Pedro L. Gonzalez and Alex Kaschuta recorded a fiery episode of the former’s podcast last week, in which they aired their frustrations with New Right personalities’ hypocrisy, viciousness, cliquishness, and cultish devotion to Trump.
This was a great listen. I took Pedro's pod with Alex badly (like so many others) but for me it's really because I don't recognize myself in any of the toxicity that they see in the movement. I'm a normie dad with four kids and voted for Trump twice. I'm sure the dissident right has its fair share of crazies but what movement doesn't? The vast majority of Trump supporters are normal people with families who've never heard of Andrew Tate or even have Twitter accounts. Also, much is made about the rabid anti-semitism (which I completely agree with) but again, Trump's administration is rather pro-Israel. Not sure why crazies like Fuentes and his ilk are somehow bucketed with the Trump movement. Bottom line for me: the dissident right isn't perfect by any means but better than its alternative and the % of its adherents who are vicious soul-less assholes are in the minority. Anyway thank you both.
PS: Pedro if you read this I plan to resume my paid membership to your subscription. Just please know that many of us in the dissident right are not like the goblins who went after you. God bless and happy Easter.
Man this was great to read. I totally get it by the way, and I hope these talks help give people more clarity. That’s what Alex and I wanted to do, and I’m grateful Dudley did this with me
Great episode. Although I disagree with Pedro, especially regarding Trump, I think that the online right has become tremendously toxic. Disagreements over something like a Presidential primary should not turn into these insane personality feuds. This is something I really liked about MG's article, and I will note that MG states clearly that he has been a part of the problem that he is critiquing in that essay.
Thanks for this comment, Dr. Monzo. I should have noted during our talk that I think there is a whiff of petty totalitarianism in online politics. Hannah Arendt believed a defining characteristic of 20th century totalitarianism was that it demanded not just outward but also inner compliance, meaning that the personal and political were folded into one. In a weird way, I think you saw this reemerge in political fandoms that are intimately connected with the internet.
Honestly don't have an opinion on this whole beef but it's wild how much Pedro's voice sounds like mi—oh whoops I already posted this from my Prester John Andrews account
After finding too much time on my hands I found myself, absurdly given that in terms of DR internet stuff I’m a nobody, defaming Pedro and questioning his motives. Really shameful to do that. I’m glad I listened to the NRP podcast and, even if I might disagree with the broad dismissal of some on the DR, I think it’s important.
The only unforgivable sin of Pedro Gonzalez is his continual championing of ‘Photograph’. That is a sin against good taste. Hopefully, someone in the Trump admin takes him to a camp where he is forced to listen to The Stooges for a week straight.
Very damning episode. There is a lot of truth to Pedro's remarks, about how he was treated, the danger of malicious lying to ones soul, and so on, and it would be easy to give these criticisms room if it didn't feel like they were coming from such overwhelming resentment. It is clear Pedro is not a native to the internet and on some level just won't "get it". Many of these cultures and norms were established before even 4chan yet he views every interaction as though someone said it in a microsoft teams meeting- He would be far happier staying to facebook or instagram, but he wants something that he can't get there so instead he comes to lecture about "systematic issues" whilst having his hands in the same gossip and sniping cookie jar, its really no wonder he isn't liked.
Everyone online gets into beefs online, but instead of saying "that's the internet" he's gone with "the new right is all about being evil liars and unintelligent". That's his prerogative but its obvious he isn't working towards the same stuff the rest of us are and by that measure its not really "sticking to principle and not selling out", its just not being aligned in the first place. This whole interview feels like the kid who calls his sister an idiot and when she cries he goes "what? I was just telling the truth." We already know that she is an idiot. We live with her. But you're not the mom here.
Seems like Pedro could do a lot of good but he's let all these complexes get to him and I'm happy to grant he is very thoughtful about them. But he comes across being mad he got kicked out of the club- as though the rules for club membership should be up to him, to govern all these people he hates(?). Its just an extremely immature attitude and I honestly think its just a GenX thing. They don't know the culture and won't respect it (because they think its evil- rightly or not) and then get mad and resentful when they get shunned- I know several of that age group whose online storylines followed the same trajectory. People really don't like being given lists of demands from people who aren't even constituents.
Much respect to both of you. I’m still a “plan truster” but appreciate dissident dissidents who think and speak as well as Mr. Gonzales and make reasonable points.
That was a nice interview in a style atypical of the genre relayed and critiqued. Liked the story of Pedro’s personal and career journey and epiphanies. The history of the campaign primary battle is the inflection and the trajectory descends from there. When you mention podcast ecosystems, that’s useful.
Dudley what is Tucker Carlson’s actual level of influence today.? considering that online metrics are so exaggerated (three seconds is a “ view” and “ follows” are on multiple platforms, and he has no “ appointment” Fox audience.
My concern is that Tucker Carlson shifts the Overton window as he veers to the lunatic fringe. His freedom from corporate media has emboldened him to indulge his worst tendencies, in my view.
It gets difficult to differentiate what has traction and what is the gatekeepers’ wishlist. Perhaps that’s where your podcast comes in. Did I just post your next promo ? 😄
Great discussion after a week of cranky posts. I like Pedro's stuff and I'm glad for this chance to hear him talk through his critique more.
Really would love to see more discussion regarding the role of the New Right's chosen medium and how it inflicts it with peculiar vices.
The group is simply so nebulous, its not like Yarvin is handing out decoder ring to prove membership.
Never had a twitter, just lurked Owen Cylcops' stuff back when it was possible, so alot of the grievances in Pedro/Alex's initial podcast were obscure to me.
This was really good. Honestly, it depresses me that people tell you that you would have been better off just going along and joining the grift. I don’t see it that way at all. Maybe, in some ways, you would be. Candace is huge. But she has never had any real core. She’s not really a thinker or an influencer. She’s more of an entertainer. There’s kinda like a whole WWF aspect to political punditry, which is really strange and I hope that it stops someday. But maybe this is just the nature of the beast.
Anyway, maybe you would be materially better off had you sold out, but I think your work is more valuable and hopefully more fulfilling for you since you remained true to yourself.
First off, I have nothing against Pedro. I’ve been a fan of his work for several years now and continue to subscribe to him.
However, I still have questions as it pertains to Pedro and the ideas on the Right. FWIW, here are what I think the new Right is and why I am optimistic about it.
- Overtly Christian. Yes, I’m aware there are hypocrites. But, restoring historic Christianity in America is a good starting point.
- Living historically, not just existing to consume, but trying to connect to the past and build something for the future.
- Properly ordered loves. This begins in your own house and extends to loving Americans over immigrants.
- Identity. Not seeing America as a global project, but as a specific people with a shared culture/history.
- Family formation. Trying to restore the nuclear family and viewing children as a blessing.
Are there grifters on the Right? Of course, but from my POV, I see a lot of good men attempting to build and lay down the foundation.
I guess my ultimate question to Pedro is, do you still have convictions for those ideas I listed? If so, why not find good men on the Right to team up with and help them build something instead of tearing down the entire thing?
If you are wondering who these good men are? I think a lot of the men associated with the New Christian Right fit this category. Men like C J Engel, Andrew Isker, Jon Harris, and Stephen Wolfe to name a few.
No, not absurd. I am also appalled that you’d take the side of the turncoats. There’s broad tents and then there’s including the people who want to piss inside the tent no matter how large it is.
What do you think the times does when it writes an article about someone? Do you think they reach out for comment (hint yes)? They responded and were happy to smear people who they associated with and made money off of.
The Times is going to write the piece they want to write regardless. Everything in the article was in their episode. They did reach out for comment but where is the conspiracy?
This was a great listen. I took Pedro's pod with Alex badly (like so many others) but for me it's really because I don't recognize myself in any of the toxicity that they see in the movement. I'm a normie dad with four kids and voted for Trump twice. I'm sure the dissident right has its fair share of crazies but what movement doesn't? The vast majority of Trump supporters are normal people with families who've never heard of Andrew Tate or even have Twitter accounts. Also, much is made about the rabid anti-semitism (which I completely agree with) but again, Trump's administration is rather pro-Israel. Not sure why crazies like Fuentes and his ilk are somehow bucketed with the Trump movement. Bottom line for me: the dissident right isn't perfect by any means but better than its alternative and the % of its adherents who are vicious soul-less assholes are in the minority. Anyway thank you both.
PS: Pedro if you read this I plan to resume my paid membership to your subscription. Just please know that many of us in the dissident right are not like the goblins who went after you. God bless and happy Easter.
Man this was great to read. I totally get it by the way, and I hope these talks help give people more clarity. That’s what Alex and I wanted to do, and I’m grateful Dudley did this with me
Completely agree
Boooooooooooo
Oh be nice
Great episode. Although I disagree with Pedro, especially regarding Trump, I think that the online right has become tremendously toxic. Disagreements over something like a Presidential primary should not turn into these insane personality feuds. This is something I really liked about MG's article, and I will note that MG states clearly that he has been a part of the problem that he is critiquing in that essay.
Thanks for this comment, Dr. Monzo. I should have noted during our talk that I think there is a whiff of petty totalitarianism in online politics. Hannah Arendt believed a defining characteristic of 20th century totalitarianism was that it demanded not just outward but also inner compliance, meaning that the personal and political were folded into one. In a weird way, I think you saw this reemerge in political fandoms that are intimately connected with the internet.
Yeah. Part of the reason I’m not consuming as much content now, and what I’m producing is often only tangentially political
Honestly don't have an opinion on this whole beef but it's wild how much Pedro's voice sounds like mine. But interesting conversation.
Honestly don't have an opinion on this whole beef but it's wild how much Pedro's voice sounds like mi—oh whoops I already posted this from my Prester John Andrews account
Like a more boring version of Fight Club.
"I am Pedro's complete lack of surprise"
I really need to take my medication (fentanyl)
After finding too much time on my hands I found myself, absurdly given that in terms of DR internet stuff I’m a nobody, defaming Pedro and questioning his motives. Really shameful to do that. I’m glad I listened to the NRP podcast and, even if I might disagree with the broad dismissal of some on the DR, I think it’s important.
The only unforgivable sin of Pedro Gonzalez is his continual championing of ‘Photograph’. That is a sin against good taste. Hopefully, someone in the Trump admin takes him to a camp where he is forced to listen to The Stooges for a week straight.
Lmfao
Very damning episode. There is a lot of truth to Pedro's remarks, about how he was treated, the danger of malicious lying to ones soul, and so on, and it would be easy to give these criticisms room if it didn't feel like they were coming from such overwhelming resentment. It is clear Pedro is not a native to the internet and on some level just won't "get it". Many of these cultures and norms were established before even 4chan yet he views every interaction as though someone said it in a microsoft teams meeting- He would be far happier staying to facebook or instagram, but he wants something that he can't get there so instead he comes to lecture about "systematic issues" whilst having his hands in the same gossip and sniping cookie jar, its really no wonder he isn't liked.
Everyone online gets into beefs online, but instead of saying "that's the internet" he's gone with "the new right is all about being evil liars and unintelligent". That's his prerogative but its obvious he isn't working towards the same stuff the rest of us are and by that measure its not really "sticking to principle and not selling out", its just not being aligned in the first place. This whole interview feels like the kid who calls his sister an idiot and when she cries he goes "what? I was just telling the truth." We already know that she is an idiot. We live with her. But you're not the mom here.
Seems like Pedro could do a lot of good but he's let all these complexes get to him and I'm happy to grant he is very thoughtful about them. But he comes across being mad he got kicked out of the club- as though the rules for club membership should be up to him, to govern all these people he hates(?). Its just an extremely immature attitude and I honestly think its just a GenX thing. They don't know the culture and won't respect it (because they think its evil- rightly or not) and then get mad and resentful when they get shunned- I know several of that age group whose online storylines followed the same trajectory. People really don't like being given lists of demands from people who aren't even constituents.
Much respect to both of you. I’m still a “plan truster” but appreciate dissident dissidents who think and speak as well as Mr. Gonzales and make reasonable points.
Thank you Mr. Nematode
And sorry for misspelling your name 🤦🏻♂️
That was a nice interview in a style atypical of the genre relayed and critiqued. Liked the story of Pedro’s personal and career journey and epiphanies. The history of the campaign primary battle is the inflection and the trajectory descends from there. When you mention podcast ecosystems, that’s useful.
Dudley what is Tucker Carlson’s actual level of influence today.? considering that online metrics are so exaggerated (three seconds is a “ view” and “ follows” are on multiple platforms, and he has no “ appointment” Fox audience.
My concern is that Tucker Carlson shifts the Overton window as he veers to the lunatic fringe. His freedom from corporate media has emboldened him to indulge his worst tendencies, in my view.
This is not a data-driven take but I think Tucker still has a huge amount of influence.
It gets difficult to differentiate what has traction and what is the gatekeepers’ wishlist. Perhaps that’s where your podcast comes in. Did I just post your next promo ? 😄
Leave it to Dudley to keep the Easter Spirit!
Great discussion after a week of cranky posts. I like Pedro's stuff and I'm glad for this chance to hear him talk through his critique more.
Really would love to see more discussion regarding the role of the New Right's chosen medium and how it inflicts it with peculiar vices.
The group is simply so nebulous, its not like Yarvin is handing out decoder ring to prove membership.
Never had a twitter, just lurked Owen Cylcops' stuff back when it was possible, so alot of the grievances in Pedro/Alex's initial podcast were obscure to me.
This was really good. Honestly, it depresses me that people tell you that you would have been better off just going along and joining the grift. I don’t see it that way at all. Maybe, in some ways, you would be. Candace is huge. But she has never had any real core. She’s not really a thinker or an influencer. She’s more of an entertainer. There’s kinda like a whole WWF aspect to political punditry, which is really strange and I hope that it stops someday. But maybe this is just the nature of the beast.
Anyway, maybe you would be materially better off had you sold out, but I think your work is more valuable and hopefully more fulfilling for you since you remained true to yourself.
First off, I have nothing against Pedro. I’ve been a fan of his work for several years now and continue to subscribe to him.
However, I still have questions as it pertains to Pedro and the ideas on the Right. FWIW, here are what I think the new Right is and why I am optimistic about it.
- Overtly Christian. Yes, I’m aware there are hypocrites. But, restoring historic Christianity in America is a good starting point.
- Living historically, not just existing to consume, but trying to connect to the past and build something for the future.
- Properly ordered loves. This begins in your own house and extends to loving Americans over immigrants.
- Identity. Not seeing America as a global project, but as a specific people with a shared culture/history.
- Family formation. Trying to restore the nuclear family and viewing children as a blessing.
Are there grifters on the Right? Of course, but from my POV, I see a lot of good men attempting to build and lay down the foundation.
I guess my ultimate question to Pedro is, do you still have convictions for those ideas I listed? If so, why not find good men on the Right to team up with and help them build something instead of tearing down the entire thing?
If you are wondering who these good men are? I think a lot of the men associated with the New Christian Right fit this category. Men like C J Engel, Andrew Isker, Jon Harris, and Stephen Wolfe to name a few.
1:00:30 I'm reminded of a Soviet joke.
"Did you ever waver from the Party line?"
"No, I wavered WITH the Party line!"
Why did you host traitors who conspire with MSM?
This strikes me as an absurd accusation but feel free to enlighten me
No, not absurd. I am also appalled that you’d take the side of the turncoats. There’s broad tents and then there’s including the people who want to piss inside the tent no matter how large it is.
Did you listen? I don't think it's morally necessary to disavow the New Right but he brings up some legitimate problems.
What do you think the times does when it writes an article about someone? Do you think they reach out for comment (hint yes)? They responded and were happy to smear people who they associated with and made money off of.
The Times is going to write the piece they want to write regardless. Everything in the article was in their episode. They did reach out for comment but where is the conspiracy?