preliminary research

 This is my research for a possible project to do with as well as just general analysis and my own thoughts on the ‘New Right’ from my research thus far. 

The New Right as it’s called does make sense, in the same way the New Left did in the 1960’s; it’s a reaction to dominant cultural narratives and the failure in the systems they’ve been raised to rely on. To call it conservative is honestly somewhat of a misnomer, though it can’t be called progressive either. 

Relying on tradition in the sense of a base for the future, proponents in this New Right have the right ideal in mind: the future. 

This future, by their statements, will be forged at the expense of the old institutions and ideas that would constitute regular Republicanism or simple constitutional adherence. If these must be stripped to the bone and replaced/revamped, they see such fitting. 

That it’s dissimilar from the left in a lot of ways, while blatantly obvious, is also somewhat of a misnomer. Where the divergence exists is socioeconomic: the right has tradition it would like to try upholding and going back to as a base point, and with that a more insular view towards immigration and international affairs. That these factions couldn’t coexist seems like a lie, it’s not impossible; while not in the vein of ‘America First’, the left won’t engage in international military involvement on the basis of imperialism for the large part. It’s really the same difference at a certain point. The social values is really the main deal breaker. People being a species with a crab mentality however (as it already does) make for these sects to be incompatible in coexistence in their own separate but mutually beneficial environments. 

Calling it the ‘woke right’ isn’t misinforming, by their standards and from what that term implies. These people are self-described as awakened. Awake: woke. Rejection of the term, is on basis of offense and being politically incorrect to the social connotations of woke as a term claims. Woke, however, if not used as a mere pejorative means to be awake to certain systemic issues; to say they on the New Right are not awake to such issues in their own way would be dishonest. The binary breaking point here being how to go about fixing said issues. 

This does raise some questions though, naturally. First, to what actual end? Can it be beneficial in the long-run? What even is caring about this country now? How is it secured to said likened end? What alternatives to said alternative could there be, if any?

With the emphasis on tradition, it does become conservative on that level. To that it should be posited, how practically? In his exposing work Industrial Society And Its Future, thinker and mathematician Theodore Kaczynski points out the foolishness in conservatives like so because, “you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.” So, while willing to do away with the constitution if need be, why not also be prepared to do away with tradition should it become the ball and chain it likely will? 

Tradition, en mass requires a degree of sterilization: how the fuck can you sterilize this country, to any bend? The past is the past, its memory makes the modern map. But not being in the past, it’s increasingly and ever out of reach. The future for that matter is too, but it can be created and is. The past just gets rewritten to better evidence, it doesn’t change. The future is new. Arguably the traditions of the New Right should similarly be new.