1,101 words

Sites such as The Unz Review and Counter-Currents are maligned by the mainstream media for promoting extreme views. But are these outlets more impartial and diverse than elite outlets? Unlike the establishment media, these publications broadcast a broader spectrum of ideas and are likely to engender civil discourse. Though dissident publications are outside the conventional Right, a survey of articles posted by these sources reveals that they are quite amenable to counter-opinions.

For example, The Unz Review is a hotbed of Holocaust revisionism, but on September 16, 2023, it featured an article criticizing revisionist views. This is what you would expect from a serious publication under normal circumstances, yet is atypical in the present atmosphere of blind partisanship. On both the mainstream Left and Right, commentators have been cancelled for offending orthodox positions, even when such positions are true.

Rising commentator Michael Knowles became a casualty of conservative cancel culture in 2019 when he criticized the nonsensical claims of climate activist Greta Thunberg and called her mentally unstable. Despite her lack of training and expertise in science, Thunberg is heralded by the mainstream media as an expert. Although the inane assertions of this mentally unstable woman have been debunked by real scientists, FOX News had the temerity to sever ties with Knowles on the altar of political correctness. Knowles has reappeared on FOX since his unceremonious ousting, but his cancellation indicates that even some of the most radical voices on the mainstream Right are tools of the establishment.

In contrast, dissident publications consistently show that escaping the echo chamber is quite possible. Like many on the dissident Right, The Unz Review invokes genetics as an explanation for the black-white intelligence gap, although Chanda Chisala has also been given a platform to critique hereditarianism in its pages. Rather than dismissing debate to appease partisans, Unz has cultivated a space for a plurality of views to coexist. After all, without the cut and thrust of debate, science cannot evolve.

On the other side of the spectrum, The New York Times removed a study from a 2019 column penned by Bret Stephens touting the genetics of Jewish intelligence. This study was not expunged from the article because of its design, but on the assumption that one of its authors, Henry Harpending, espoused racist views, even though no evidence was cited to prove this claim. The probability that Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochrane’s thesis could be true is of no importance to The New York Times, considering its propensity for peddling propaganda instead of truth. Authority figures at the publication had no problem with popularizing the historically inaccurate 1619 Project, and neither was its conceptualizer, Nikole Hannah Jones, booted, but senior editor James Bennett resigned under pressure after the release of Sen. Tom Cotton’s article calling for military action to quench Black Lives Matter riots.

Cotton’s request was indeed reasonable, because these riots ravaged working-class communities and destroyed the economic base of black small businesses. Furthermore, the premises of the Black Lives Matter movement have been thoroughly repudiated by scholarly journalists and data scientists. Blacks are not disproportionately killed by the police, although they are disproportionately involved in criminal activities relative to their population size. It is apparently evident that despite mocking Kelly-Anne Conway for promoting alternative facts, the real culprits are the mainstream media empires.

Likewise, Counter-Currents is equally objective in assessing controversial issues. It has an eclectic set of writers. But like many dissident publications, it is critical of Christianity. Officially approved pundits think that White Nationalism and Christianity intertwine, although the formal White Nationalist movement in America is more Nietzschean than Christian and has Aryan roots. But this has not stopped Counter-Currents from publishing Ricardo Duchesne, who argues that Christianity has been a positive force in Western society. Despite not being pro-Christian, Counter-Currents has not consigned itself to advertising pagan religions.

Further, the dissident Right in America is more favorable to statism than global capitalism. Many dissidents endorse protectionism and the minimum wage, yet my articles lauding the benefits of free trade have been published by Counter-Currents. Free market think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute will facilitate debates with critics, but they are unlikely to post articles lauding protectionism and that’s understandable.

Similarly, Counter-Currents is critical of Jewish power structures and fond of Kevin MacDonald’s works on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. But this writer penned a piece evaluating the arguments of MacDonald and his primary critic, Nathan Cofnas, and it was published and warmly received by readers. Based on observations, consumers of dissident sites are widely read and critical of scholars who are respected in dissident spaces. Not even Richard Lynn and Edward Dutton have been spared in the comments section. Yet, notwithstanding the plethora of perspectives one finds on the dissident Right, foreign policy is where dissidents are most impactful.

Arguing that America should cut aid or retreat from some regions is not unusual on the Right. However, in relation to Israel the most vocal critics of American foreign policy become silent. Orthodox conservatives are unwilling to admit that Jews have a disproportionate impact on American foreign policy. Unlike certified pundits, dissidents are interested in unlocking the factors influencing America’s peculiar approach to Israel. They are also boldly questioning how America benefits from her entanglements with Israel. It will shock some that the primary recipient of America’s foreign aid is a wealthy country such as Israel.

America’s relationship with Israel is overwhelmingly greeted with cynicism on the dissident Right, though some suggest that Israel is a proxy for American imperialism in the Middle East and a key link to the Middle East’s oil reserves; therefore, America has an economic interest in enabling this ally. Pointing out this contrary position reflects the diversity of dissident thinkers by revealing that not all dissident views relating to Israel are driven by contempt for Jews.

Unfortunately for orthodox pundits, the ongoing spat between Israel and Hamas has exposed the blind spots of the American Right. People are wondering why free speech advocates on the mainstream Right denounce cancel culture but don’t object to Jewish donors defunding universities where pro-Palestine protests were held. So far, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have emerged as leading contrarians in the Right-wing culture war — and others will follow their lead.

The fracturing of relationships on the mainstream Right infers that dissidents could be secretly winning the culture wars. However, even if dissident publications are not elevated to a position of greater influence, they still remain the most diverse outlets on the internet.

Lipton Matthew is a pro-Israel libertarian who feels compelled to expose the hypocrisy of mainstream conservatism.