The quarrel that is shaking the American right wing and, by extension, the European right wing has taken on the appearance of a bloody debate in recent weeks. What does the need for a whole section of the ‘conservative’ right to launch anathemas against popular figures such as Carlson, Owens, Fuentes, and others reveal?
While it is difficult to resist the temptation, handing out diplomas of virtue unfortunately never gets you very far in politics. We felt it was important to provide some additional insight in our columns to help our readers in Europe and America understand what is at stake in this merciless war.
In recent weeks, the excessive statements made by American media personalities have obviously provoked a reaction from the progressive Left, but also from conservatives who are offended by what they consider, not without reason, to be a dramatic weakening of the level of public debate, reduced to an inglorious and dishonourable battle in the service of deadly ideas.
But in this case, it is important to not simply condemn the words of a few internet entertainers—no matter how loud they may be—but to look further, to what they tell us about the rage in the hearts of those who listen to them. Behind the facade, there are intense power struggles, even at the highest levels. But that’s not all.
In a kind of rhetorical reversal, those on the conservative side, with all the nuances that the term implies, are attacking influencers with what I would describe as disproportionate energy—using the same rhetoric that the progressive Left has been using against them for decades. Labelling political opponents as antisemites and Nazis has long been a discipline in which our common adversaries have excelled. Today, some of those who were once ostracised from polite political and media society are reassuring themselves, to some extent, that they have become respectable people because they are now able, in turn, to transform themselves into Nazi hunters. They make this known loudly, perhaps relieved, for a moment, that they are no longer being hunted themselves and that they have a little, just a little, in common with the official censors—the real ones.
What is this all about? Denouncing the excesses of a few dangerous agitators? There have always been such people, and there always will be. The prism of social media magnifies evil, projecting gigantic shadows onto the wall of the cave. But virtual existence must never obscure real existence. Virtual existence is Fuentes’ provocative remarks, Owens’ delusions, reaching all-time-high numbers of views on YouTube. But real existence is the miserable, hopeless, meaningless daily lives of those who listen to them. Why do they give credence to these new kinds of speakers? Because they finally shake up the straitjacket of a world that crushes, ignores, and suffocates them. And there is little point in genuine conservatives wanting to preserve at all costs the respectable framework of institutions shaken by these dissident voices, since these institutions have no use for their support, reject them and hold them in contempt.
Controversial speakers on the web are shaking the walls, and there is good to be found in all this. These walls are those of the fortress of progressivism, built against authentic conservatism and denigrating natural authorities—the Church, the family, the nation. We are not going to defend them today, alongside those who built them.
Why should we give such priority to protecting something from which we are otherwise excluded? asks essayist Dave Greene in a noteworthy contribution to the debate.
Is this class contempt shown towards Fuentes and his acolytes? An overwhelming desire for respectability, gained by denouncing the non-respectable thing? A desire to appear, for once, as a ‘nice guy’ when the mainstream spits in your face all day long—like a sweet treat, a break you allow yourself in the storm?
Fuentes provokes visceral reactions because, as Chamberlain would have said of Hitler in his day, “he is not a gentleman.” Fuentes is not Hitler, and Hitler was certainly not a gentleman—but that’s not the issue. The influencer uses aggression and has made conflict his sole modus operandi. On the Left, other speakers are just as toxic, as we will show in a future article on this controversy, but they are tolerated because they have the cultural codes and access to universities. Fuentes tramples on the lawn with his dirty boots, and this is not forgiven. Fuentes plays dangerously with pointed references to Nazism, which makes him a person “unfit for society.” But does that make him a Nazi? He remains above all a provocateur. On the other hand, respectable communists throughout the United States and Europe have a right to citizenship, platforms, and honours, being genuinely convinced, even today, of the supreme virtue of communism. In France, they even receive, on occasion, generous public subsidies.
Behind the success of ‘Fuentes’ gang’ lies, above all, the suffering and sense of betrayal of a generation that does not recognise itself in the official voices supposed to represent the honourable Right. Deep down, they may share the anthropological vision and values of it, but they feel better represented by troublemakers who, like them, want to shake up the system. Their radicalisation is partly the result of the failure of so-called institutional and respectable conservatism to offer credible solutions to the problems faced by a whole generation of young white men, who have been made universal scapegoats. The dominant discourse paints them as fascists, Nazis, exploiters, and rapists from morning to night. They daily experience economic decline, loss of social status, a sense of cultural exclusion, and the feeling that they are always wrong about everything and guilty of everything.
Before condemning the leaders of the Groypers, it is important to ask who they are talking to. Putting their listeners in the pillory will only make the situation worse and will ultimately prevent them from offering everyone the future—difficult, certainly, but full of hope—that they have a right to expect.
Vilified as Extremist: The Fate of a Betrayed Generation
“Melancholy” (1892), a 96×64 cm oil on canvas by Edvard Munch (1863–1944), located in the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design in Oslo, Norway (cropped).
Edvard Munch, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
You may also like
The LGBT Movement Thinks It Owns Europe
The EU elites ludicrously claim that any opposition to the LGBT agenda constitutes alignment with Moscow, as if the universal, millennia-old belief in natural marriage is somehow Russian.
Slovenia Is Right to Stop Death on Demand
Slovenians have voted against a new assisted suicide law, defying the West’s growing appetite for granting the ‘right to die.’
When Did Double Suicides Become Trendy?
The strategy is obvious: to propagandize the public into accepting, if not celebrating, our “new normal” in which elderly couples are put down like household pets.
The quarrel that is shaking the American right wing and, by extension, the European right wing has taken on the appearance of a bloody debate in recent weeks. What does the need for a whole section of the ‘conservative’ right to launch anathemas against popular figures such as Carlson, Owens, Fuentes, and others reveal?
While it is difficult to resist the temptation, handing out diplomas of virtue unfortunately never gets you very far in politics. We felt it was important to provide some additional insight in our columns to help our readers in Europe and America understand what is at stake in this merciless war.
In recent weeks, the excessive statements made by American media personalities have obviously provoked a reaction from the progressive Left, but also from conservatives who are offended by what they consider, not without reason, to be a dramatic weakening of the level of public debate, reduced to an inglorious and dishonourable battle in the service of deadly ideas.
But in this case, it is important to not simply condemn the words of a few internet entertainers—no matter how loud they may be—but to look further, to what they tell us about the rage in the hearts of those who listen to them. Behind the facade, there are intense power struggles, even at the highest levels. But that’s not all.
In a kind of rhetorical reversal, those on the conservative side, with all the nuances that the term implies, are attacking influencers with what I would describe as disproportionate energy—using the same rhetoric that the progressive Left has been using against them for decades. Labelling political opponents as antisemites and Nazis has long been a discipline in which our common adversaries have excelled. Today, some of those who were once ostracised from polite political and media society are reassuring themselves, to some extent, that they have become respectable people because they are now able, in turn, to transform themselves into Nazi hunters. They make this known loudly, perhaps relieved, for a moment, that they are no longer being hunted themselves and that they have a little, just a little, in common with the official censors—the real ones.
What is this all about? Denouncing the excesses of a few dangerous agitators? There have always been such people, and there always will be. The prism of social media magnifies evil, projecting gigantic shadows onto the wall of the cave. But virtual existence must never obscure real existence. Virtual existence is Fuentes’ provocative remarks, Owens’ delusions, reaching all-time-high numbers of views on YouTube. But real existence is the miserable, hopeless, meaningless daily lives of those who listen to them. Why do they give credence to these new kinds of speakers? Because they finally shake up the straitjacket of a world that crushes, ignores, and suffocates them. And there is little point in genuine conservatives wanting to preserve at all costs the respectable framework of institutions shaken by these dissident voices, since these institutions have no use for their support, reject them and hold them in contempt.
Controversial speakers on the web are shaking the walls, and there is good to be found in all this. These walls are those of the fortress of progressivism, built against authentic conservatism and denigrating natural authorities—the Church, the family, the nation. We are not going to defend them today, alongside those who built them.
Why should we give such priority to protecting something from which we are otherwise excluded? asks essayist Dave Greene in a noteworthy contribution to the debate.
Is this class contempt shown towards Fuentes and his acolytes? An overwhelming desire for respectability, gained by denouncing the non-respectable thing? A desire to appear, for once, as a ‘nice guy’ when the mainstream spits in your face all day long—like a sweet treat, a break you allow yourself in the storm?
Fuentes provokes visceral reactions because, as Chamberlain would have said of Hitler in his day, “he is not a gentleman.” Fuentes is not Hitler, and Hitler was certainly not a gentleman—but that’s not the issue. The influencer uses aggression and has made conflict his sole modus operandi. On the Left, other speakers are just as toxic, as we will show in a future article on this controversy, but they are tolerated because they have the cultural codes and access to universities. Fuentes tramples on the lawn with his dirty boots, and this is not forgiven. Fuentes plays dangerously with pointed references to Nazism, which makes him a person “unfit for society.” But does that make him a Nazi? He remains above all a provocateur. On the other hand, respectable communists throughout the United States and Europe have a right to citizenship, platforms, and honours, being genuinely convinced, even today, of the supreme virtue of communism. In France, they even receive, on occasion, generous public subsidies.
Behind the success of ‘Fuentes’ gang’ lies, above all, the suffering and sense of betrayal of a generation that does not recognise itself in the official voices supposed to represent the honourable Right. Deep down, they may share the anthropological vision and values of it, but they feel better represented by troublemakers who, like them, want to shake up the system. Their radicalisation is partly the result of the failure of so-called institutional and respectable conservatism to offer credible solutions to the problems faced by a whole generation of young white men, who have been made universal scapegoats. The dominant discourse paints them as fascists, Nazis, exploiters, and rapists from morning to night. They daily experience economic decline, loss of social status, a sense of cultural exclusion, and the feeling that they are always wrong about everything and guilty of everything.
Before condemning the leaders of the Groypers, it is important to ask who they are talking to. Putting their listeners in the pillory will only make the situation worse and will ultimately prevent them from offering everyone the future—difficult, certainly, but full of hope—that they have a right to expect.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
How Brussels Unwittingly Bankrolls Hamas
It’s Official: ‘Anti-Fascism’ Has Become Authoritarianism
Against Muzzling the Right