DR Stands for Diluted Radicalism
DR Stands for Dissident Right Diluted Radicalism
But the wifejak meme has stirred up lots of scathing criticism from big names in the "dissident right". It promotes complacency and a kind of castrated domestic life as an ideal, they say. If we really want to preserve the white race, having babies is not enough, we need "radical" political action, they say.
Scott Greer has a point though that there are lots of 'conservatives' that want nothing more than to be left alone and live a middle class domestic lifestyle. They want the status quo of the 80s or 90s, to not feel 'attacked' by the media, to just feel 'normal' and not alienated… to be brought back into the fold of society. They are 'sensible' and want less immigration, they want to afford a home, they want to afford a new car, they want less crime, they want to afford vacations, they want their pension and social security when they get old. The bulk of normies, both conservative AND liberal basically align on these issues and only a small number of 'racist' right wingers are ethnocentric enough to want things like mass deportations and ethnic purity within their nation.
However, this non-ethnonationalist normie status quo is perfectly natural given the fact that we live in a fundamentally non-national (in the original biologically defined sense) world. Life in our present political and economic system is no longer dependent upon any kind of biologically founded affiliation. From the start, it was created by a caste of international monetary elites. The break from medieval feudal Europe to the pre-modern era until today was one in which the local nobility whose power derived from land holdings and personal allegiance from their vassals was replaced by non-local, international mercantile, banking, and financial elite which derive their power from biopower systems and institutions for providing incentives and discipline. The more one learns the minutiae of history, the more obvious it is that an exceedingly small number of people dragged the common folk kicking and screaming into the modern world… it was done against the will of the masses from the start. No serious student of history could suggest that abstract "structural" factors, trends, movements, conditions, or any other abstraction ought to be labelled as the cause of the great changes and events of modern history.
This modern ruling caste controls the people because they control the corporations, prisons, hospitals, schools, mass media, etc. and through these institutions they create an arbitrary population (no longer a "nation" or "tribe) held together by techniques which artificially induce the internalization of the norms that they define. The nation as 'ethnos' is no longer required for stability under this new system, in fact, it is antithetical to this "new stability" because the aspirations of the elites responsible for creating and sustaining modernity are universal. They believe they are "fixing the world" with their "new world order" and have a genuinely religious self-conception of their agenda that could be characterized as literally 'megalomaniacal'.
People like Scott Greer, Nick Fuentes, Keith Woods, and other political-activist-type nationalists seem to not understand this fact: modern life as we know it IS built on a post-national foundation. The standard of living to which we have become accustomed is fully dependent upon a global system which is saturated with born-and-bred internationalists. These politician types call themselves the true "radicals" but as far as I've seen, the international financial, commercial and industrial systems that are essential to the modern way of life are never a target of their radical critiques. It appears that these types merely wish to take the throne for themselves without acknowledging how much the kingdom as a whole relies on globalism to exist.
But let us be charitable and imagine these young Napoleons do have a vast vision of a political future where our modern lifestyles are essentially preserved, and globalism is theoretically defeated by ethnonationalism. What could this victory for ethnonationalism look like? The "radicals" of the dissident right exhort YOU, dear reader, to be a Great Man, a conqueror, a hero, a true rebel… but what does that entail? The most common rendering into plain, pragmatic speech, is 'donate to our organizations, share our ideas, vote for nationalist parties, and maybe workout? Make a lot of money? Climb some enemy-dominated institution's ladder? I dunno… just be great okay? and definitely don't get married and become a wifeguy.' The vague plans that I've seen floated most often are an ambiguous mix of self-improvement, donating time and money to activism to "change the culture" and getting involved in democratic politics.
Another idea is to climb the hierarchy of a corporation, academic institution, military, etc. in order to "infiltrate" it and change it from within… it worked for the Jews, why wouldn't it work for us? Well, unlike the Jews we don't have centuries to bide our time, nor do we have the benefit of immense financial power like them.
"But we are gaining ground! Nationalism is more popular than ever in Europe, look at the AfD in Germany, the National Rally party in France, the Dutch Party for Freedom, etc." the politician types hype up the 'success' of these parties to sustain morale and motivate continued support for their own efforts. Unfortunately, when you really look closely at the big 'successful' far right parties of Europe, what you see are limited hangouts and what basically amounts to controlled opposition.
"We do not promote racial hatred. Our focus is on controlling immigration and protecting German culture, not about race." - Alice Weidel, ex-asset manager for Goldman-Sachs and leader of "far right" German AfD party
"Hungary is a Christian nation, but it is open to everyone who respects its values, regardless of their origin." - Victor Orban, "far right" Hungarian PM
"It’s not about skin color or race; it’s about protecting Italian traditions and values." - Matteo Salvini, "far right" Italian Deputy PM
"We are not a party of white supremacy. We are a party of France for all French people, regardless of their origin." - Marine Le Pen, French "far right" politician
"We are a party that stands for protecting the sovereignty of Austria and ensuring that our cultural heritage is not diluted by mass immigration. This is not about race, but about preserving what makes Austria unique." - Herbert Kickl, leader of Austrian "far right" Freedom Party
Not a single one actually advocates for ethnic homogeneity, but explicitly stands on liberal principles of secularization (i.e. being against "Islam" instead of non-whites), cultural integration of migrants, and they frequently compromise and moderate their message, such as in wanting to 'restrict immigration' rather than end it completely and repatriate the ones already living there. Many of these parties even champion Zionism and Israel, rather than holding Jews accountable for the very problems they pay lip service toward correcting. I do not believe it is somehow beneficial to have gatekeepers and limited hangout parties. They serve to actually DERADICALIZE and safely relieve pressure from social discontent, so it is funny to see the self-proclaimed radical politicians holding them up as reasons to HOPE and follow in their footsteps.
There are also those (legal disclaimer: I do not advocate this, but I respect them a bit more than the politician wannabes) who advocate for militant, "non-democratic" means of seizing power via full scale guerilla warfare; assassinations, bombings, disruption of vital infrastructure, and ultimately a coup d'etat. This, however, is an exceedingly rare position that almost nobody takes publicly and even fewer are actively plotting in any organized or effective manner. We haven't even been able to cobble together an effective Sturmabteilungsman security/paramilitary force to support our own side's political rallies, so the idea that some pro-white super commando force is going to manifest any time soon is absurd to me. I'd totally hate to see anything illegal like that, but it seems absurd at the moment because we lack any allies in the elite or substantial funding as a movement.
Yet, the guerilla/insurrectionist position is one I [redacted] more than the one given by the wannabe-politician types because it recognizes a glaring fact about the current elites: they are willing and able to do anything to preserve their power and advance their agenda. Nothing is off the table for them… threats to loved ones, assassination, imprisonment, propaganda, all out war. It’s all been done in the past against anyone who genuinely threatens their position as the dominant world caste. One can look to Germany, 1933-45 as the prime example of what happens when even an entire nation, and a powerful one at that, rises up and resists their rule. Are we to believe that if enough people simply support an idea and elect a leader that wishes to overturn the globalist system, the present elites will admit defeat and acquiesce? This is the ultimate fairy tale. They’ve had centuries to perfect their techniques, gather resources, etc.; they will use everything at their disposal to wipe such rebels from the face of the earth, and I see very few (practically none) of the intellectual/politician types seriously coming to grips with this fact. It would absolutely come to war, and who is mustering an army to fight on the nationalist side? I don’t see any preparations being made for this eventuality at all. Hidden behind the stage curtain of modern democratic politics is an ancient, bloody wall of brutal, ruthless violence that I don’t see any of the political activists of the DR planning to deal with or even acknowledging. Don’t get me wrong, if they do have a top secret plan and top secret camps training top secret soldiers to do what would have to be done, then I’m completely against it, because that would be illegal. They would need to have the will and capability to handle the violence that will be used against them if they are truly successful, but I have a feeling that donations to organizations like “America First” aren’t exactly funding armaments and training.
However, being radical does not necessarily imply activism within the democratic political system, nor does it imply militant coups d’etat.
Being “radical” (from the Latin for “root”) means “striking the root”… i.e. fundamentally opposing the modern system. To be truly "radical" I believe one must reject the modern system fundamentally and recognize that individualism and the destruction of racial/ethnic identity is only one symptom of the industrialized urban-dominated way of life that characterizes modernity. There are also a multitude of long-term problems of modern industrial society that will not be solved by nationalism alone.
"In rural areas, customary laws and traditional practices often override legal protections for women, reinforcing deep-seated patriarchal norms." — UN Women Asia-Pacific
"Where traditions hold sway, patriarchal norms tend to prevail, particularly in rural communities where exposure to progressive policies is limited." — The World Bank’s World Development Report: Gender Equality and Development.
“[Gender equality] makes economic sense, strengthens democracy, and enables long-term sustainable progress." - Helen Clark, UN Development Program
For example, feminism— a central issue for many popular figures on the dissident right— is a natural outcome of modern urban-industrial society. Attempts to resurrect 'patriarchy' and 'masculine dominance' are inauthentic within the modern context. While the anti-feminists may be sincere in their desire to reassert patriarchy, and some couples may display genuinely 'patriarchal' dynamics due to a stronger than average natural disposition toward it, the objective fact of modern society is that women are no longer dependent upon men, and, seen in the perspective of the modern economy (i.e. the survival strategy of a society as a whole) men and women are, with few exceptions, interchangeable. This is the reason that any nation which has any semblance of patriarchal norms leftover are those which are currently 'developing' toward greater urbanism.
In just about every nation where this is the case, the population was, up until relatively recent times, majority rural, and the holdouts of genuine patriarchy are the areas which are still rural. The vast majority of modern service and manufacturing jobs in the urban landscape are able to be performed by women just as well as men. The State supports women like a gigantic abstract husband, and their monopoly on violence outsources the moral 'law enforcement' that used to be the right and duty of men, prohibiting personal acts of violence that traditionally gave men their patriarchal status and authority… you cannot have "patriarchy" without the "archy", i.e. without the RULE, in the sense of giving and enforcing laws and customs through violence if necessary. In modern society, this power process has been centralized by the State and most men are so completely domesticated and docile that they actually lack the capacity for effective morality.
"Monetary policy has become the main game in town for stabilizing economies, particularly in the face of global interconnectedness." - Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England
“I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital." - Adolf Hitler
Another natural outcome of the modern system is the need for incessant economic growth. The present economy is essentially built on a system of debt and lending on interest, requiring perpetual growth to pay back debts with interest. The entire world's economy is basically a product of the Jewish technology of Central Banks because Central Banks are responsible for issuing the currency that all economic activity depends upon. In a very real sense then, the global economy as a whole, as well as each individual nation-state with a central bank's economies, can be seen as creations of central banks. The conditions of life to which we have all become accustomed are dependent upon this system and the perpetual growth it requires is quickly becoming self-destructive, as it consumes so many resources that the ecology of the planet will inevitably collapse due to this unlimited process. But consumption is not the only critical problem, there is also more pollution and ecological devastation than ever. Everything is contaminated, our bloodstreams are saturated with microplastics and eternal pharmaceuticals. Put these factors together and we are living through an ecological collapse like nothing we’ve seen before, there is currently a worldwide extinction event and it’s hard to say how much more the natural environment can take.
“We are using the equivalent of 1.6 Earths to maintain our current way of life and ecosystems cannot keep up with our demands.” - UN Environment Program
"One million of the world’s estimated 8 million species of plants and animals are threatened with extinction." - Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
"Close to 90% of the world’s marine fish stocks are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted…
"Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss with agriculture alone being the identified threat to 24,000 of the 28,000 species at risk of extinction." - UN Environment Program
"In the long run, the process of technological development is leading to the destruction of the natural environment, and no form of technology can solve the problem it has created." — Ted Kaszynski, Industrial Society and Its Future
Most of the material resources needed to sustain perpetual economic growth are becoming more and more scarce and expensive to produce or extract– oil, lumber, rubber, rare earth minerals, lithium, copper, cobalt, helium… the list goes on and on. Essential materials that the world now thrives on are at the point of diminishing returns, proving our economic system overall is unsustainable in the long term. But the most important resource of all that the economy requires for perpetual growth is PEOPLE. While it is true that there are more nefarious reasons for flooding white nations with 3rd world migrants, the public justification– that it is needed for continued economic growth– is ALSO true.
Every single urban-industrial nation in the world is experiencing a decline in birthrates, and that is an inevitable outcome of the modern economy in general. The modern economy is one of urbanization, industrialization, and ultimately the creation of a 'service/manufacturing' economy. In such a system, children are no longer assets to a family, but objectively they are liabilities. They are no longer helpful hands on the farm or homestead, but unproductive mouths to feed. Today when people have children, it is basically an elective "lifestyle choice", rather than a necessary expansion of the family and insurance that one will have caregivers in their elder years. Whatever artificial means (religion, ideology, government incentives, etc.) are applied to boost birth rates are unsustainable in the long term, like sand castles waiting for the tide to come in.
The previous system of rural agrarian economy was, compared to the industrial economy, very resilient and stable. The world population grew at an exponentially slower rate and would 'reset' from time to time due to wars, famine, natural disasters, etc. And even after those collapses, society was able to carry on because the individual family-clans of each nation were more or less self-sufficient and resilient in their own rights. The meteoric burst of population worldwide over the past few centuries is totally unsustainable, and due to the fact that most people are now part of an increasingly interdependent industrial economy, if that population crashes, the results would be apocalyptic for anyone not capable of living independently.
And there is good reason to believe this crash will come. John C. Calhoun's mouse utopia experiments give us a good example of what happens to mammalian creatures when population growth is exponential and unchecked. The similarities between the mouse utopia's "Behavioral Sink" and humans today within urbanized industrial society are remarkable and I recommend looking into that study if you want more specific information.
"Demographic collapse is a silent killer of nations. An inverted pyramid signals fewer workers to sustain the economy and an increasing dependency ratio that suffocates public resources." -Nicholas Eberstadt, American economist
Another aspect of our demographics that looks bleak is our "population pyramid" is on track to becoming inverted. We are an aging population, every generation fewer babies are born and people are living longer. Eventually, all western nations will end up like South Korea, which went from a healthy population pyramid, to an inverted one, in just 60 years. The inverted population pyramid is a well known phenomenon in ecology which signals the collapse of an animal population.
All of this is to say— the destruction of our race is only one element in the general destruction that the modern way of life is leading us toward. Most politically aspiring nationalists don’t seem to acknowledge this glaring reality. To be truly “radical”, in my view, is to cut straight to the root of this issue and build new communities from scratch that can be autonomous and self-sustaining through the cataclysms that are already in motion. This is why the idea that we should be “homesteading” and having large families that build new rural agrarian communities is not just “running” from the problem, as the politician types would characterize it, but actually addressing the problem overall at its root. The hope is to create communities that can preserve our people in a state of harmony with nature that can weather the coming storm.
Additionally, this strategy provides people with the opportunity for freedom from the degeneracy of modern society within our own lifetimes. It holds the promise of a better life today… an escape from something that must be escaped. The hope is to yield a decent life for our children and children’s children that is free from the corrupting influence of modern culture. We can provide them a much cleaner slate and better life than we were given, instead of dooming them to endure in fighting for a lost cause among so many degenerate bug people.
In summary, all of our traditional values and norms were adaptations of a mode of living that has been destroyed over the past couple centuries. Our best bet for restoring such norms and values is to recreate a way of life that is closer to that of our ancestors. Under this vision of our future, we ought to be prioritizing our resources and efforts in creating a parallel economy and helping young men gain the skills and start the businesses that would be needed to sustain intentional communities. The best thing at the beginning is the family farm/homestead, but close behind is creating cottage businesses that supply essential products and services, much like the Amish do. We will need builders, skilled labor and tradesmen, as well as the schools and institutions needed to prepare children for such roles in the community. We need plumbers, electricians, stoneworkers, metalworkers, carpenters, transport infrastructure, educators and educational institutions… etc. etc. etc.
All of this is entirely possible if we directed our efforts toward it, and it would be effective too— the Amish, who would be in many ways a good model to follow, are doubling their population every 20 years. Selecting the best and most naturally inclined toward our ethnonationalist worldview and then multiplying them seems to me far easier and more effective than trying to fix the masses that are already so degenerated and socially-engineered by the system. It’s the difference between birthing a healthy new baby, or trying to save a diseased and dying old man. And talk about ambition and grandeur, imagine being a founding father of a colony that could go from a couple thousand to 50,000 in just a few generations, if we match the birthrates of the Amish. By the time you’re a great grandfather in your 80s, you might be the patriarch of a family clan numbering in the hundreds or even thousands including extended relations by marriage.
Those who wish to re-establish ethnonationalism through democratic politics are up against both the elites that will oppose them by any means necessary, the social-engineered masses, and the logical effects of the modern urban globalized economy. I wish them the best, but they do not inspire confidence in me. Of course, if an intentional community of white nationalists did achieve the same independence and success as the Amish, we would have a conflict with the mainstream system on our hands as well… but at least it would be from a position of independence, and we would have something good and pure to defend, rather than spending our lives merely wading through the muck and mire of fake democratic politics and trying to change the bugman masses that simply do not wish to be changed.