A common criticism of NRx (and for this post I’m assuming NRx is distinct from the ‘alt right’) is that it pontificates too much and has no ‘action plan’, unlike the ‘alt right’, which is ‘action-orientated’. This criticism reflects a misunderstanding of NRx, because NRx actually does have plans, but rather they tend to be more subversive, esoteric, or obscure and don’t fall within the usual ‘left-right’ dichotomy..
Here are some the most common ‘action plans’:
1. Activism, which includes protests, rallies, speeches, and politics. NRx, unlike the ‘alt right’, tends to reject this approach because NRx believes that the political system itself (democracy) is inherently and irredeemably flawed, and cannot be fixed within the same framework that created the problem in the first place. NRx, unlike the alt-right, tends to reject rejects populism, because the populism and democracy tend to be intertwined. NRx believes that the ‘general masses’ should not have influence in important decision-making processes.
2. Subversion. Unlike activism, which is noisy and visible, subversion is discrete, over much longer time frames. This is the approach favored by NRx, because of instead of engaging in the political process, which is often futile, subversion can change the course of policy much more effectively and stealthy. In this respect, NRx acts a ‘think tank’, influencing policy makers without having to engage in actual politics. The ‘Frankfurt School’, which gave birth to Cultural Marxism, was successfully able to subvert American culture and politics even though hardly anyone knows what the ‘Frankfurt School’ is, but its propaganda infiltrated and permeated virtually all facets of post-WW2 American culture and society, for the worse. Optimistically, NRx could act a right-wing version of this, to counteract the forces of decay from left.
3. Exit. The concept of secession gained momentum in Silicon Valley in 2013-2014, during the beginnings of the NRx movement, but has since fallen out of favor. The idea involves the most productive forming a sovereign entity, with its own laws and customs and possibly led by tech leaders such as Peter Thiel, divorced from the regulation and decay of America. This is similar to ‘Galt’s Gulch’ in Atlas Shrugged.
4. Absolutist monarchy. Ideologically, NRx rejects ‘natural law’, in favor of ‘divine law’. If the constitutional republic system collapses, monarchy may be restored. Dubai and Singapore are examples of thriving monarchies which a restorative government could model itself after.
5. Accelerationism. Presently America is in something of an economic tug-of-war between the forces of decay and parasitism vs. the productive. IMHO the latter are winning – maybe only slightly – but accelerationism entails ‘accelerating’ the forces of decay so that the system collapses and can be rebuilt (see #4). The problem with this approach is that it hurts the most productive, who stand to lose the most should the system fail, even though the system is broken in many ways.
6. Neocameralism. Proposed by Moldbug, neocameralism involves a ‘corporate state’, with a ‘board of directors’ and a ‘national CEO’. Discussion about neocameralism has flatlined in recent years, and no one seems to talk about it much anymore.
7. Do nothing/pacifism. This may involve ‘becoming worthy’ in the event that should Restoration occur, loyal disciples are ‘chosen’ under the new power structure. This is similar to the concept of the ‘black pill‘ and nihilism, because since the system is immovable, resistance is futile, making self-improvement (becoming worthy) a more feasible and productive approach than activism. By learning to adapt, well-being is improved, and one can even profit from the process (such as by buying and holding stocks).
These items need not be mutually exclusive. For example, #7 and #2 can work together.