Talk:New Right/Archive 1

Archive 1

New and Old Right

Obviously as time goes on, what was once "new" becomes old. That has certainly become the case with the term the "New Right" in the U.S., and there should be some clarification. It is true that the movement that started prior to the Goldwater campaign associated with National Review magazine was called "the New Right" by some people to distinguish its militant anti-communism from the isolationist "Old Right" associated with Robert Taft, Charles Lindbergh, and H.L. Mencken.

However, by the late 70s, early 80s, the term New Right came to mean the more populist and cultural related New Right led by Howard Phillips, Paul Weyrich, and Phyllis Schaffly, while the foreign policy/economic centered National Review Conservatism was called the Old Right. Books that used this separation of Old Right/New Right would be Bob Whitaker's "the New Right papers," Alan Crawford's "Thunder on the Right" and Paul Gottfried's "The Conservative Movement."

Most of the people who were associated with the New Right now tend to be considered in the Old Right, because they are critical of bush, the Iraq War, mass immigration etc.

Then, perhaps, further divide the analysis with relation to time periods? aCute 03:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Australian New Right

Bdavidos uses this to justify adding this:

The "New Right Australia" is loosely linked with the thinking of Alain De Benoist and the Nouvelle Droite and aims to encourage free and open debate in Australia surrounding political alternatives to the conventional left/right economic-centered ideologies such as socialism and capitalism. The think tank asserts that the modern political and social philosophies of liberalism and egalitarianism, as held together in Australian society, are ultimately contradictory and thus indicative of an unstable and non-sustainable social design. Moreover, it claims that the dedication to a social philosophy as vague as liberalism and its associated cult of consumerism reflects a community that is void of "organic" or more naturally occurring and specific cultural bonds such as those of older nations and unified ethnic groups and which requires the abstract but merely ehconomic relationship of liberalism to maintain some degree of social cohesion and harmony. The New Right Australia holds that liberalism and consumerism will become increasingly totalitarian despite rhetoric to the contrary the more the older organic unifying bonds internal to all the traditional cultures are dissolved through integration and pluralism. Thus the think tank advocates a re-strengthening of communities around ethnicity and traditionally held values in contrast to the liberal and multicultural focus on Pluralism and integration, primarily for the purpose of maintaining human bonds which do not in the long term need to be enforced by the state in an increasingly disparate, atomized and purely economically driven society. The Australian and NZ New Right is not to be confused with the trends of economic rationalism in Australia which are also sometimes described using the name "New Right".

It violates WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:OPINION, WP:POV. It should be discussed here before it is added to the article again. Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use that exact link to justify adding what i did. The above link was added to the 'external links' section because it is the official website of the particular brand of 'new right' thinking i was trying to add to the page. I am new to wikipedia so it seems i did not referenced properly. I didn't get my information from that exact link but rather from a key publication/book on the very "new right" thinking that i am trying to include in the "new right" entry. Is referencing a book ok? I would think it perfect, but I ask this because one cannot link directly to a book like a website. Here is some linkable source material from the New Right Aus/NZ website for starters, however. One or possibly two of my above points are not addressed, because this is not the particular source material i used. But i hope it will give an initial idea that i have been objective and maintained somewhat of a clear perceptual lense here. Sorry for the barage of info...

1)"The ‘leader’ of the group (if there is a leader) is the French intellectual Alain de Benoist; other prominent members include Robert Steuckers, Armin Mohler, Tomislav Sunic, Charles Champetier, and Michael O’Meara. The only complete collection of essays and manifestoes of the Nouvelle Droit on the Internet is at http://foster.20megsfree.com/index_en.htm. Unfortunately, the phrase ‘Nouvelle Droit’ translates into English as New Right; and, as many readers know, the term New Right in the English-speaking world refers to the ideology of free-market conservatism of Hayek, Friedman, Mises and others, which reached its zenith in the 1980s. The confusion between the two ‘New Rights’ is unfortunate, especially so because the two movements are, by definition, opposed to one another. To avoid confusion, for the remainder of the essay, I will refer to de Benoist’s ‘Nouvelle Droit’ as the European New Right, and the free-market New Right as the Anglo New Right." (http://www.newrightausnz.com/?p=6)

2)"Ideally, the National-Anarchist wants a decentralised, federal, autonomous set of ethnically-homogenous communities to take the place of the current neoliberal/social democratic State system which rules the West today. Such communities would be ‘organic’: that is, they would have developed, naturally, over a period of time, and not thrown together by the forces of market capitalism or a liberal/social democratic immigration policy." (http://www.newrightausnz.com/?p=6)

3)"The main theme of New Right thought can be summed as decentralised, libertarian communitarianism. The European New Right champions the rights of small, ethnically-homogenous communities against governments which want to break them, by force, or incorporate them into a larger ‘nation’ which is an artificial construct." (http://www.newrightausnz.com/?p=6)

4)"To strip a people of their culture and history, as America’s universalist and homogenizing project entails, is tantamount, Grecistes argue, to severing a people’s roots, and a people can no more live with severed roots than can a tree. Without a memory of its collective past and the foundational myths that define and distinguish it from others –without, that is, the encompassing forrces that tie a multiple of related individuals to a larger identity — a people ceases to be a people." (http://www.newrightausnz.com/?p=32)

5)"At the centre of De Benoist's work lies the concept of the organic community. By 'organic community', I mean a community that has sprung up naturally, and developed over a long period of time, with a natural degree of cohesiveness. Each of the members feel a sense of belonging to an organic community, and the community does not contain elements that are radically different from it." (http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/nouvell.php - A personal page of Welf Herfurth's, the main man behind the New right AUS/NZ as can be seen on the official website)

6)"What would be a solution which is in keeping with De Benoist's ideas? The answer is, I think, ethnic federalism, or at least the spirit of ethnic federalism. Governments should give the diaspora communities of Asians, Muslims, Black, Indians, Kurds, Turks and others more autonomy, more freedom. They should be given more political power, and not have power taken away from them (which is what the white nationalist, bent on Turner Diaries-style ethnic cleansing, seeks to do). The immigrant communities tend to be self-segregating anyway. It is merely a matter, then, of granting them sovereignty and jurisdiction to make them fully independent. By that means, the system of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire can be recreated on our doorstep.

Now before I will get a barrage of e-mails from people accusing me of giving up Australia as we know it, or want to remember it, I certainly don’t agree fully with this solution. This is just one possible application of De Benoist ideologies and ideas." (http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/nouvell.php - A personal page of Welf Herfurth's, the main man behind the New right AUS/NZ as can be seen on the official website) User:Bdavidos

I think we should look at the common usage of the term "New Right" in Australia. I don't think it has much to do with Alain de Benoist et al. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald calls Joh Bjelke-Petersen the New Right. The Age states that Australia's New Right began with the H. R. Nicholls Society. Google the newspapers in Australia and you'll find the common usage of the term, which I haven't seen refer to the French. --Lester 03:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with the second one. Neo-con, monetarist thatcherist policies. This Benoist New Right stuff is a fringe minority view in Australia (see this!) and thus not suitable. Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. [1] states: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article"... this seems to be the current objection? Well, is some sort of 'ancillary article' in order then? The particular understanding of 'new right' that is in question is held by a small number of australians nationally, and is indeed a fringe view: one that people might legitimately be seeking objective information about. User:bdavidos

It says perhaps, as in to indicate the possibility of. I think it would be deleted if you created it. And wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, it's not a forum to spout your ideas. Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean by "your ideas". You keep putting things as if i'm wanting to go on a rant about what I personally think would be good for modern society, or something like that. What I'm wanting to do is reference a genuine, pre-existing minority understanding of a socio-political term. Surely this fact can be agreed upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdavidos (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-existing? For what, a year? It's just another non-noteable minority movement. Timeshift (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To me, it seems like the "Alain De Benoist New Right" is too much a minority view. The references provided so far don't seem very independent of the subject. To user:bdavidos, if you find some major newspaper articles or major media organisations publishing the De Benoist view, I'd be happy to review my stance. But on the evidence so far, the De Benoist view doesn't seem to have permeated though the Australian society to any degree. Regards, --Lester 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Australian section

In Australia the "New Right" refers to a movement in the late 1970s and 1980s which advocated economically liberal and increased socially conservative policies (as opposed to the "old right" which advocated economically conservative policies)

There's an issue here. The Wikipedia link for "economically liberal" is basically the same political system as in the link for "economically conservative", yet the parenthesis above claims it's "as opposed to...." rather than "much the same as...." -- which'd be a more accurate way of comparing the two, if we're to believe those Wikipedia articles in the first place.

Care to explain the discrepancy?

How's one political ideology come to mean the same thing as its opposing political ideology? Historical revision at work? 10:34, 04 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.112.249 (talk)

Malcolm Fraser/Robert Menzies keynesian type economic policies, considered comparatively conservative at the time, as opposed to John Howard/Peter Costello neo-liberal/economic rationalist/dry/new right/etc et al economic policies of today. If it's not adequately covered then feel free to assist. Timeshift (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

pure bullshit

This whole thing about a "new right" is pure and stupid bullshit. It's all about the money and the rich. It's a policy that enforces that the state protects the rich and their corporations to ensure their terror over the people. It's unbelievable. We live in a fucked up world.--92.227.204.7 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Many of us fail to understand what exactly is "new" about it. The faces change on a year to year basis, but the underlying "trickle down" voodoo economic nonsense pretty much stays the same, or magnifies. However, how would you translate this criticism into improving the article? That is the point of this page. Are you suggesting the page be nominated for deletion? Or should we keep it here for amusement purposes? Personally, I would encourage all American contributors, regardless of their political affiliations, to visit this site [[2]] and take the survey before making any further contributions to any articles about politics. Garth of the Forest (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Movement conservative

Movement conservative redirects to this page, but there's no content about it. It'd be great if someone familiar with this topic could add some information about it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I found Movement conservatism and I'll change the redirect Felsic2 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

U.S. New Right section

What are the criteria for the individuals that are listed as part of the first, second, and third iterations of the New Right in the United States? They are all completely unsourced. I have removed some that seem off the mark, but I don't know why we have them at all. I believe we need criteria and sources, or we need to remove the listings.

Also, I tagged a couple of sentences in the section on the third new right. One is a non-sentence, and the other is uncited and (it seems to me) dubious.

SunCrow (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This whole page has POV problems but the "Third New Right" section is especially bad.

I'm sorry but you can't claim that this third iteration rejects "racialism", antisemitism, or homophobia and then proceed to list figures like Bannon, Molyneux, Carlson, Peterson, etc. Whether you think these figures are being maligned fairly or unfairly, the fact is that they have been accused of all of the things that the blurb claims the movement doesn't support. Indeed, the blurb for this third iteration is remarkably similar to how an acolyte would talk. It lists "rampant cultural marxism in popular culture" and "left leaning bias in the mainstream media" as grievances, but in such a way that they come across as facts and not allegations. The citations check out, sure, but the word choice and tone here is extremely questionable.

"Globalism" is a POV term that pretty much only right-wingers use and like the other assertions and claims, it's presented here without explanation or insight. Whether you think these figures are being maligned fairly or unfairly, the fact is that they have been accused of all of the things that the blurb claims the movement doesn't support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.255.226 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Third New Right

This entire section is nonsense. Nothing is directly cited and mainstream figures are thrown in with legit white nationalists, seemingly to justify the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

United States

The second paragraph sounds pretty ridiculous, particularly the part about the annihilation of non-Americans. Unless somebody can put up some references or make a strong argument for keeping it the way it is now I plan on heavily editing it. - Schrandit 00:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This section needs some serious work, unfortunately I am not at all capable of adding the details necessary to bring this up to snuff. The current section lacks citations and feels a bit too jingoistic at times. Can anyone add to this? Chris902 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be more discussion about and mention of the paleoconservative/ nationalist movement of 2015- onwards, i.e. the Trump presidency and international tie-ins 24.225.141.208 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"New right"?

Can somebody explain what is it about the "new right" that different from the "old right" or the far-right? I don't think this article has a reason to exist. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article unfortunately is about everything that has been called new right, while policy requires that articles be about specific topics. Each one differs in different ways from the Old Right. For example the New Right in the 1950s U.S. abandoned the overt anti-black, Catholic and Jewish bias and isolationism of what they called the Old Right. TFD (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

They abandoned the old anti-black bias? Where did you get that from? Fox Entertainment? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I said overt anti-black bias. Overt means, "done or shown publicly or in an obvious way and not secret."[3] They stopped burning crosses, public lynchings and wearing white sheets. TFD (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The arrows of hungarians don't fall at this wiki article?

Where has Hungary's section gone from this article, even though Viktor Orban and his FIDESZ government are now arguably the global effigy of New Right autocracy? He's been able to stay in power continously since 2010, constitutionally proclaiming father to be male, mother to be female, family as husband + wife + kid(s), sex to be determined by chromosomes (i.e. genders do not exist) and keeping illegal migrants away by building a patrolled barb-wire fence. He's buddy with Putin, Trump, Erdogan and various central asian whatever-istan dictators, makes mockery of the EU and NATO on a weekly basis (while being member of them), thus ticking all the alt-right checkboxes for new-rightism. 188.143.6.87 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)