An overview of dissident right Substack authors
In crude graph form
What a large number of beliefs under the umbrella of the “dissident” label! Indeed, as Cioran argues it is in the twilight of belief in the existing paradigm that a plethora of new possibilities arise.1 Could these viewpoints be organized in a way that simplifies and clarifies? Is there an essence that can be honed in on (other than the common factor of low agreeability on the Big 5 personality test)? I think, perhaps, the answer is yes. The hope is that by organizing these views into something simpler that it will provide insight on some fundamental fault lines as well as to offer new writers for you to read depending on your reading style.
With that said, these views can be organized into two disparate values that can be expressed in chart form: (1) whether the dissident is philosophically optimistic or pessimistic and (2) on what level the writer posts at. Let’s explain what I mean:
Philosophical optimistic or pessimism is in relation to how a person views the world. Dissidents of all stripes believe there is a lot wrong with the world, indeed, that’s what makes them dissidents; can these wrongs be made right, can the world be perfected or, if not perfected, made much better than it is today? Dissident optimists believe the answer is yes even if their prescription is wildly different — from this approach both neo-Nazis, Z-anoners, the populist right and Christian nationalists are philosophical optimists because they believe that a change in values, beliefs, war outcomes or politics of the masses or at least the elite can or would result in a better world. Philosophical pessimists, on the other hand, see material reality as fundamentally flawed, and therefore salvation must be pursued in spiritual avenues without expectation for material betterment in this world (although that doesn’t necessarily stop one from trying).
On what level the writer generally posts at. Posters may sometimes make posts on different levels, but this is a generalization of where they usually write. There are three levels of posting: on the level of politics, on the level of culture and on the level of belief/metaphysics. There is a saying “politics is downstream of culture which is downstream of belief.” It is an issue of scope; metaphysics incorporates culture and politics but the same isn’t true in the other direction. Focusing on lower levels may eventually give rise to a focus on higher ones.
As a preface to the below chart, please note (1) these are crude approximations (both in terms of placement and in terms of the graphics themselves; I’m not a visual artist), (2) there is no moral judgment attached to any specific placement, and (3) apologies if you were either included or not included, depending on your preference. Also, (4) while I’ve heard of all of the below Substackers, inclusion does not mean I necessarily read them or if I do that I read them often; rather, their inclusion is meant to highlight the diversity among dissidents in accordance with this grouping (thanks to
for his feedback). With that said, here is the chart:
Some commonalities can be drawn from this chart:
You’re not going to find a gnostic as a philosophical optimist or a Christian nationalist as a philosophical pessimist, for example. There are certain identities that require one to have a certain mindset for those beliefs.
You’re also not going to generally find pessimists writing mainly on the level of politics because it’s too grim to write regularly “the dissident right is likely to continue to lose” without attaching metaphysical meaning to it.
There is no author placed at the extreme end of pessimism (including myself), because there is intrinsic hope involved in posting: the hope that spreading dissident ideals can have a positive effect in some capacity even if the extent is unknown. Indeed, the pessimists must hold out hope somehow no matter how remote or silly the odds because hope is required to make life worth living.
The optimists have the opposite issue: dealing with unmet or dashed hopes and expectations. Is it difficult to live in a world as a dissident where one’s hopes and dreams are regularly disappointed as globohomo continues its unrelenting march forward? How is this dealt with - with an update of worldview? A stubborn doubling down or burying one’s head in the sand? A pushing out of the expected Judgment Day? It is interesting to see.
There is often an underlying tension between the optimists and pessimists. To the optimists the pessimists are holding back the expected changes with unnecessary negativity; they are souring the mood and hurting the energy. To the pessimists the optimists have insufficient understanding of the base setup of reality or history which gives insufficient cause for such optimism; they are seen as naive.
Generally speaking, the lower the level of discourse the more popular it will be and the more followers one will have (i.e. political discussions are much more popular than metaphysical discussions). There are fewer political Substackers represented on the chart not because there are fewer such Substackers (there aren’t) but rather because I am less acquainted with them.
In the same vein, optimistic posters are much more popular generally than pessimistic posters.
The referenced Substacks are as follow (left to right):
Pessimists:
: Edward Slavsquat: The Slavland Chronicles: A Ghost in the Machine: The Last Sage: Children of Job: Rod Dreher’s Diary: Fisted by Foucault: The Good Citizen: Contemplations of the Tree of Woe: The Dissident WriterOptimists:
: LucTalks: Eugyppius: A Plague Chronicle: Born on the Fourth of July: The Librarian of Celaeno: How to Subvert Subversion: Postcards from Barsoom: H2F Man: Morgoth’s Review: Morgthorak the Undead: Intimations of a New Worldview: Anarchonomicon: Position and Decision: Taboo Truth (Kruptos): Seeking the Hidden Thing: bad cattitude: Who is Robert Malone: Simplicius’s Garden of Knowledge: Gray MirrorHopefully this post offers a bit of a new way of categorizing dissidents and perhaps both offers you insight on the types of readers you like to read and maybe points you in new directions on who to check out.
Thanks for reading.
The following is an optimistic perspective about the state of society (the pessimist version is that the egalitarian ratchet effect continues undisturbed): “Is there a pleasure more subtly ambiguous than to watch the ruin of a myth? What dilapidation of hearts in order to beget it, what excesses of intolerance in order to make it respected, what terror for those who do not assent to it, and what expense of hopes for those who watch it . . . expire! Intelligence flourishes only in the ages when beliefs wither, when their articles and their precepts slacken, when their rules collapse. Every period’s ending is the mind’s paradise, for the mind regains its play and its whims only within an organism in utter dissolution. The man who has the misfortune to belong to a period of creation and fecundity suffers its limitations and its ruts; slave of a unilateral vision, he is enclosed within a limited horizon. The most fertile moments in history were at the same time the most airless; they prevailed like a fatality, a blessing for the naive mind, mortal to an amateur of intellectual space. Freedom has scope only among the disabused and sterile epigones, among the intellects of belated epochs, epochs whose style is coming apart and is no longer inspired except by a certain ironic indulgence.
To belong to a church uncertain of its god—after once imposing that god by fire and sword—should be the ideal of every detached mind. When a myth languishes and turns diaphanous, and the institution which sustains it turns clement and tolerant, problems acquire a pleasant elasticity. The weak point of a faith, the diminished degree of its vigor set up a tender void in men’s souls and render them receptive, though without permitting them to be blind, yet, to the superstitions which lie in wait for the future they darken already. The mind is soothed only by those agonies of history which precede the insanity of every dawn…”
- E.M. Cioran, A Short History of Decay, 80
Robert Malone is not a dissident. He is the establishment. He is currently under contractual obligations to the DOD/USG, i.e. on their leash.
Thanks for including me, though it won't matter in the end. ;)