about conservative “symbols” and “myths,” and who want to press on to something new, not restore the values of Leave It to Beaver. The only idea powerful enough to draw talented people away from the left, and prompt them to create a system suited to our new reality, is hereditarianism.”
What I think Cofnas misses in the above is that the Party of Oedipal Man is the counter-elite that—despite its characterological shortcomings—will have the greatest potential to effectively combat Woke Leftism. Cofnas has to understand that hereditarianism alone is not enough. What
describes as necessary for Conservatives to organize a counter-elite is also vitally important. The Party of Oedipal Man—the Dissident Right—combine all of these elements and, at least among the intellectual elites of the party, such as the tech bros Cofnas describes, are able to operate from a hereditarian frame in a manner that is politically tractable and does not devolve into the extreme toxic endpoints of hereditarianism—frank racism and misogyny. But even then, elites like Musk, Tucker, and other “Tech Bros” often push the envelope with online discourse that runs close to what some would characterize as ‘deplorable’ conduct. The larger point is, as I noted out in my piece detailing the problem of Andrew Tate for the Right, you are going to get unsavory conduct of a certain kind and degree in a group defined by the politico-personality traits of the Dissident Right. Traits are correlated. Positive attributes come with negative attributes. It’s up to the intellectual elites to effectively instruct and contain—or directly distance themselves from—the uncouth members of the group.What should now be clear, however, is that the “Alt-Centre” do not possess the requisite combat oriented personality to effectively lead the counter-revolution to Woke Leftism. The Party of Oedipal Man—the Dissident Right—are the faction that must lead this critical political and cultural revanchism.
The Taxonomy of the Politics of the Psyche: 2025
The Party of the Superego: classical conservativism
The Party of the Ego: classical liberalism
The Party of Narcissus: new left woke progessivism
The Party of Oedipal Man: the dissident right2
All quotes from podcast episodes are taken directly from the episode transcripts as provided by iTunes.
John Derbyshire published this collection of writings on the Dissident Right in 2013. Many of the topics covered in these writings both contextualize and extend the politico-personality of the Dissident Right described herein. Additionally, if we trace the use of the term “Woke Left” to approximately 2016 (and even more specifically to the summer of 2020), it becomes obvious that the Dissident Right as a nominal group preceded the Woke Left in mainstream discourse and as such, attempts to characterize the Dissident Right as “Woke Right” are—if anything—a retrofitting of Woke Leftism to something that was predicated on an entirely different set of beliefs and values concerning human nature and the question of national identity.
This breakdown is sharp. These ideological battles aren’t just about politics but about deep pathological forces shaping society. The Left’s cultural dominance isn’t just pervasive; it’s an oppressive force that dictates institutions, social norms, and even individual thought. This goes beyond political disagreements. It is psychological conditioning, leveraging shame and fear to enforce compliance. The existing political framework is too compromised to counterbalance this, making reform within it feel futile. A completely new party or movement is necessary, one that rejects the ideological stranglehold and restores a foundation of sanity.
I agree with this analysis. One relevant point that the “woke center” aka “classical liberals”/alt-center harp upon in their argument ad hitlerum, is that the so-called “woke right” wants to part ways with the us constitution, which essentially constitutes a slippery slope, if not a precipice. I think this is worth discussing, but, unfortunately, the woke center is unable to engage in good faith, as you’ve pointed out.
In terms of ponerology, without such guardrails, what keeps such counter-revolution from pathocracy? If we look at the script from early 20th century Europe, the counter-revolutions were in many cases as bad or worse than the leftists they defeated.