Furthest Right

More American New Right

Since the last post generated some interesting discussion wherever it showed up on the internet, here’s a few more ideas — in the form of “how the American New Right is different from other movements”:


  • Abortion and Assisted Suicide. We’re not concerned with regulating the sexual morality of women through laws. Our view is that we should reward good behavior and avoid society paying for the consequences of bad behavior, which has a natural “Social Darwinist” regulatory function. Abortion may be murder; not all murder is bad, if the person murdered would not have a place. When people are terminally ill or terminally depressed, let them go. We have enough humans. We need more good humans.
  • Stem Cells and Science. “Science is the answer” is not the answer, because science is applied by individuals and corporations with profit motive, and so is the most politically-swayed discipline currently in existence. We want to take this pressure off of science and depoliticize it, allowing research — but then determining carefully what we apply to the broadest segments of society.
  • Cradle-to-Grave recycling. Many Republicans resist all Green initiatives because Greens are generally (a) leftist and (b) oblivious to consequences outside an abstract ideology not parallel to reality. However, this is just a common sense move: charge a small value added tax to purchase recycling and land reclamation projects from free market sources.
  • Urban renewal. End rent control and other well-intentioned but failed policies for regulating our cities. Don’t let people sit on undeveloped properties in downtowns, and start arresting and removing the criminal element so we can redevelop these urban centers and stop wasting gas on commutes from the suburbs and exburbs.
  • Homosexuality. It’s not an issue for us. While we find divisive political movements like feminism and queer rights to be counterproductive if not outright destructive, and while we defend the right of communities to define what behaviors they will and will not tolerate, we feel that a healthy society does not need specific policies for homosexuals.
  • Socialism. Government has a palette of methods to address a given situation; for many things, collectivization is a good idea. We accept it for roads and other infrastructure items. In some cases, a socialist approach can be helpful, as in education. What we will not do is cripple our most productive people in order to subsidize the least productive, criminal, low intelligence or mentally dysfunctional.
  • Church and State. We like the idea of religion, government and culture sharing the same values as this is the best way to bring together a nation. However, we don’t like Prayer in Schools just like we don’t like Jimmy Has Two Daddies in schools — religion needs to be de-politicized and politics, de-religionized.


  • Post-inequality politics. Instead of chasing the impossible, and then being manipulated by oligarchs and panderers who portray themselves as defenders of the common man or the equality of the masses, establish wisdom and competition and nurture the good. Further, we should call the Democrats out on what they’re doing with our immigration policy, which is importing voters who because they cannot ethnically join the majority will always be opposed to it.
  • Social roles. Per their mania for egalitarian ideology and class warfare, Democrats are hesitant to allow any “privileged” social roles to exist — which then creates a situation where these roles are determined purely by wealth and popularity.
  • Media tax. Media changes minds cheaply, and where that media has political intent, it should be taxed proportionately to make it less of a cheap work-around to acting within the existing political system. We need fewer armchair people informed by political “comedy” shows, and more people active in local politics.

European New Right

  • Puritanism. Or rather, a drive toward sobriety and chastity. Europeans tend to mock American “puritanism” without realizing that these rules are common sense. People who use recreational intoxicants substitute those for an ability to socialize and appreciate life, and become psychologically dependent; people who engage in casual sex devalue their ability to appreciate partners as more than bodies, and so damage society’s conception of family, leading to dysgenic breeding.
  • Libertarianism. Much as in the palette of government methods, socialism is sometimes the best option, so also libertarianism is. Bureaucracies will never be as flexible or responsive or inexpensive as free market forces; even worse, bureaucracies can only be changed through a laborious political process or going through more bureaucracy, which makes them immune to critique except through carefully-edited “audience response survey” types of internal action. Wherever we can, we should replace government agencies with market forces.
  • Social Darwinism. Many from the European Socialism-conditioned side of things do not like to see this, but we embrace competition through the market. Let those who are more competent be more productive and be rewarded more, and under no circumstances should we go out of our way to subsidize the non-productive — no matter how ideologically correct they may be. We support job insurance and health insurance as private market options purchased in bulk by the state and resold to citizens, and we support some “socialist” subsidies for artists and thinkers, but maintaining healthy competition is essential to our viewpoint.

And a couple of differences that make us stand out from all of them:

  • Aristocracy. We support the maintenance of hereditary aristocracies of the people with the best all-around judgment that we find, so that we may breed a brain trust among us. They do not necessarily have to supplant other forms of government, but should exist as thought-leaders in their communities.
  • Wise old people. In each local community, which ideally would have low ingress and egress rates, we support the idea of taking the older, wiser, and through their lives most productive people and learning from them. A council of elders that knows its citizens by name and history, and can help them through difficult decisions, makes more sense than an impartial but also know-nothing bureaucracy.

These ideas are probably too much for our readers already, because they run contrary — in part — to the fundamental ideals of a modern time. However, they’re worth considering as we’ve seen no coherent logical arguments against them and historically, they offered great benefit.

From a reader on Facebook:

I think “diversity” when not rammed down our throat, is GOOD for a society as it brings new ideas and fresh energy to a society.

If we’re all equal, then diversity brings nothing new that cannot come from a study of other cultures.

If we’re not all equal, then we need to make sure we group people of similar abilities and inclinations as created by the specific evolutionary paths of their ancestors.

This user was brave to post our earlier missive to his Facebook friends, and we advise him to maintain his position, so he doesn’t endanger himself and his family by having taboo political positions — it’s up to us to suggest the logical corrections above.

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn