The Dissident Right and It's Drive Towards Institutional Change
Daniela Pentsak analyses the Dissident Right and how it succeeded where the Alt-Right failed.
Note from the Editor
I’m pleased to announce our second guest contributor,
. Daniella is a very interesting writer Ukrainian-American writer, delving into philosophical and esoteric concepts in far more complexity than I do and having an in-depth knowledge of mythology. Her work is more ‘metapolitical’ than mine is, and therefore positively encapsulates what I said in my article on vaporwave. Make sure to follow her Substack, , for some super interesting content.Hope you enjoy.
John.
The Dissident Right (DR) is a prevailing right-wing (RW) ideology that is rather difficult to distinguish from other modern RW populist movements, albeit very unique in its operation. One could say that it is a culmination of what the Alt-Right movement accomplished during the mid-2010s. However, in practice, the DR has been far more effective in attempting to administer policy changes than previous RW subcultures. While the Alt-Right has taken massive steps in bringing ordinarily “disagreeable” topics” into the mainstream exchange, the DR has utilized these conversations to try and manifest systemic changes in the broader scope of American policy. That is not to say that the Alt-Right and the other cadres of previous RW movements were not efficacious in their crusade against perceived societal progressive degeneration. Nonetheless, it is imperative to distinguish the DR from other RW cultures to accurately conceptualize the transmutation and future development of RW ideology and activism.
It is important to recognize that the DR is yet to fully transpire, and therefore difficult to accurately describe in full detail. Because is not yet fully realized, be aware that this article is not a total encapsulation of the DR movement, although a faithful attempt.
That being said, let’s examine the elements that very clearly do characterize the DR. Thankfully, John Arcto’s article on the DR as part of his broader ‘Factions of the Rightosphere’ series has provided a cogent summary of the identifiable features preconfiguring this rather nascent RW movement. The vehement opposition to democracy and egalitarian policy, positions heralded by Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land, are perhaps one of the most essential features of this movement. These stipulations are responsible for defining “Dark Enlightenment” ideology, alternatively known as the neo-reactionary movement (NRx). NRx sentiment is perhaps the ideological foundation for what the DR is today. It is dissident because it conceptually curtails the latter-day dogma of egalitarianism. The modern irony the DR recognizes is that, despite the promotion of egalitarianism as a societal ideal, it is peddled as political justification for anti-meritocratic practices. Examples of this incongruency include Affirmative Action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) workplace policies. Many observe this phenomenon with acidic repudiation, understandably so. Meritocracy is dead in the United States.
While the NRx provides a theoretical framework from which participating RW activists can operate from, the DR is a transfiguration of this theory being put into practice. Channelling the theories of Yarvin and Land, along with their conceptual influences, such as Hans-Herman Hoppe to Gaetano Mosca, a prevailing pattern that I witness within the DR that is unique from NRx and NRx-adjacent movements is the practical nature of how it aims to shape and change policy.
There has been much ideological input throughout the evolution of NRx ideology, including the popularization of Yarvin’s ideas. From BAPism to casual Kaczynskiism, multiple extrapolations of the Dark Enlightenment sought to bring new life into its philosophy beyond typical Elite Theory or anti-egalitarianism. Figureheads from these various movements emerged and sought to contribute their dissident views not just in parochial internet communities, or loudly in the street with tiki-torches. It seeks retribution by influencing progressive institutions directly, and subversively.
During the Alt-Right era, and even before, there were attempts to implement serious political adjustments. For instance, Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute (NPI), a now-defunct lobbying group is a notable example. Although not founded at the height of the Alt-Right, it did embody the ideological underpinnings of the movement and remained active during its formation. The organization attempted to make salient changes in the public policy realm. Still, organizations like NPI or even American Renaissance are too infrequent to consider the Alt-Right and its figureheads significant movers and shakers at the institutional level. The reasons for why that would be is indeed speculative, although I do have a few theories. For one, the Alt-Right’s direct fixation on incendiary topics such as Race Realism and the dreaded Jewish Question has rendered the ideology nuclear. The DR, although arguably built on some of these convictions, does not bolster itself on perceivably antagonistic issue campaigns. It refocuses its motivation towards a more practical and subversive attempt at initiating dissident thought without having to scare away the “normies.”
Over time, the NRx movement inspired creative impulses for thought-leaders seeking to modify legitimate systemic sources of oppression against the RW, but with the motivation to retain institutional legitimacy. For instance, “alternative” publishing companies such as IM- 1776, Passage Publishing, and the Dissident Review promoted by anonymous accounts on X like L0m3z and Alaric the Barbarian, gained some momentum. Another figurehead who best embodies this DR sentiment towards institutional change is the culture-war crusader and Ron DeSantis ally, Christopher Rufo. His many accomplishments in this crusade against Critical Race Theory curriculum and corruption within higher education institutions embody the DR’s motivation towards institutional change.
The DR can accomplish procedural changes like those forwarded by Rufo because it has readjusted the mainstream conversation from exceptionally controversial topics to palatable ones. While politics will always be somewhat controversial, it goes without saying that there are issues that remain untouchable from discussion in the public square. Questioning whether establishing a monarchy or participating in accelerationism is controversial in its own way, but it does not compare to the combative nature of Alt-Right and its pipeline into optics suicide. It engages with “fringe” theories and topics by questioning the very fabric that fashions it – what is equality? Should we participate in the political project that is democracy? That is the linchpin driving this movement, and it is making a serious difference.
Terrific. Pithy.