10 Comments
author
Aug 8Author

I just think you all need to have realistic expectations of this space, if I may say so. I think that talking of an “art right” instead of “people on the dissident right that have moved on to focus on art” is less… helpful.

Still, I see where you are going, time goes on and people grow up.

Have a great day!

Expand full comment

Enjoyed your article. Realizing that the dissident right is just an armchair discourse scene makes it much easier to dismiss commentators with whom I disagree. It's fun to chat, but I hold no hopes of any enduring solution to emerge from this scene, if only because most of the DR lacks any enduring worldview to sustain a orderly society (except those with religious/spiritual beliefs like Christians, Pagans, and Traditionalists).

Expand full comment

Armchair discourse, spot on.

Expand full comment

This has been true for a while, and it’s why I suggest we just use the term Art Right and focus on building new institutions rather than posting ugly memes. Madame Z is also stated as Art Right when they are a Radical Traditionalist. Yet I think it’s good people are conducting philosophical and sociological analysis of the “movement.” This makes it more welcome to intelligent people and grows the Art Right. Brutes have only held us back. Warriors need to be philosophers.

Expand full comment

Thank you for specifying Rachel. You're right, while I hold aesthetics in high regard, I am fundamentally a radical Traditionalist.

Expand full comment

You're right to say it's a mess. Even the name change was driven less by a conscious turn towards elitism, than by a desire to countersignal the hot mess that had been made of the alt-right. But as long as this space can avoid that fate, more could yet be made of it, as some of us discuss here (with reference to one of Yarvin's better ideas, the Antiversity):

https://unknownsources.substack.com/p/returning-to-yarvin-in-2024

Expand full comment
author
Aug 9Author

What has always been the case on the right has been a focus on ideas without a focus on commitment. This is where the left, specially Marxism shows the opposite tendency.

As an example, libertarianism was first a political philosophy, and afterwards a political movement. Marxism took an already ongoing movement and gave it a theory (although that could be compared to Hegel and his commitment of giving the State a philosophy to make it conscientious of itself).

Expand full comment

Not sure that's true of the left or the right. It is the revolutionary ideologies, whether Marxism or 18th-century liberalism, that get worked out in theory and then delegated to whatever agent can put them into practice. The right tends to start with defensive action, then look for a theory to justify it, and what it usually finds is something (like libertarianism or nationalism) that has been used up and discarded by the left.

Expand full comment
author
Aug 9Author

Marx did not make a faculty first, he joined the International Workingmen’s Association. Libertarianism has first and foremost Mises Institute or Cato.

Expand full comment

"The great change from alt right to dissident right is first and foremost a linguistic change so as to differentiate the old from the new, but underneath is a more important change: The change from populism to elitism as a paradigm of this space on the right."

Disagree the change from the alt-right to the dissident right was a change from an actual feet on the ground political movement that called out the Jew, to a fart sniffing theorycel mental masturbation exercise that dances around the JQ. Putting on my conspiracy theory tin foil hat I would even posit that stealth neo-cons got to us. And at precisely the wrong time when we could have formed a global movement to crush Israel.

Expand full comment