Notes
Below is an effort to connect with emerging voices and foster critical, constructive discourse. After reading several notes and articles by both and , I am sufficiently-informed to formulate my own objections to many of the new talking points on the “right”. I offer the following counterarguments as a way of refining and reshaping the direction of right-wing politics.
1) The new-right is not prudish nor ultra-conservative. There seems to be an espousal of an ‘elite’ ethos similar to Aleister Crowley’s ironic “ordinary morality is for ordinary people”, implying that rules do not apply to elites who are free—by virtue of some special privilege—to do as they please (i.e. swinger parties, fetish culture, drugs, sex, parties, etc.). While I agree to a certain extent, I object entirely to the particulars. This leads me to my following point.
2) Walt and John mistake who the Nietzschean ‘elites’ are. Personally, I would argue that Onlyfans whores and swingers are NOT elite. Instead, I say that the past offers the best models: Mozart, Picasso, Dali, and William S. Burroughs. The eccentric or otherwise “degenerate” behavior of these brilliant artists was tolerated by society because they were brilliant. This cannot be said about onlyfans models who are “common denominator” providers of base, animal urges.
3) If the new right wants to promote female sex positivity, why not suggest Tori Amos or Anais Nin as role models? One is a talented songwriter, the other an imaginative erotic author (none ever sold their bodies btw).
4) Personally—as an alternative portrayal of high society—I list the following things I consider high class leisure: bullfights, big game hunting in Africa, champagne and caviar, oysters, absinthe, burlesque, and Greek myth inspired erotica.
5) I’m old-fashioned in many ways, but isn’t that what right-wing is supposed to champion? I may be wrong in my assumption, but much of the “new right” (like Hanania) comes off as repackaged libertarian ideas. It’s not ‘right’ enough for the likes of me.
Often, I find myself reading posts by the aforementioned authors in the tone of “ackshully [insert contrarian-for-the-sake of contrarian argument]”—just saying, this is how a lot of the new talking points sound like.
Maybe the men tagged in this post can chime in and clarify any misunderstandings on my part. I’m not offending, simply presenting my own thoughts on the direction of the ‘movement’ and why you might not appeal to true conservatives.