NRx Implementation

As I discuss here, there is some fragmentation within NRx community. Although almost everyone seems to agree on ideology:

*acknowledgement of human biological differences, which has an effect on policy and society
*classical aesthetic, but some are futurists
*support of social hierarchy, patriarchy, and ‘order’
*absolute monarchy, autocracy, or theocratic government, although some suggest an ‘algorithmic government’ or a ‘corporatocracy’

…most dissent concerns the implementation:how NRx should function to carry out its ideological goals. Pacifism vs. activism, for example.

The mistake is too many people want NRx to be a ‘movement’ that is visible, noisy, and obvious; instead, its power lies in subversion against the liberal establishment. If society moves further to the ‘right’, aided by NRx writings and other inspiration, both in policy and discourse, NRx ‘wins’, whether or not it ever becomes the ‘movement’ some want it to be. The power of NRx ultimately lies in its ideas. Ideas that are powerful, well-articulated, and disseminated, that nudge the Overton window, are more powerful than posters, campaigns, and marches.

I liken NRX to a ‘cultural insurgency’, as right-wing version of the Frankfurt School, that functions more like a ‘think tank’ and less like a political party. Throughout the 40′s to the 70′s, the Frankfurt School was hugely effective at spreading Cultural Marxism through universities and policy despite never holding a rally or an elected office, and the influence remains indelible. Too many people want immediate action, but as the boiled frog metaphor shows, the gradual approach is the best one at affecting change – acting too quickly can result in a sudden, anaphylactic counter-response by the host – the frog jumps out. In boiling the flog slowly, by the time the frog realizes something is wrong, it’s too late.

Comments are closed.