No Enemies on the Right

https://theworthyhouse.com/2023/10/02/on-the-principle-no-enemies-on-the-right/

Tenets of NEOTR

1) The only present real-life goal of the Right which matters is total, permanent defeat of the Left. All else, including any possibility of the future flourishing of mankind, depends on this defeat and is downstream from it.

2) The Left are those individuals, entities, organizations, and systems animated by Left ideology.

3) Left ideology is the ideology that is the essence of the so-called Enlightenment. This consists of demands for total emancipation from all bonds not continuously chosen, combined with forced egalitarianism, all in the belief these principles will lead to an actual utopia, a heaven on earth.

4) The Left is the enemy of mankind. An enemy is, as Carl Schmitt said, an “adversary [who] intends to negate his opponent’s way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence.” An enemy is not someone with whom you merely disagree on strategy, tactics, or aesthetics.

5) At this present moment, the Right is properly defined as anyone and anything not Left. The Right is extremely diverse in belief, relative to the Left. This is irrelevant, at least today.

6) Disagreement and animus, and therefore conflict, among those on the Right will always exist; this is the nature of man and politics. What to do with respect to such conflicts should be evaluated solely with the criterion whether any given action serves to defeat the Left. This does not mean one cannot say “I don’t like your tactics,” “I don’t like your policy proposals,” or, for that matter, “I don’t like you.” It does mean that no person on the Right needs to “be repulsed or fought in order to preserve one’s own form of existence,” because only the Left threatens our existence, and that most imminently. Therefore no action towards anyone on the Right should ever seek to, or threaten to, stop that person from earning a living or from being a full member of society (what is sometimes, though the term is not very helpful, called “cancellation”).

7) Some disagreement on the Right is helpful to achieve our common goal; some is not helpful but not destructive. Either way, disagreement on the Right should always be conducted in a way that does not benefit the Left, but rather advances the goal of the Right to permanently end all Left power. Usually, this means necessary disagreement should be done as privately as feasible. However, the default position with respect to someone with whom one disagrees on important matters should be ignoring that person, if he brings nothing to the political table, or cooperating with him where it serves to defeat the Left.

8) Occasionally, as with the so-called Intellectual Dark Web or “classical liberals,” some on the Left may espouse some principles or policies of benefit to the Right—not to help us, ever, to be sure, but to help themselves. Cooperation with such people to achieve limited present political ends should not be rejected. But because the primary loyalty of such people is to the Left, we should always realize they are, and always will be, eager to destroy us at the first opportunity. They are our enemies, and always will be, unless they change themselves and reject the premises of the Left.

9) NEOTR is not a permanent principle. When the Right gains power, and the Left is utterly defeated, there will be enemies on the Right, because disputes will arise about how to exercise that power. This is simply the nature of human political action.

10) NEOTR could be phrased in different, longer, more complex ways, making subtle distinctions. These have philosophical value, but they undercut a first principle of politics, which is that winning must take precedence over intellectual hair-splitting. We should stick with the clear, simple formulation of NEOTR.

There is one minor quibble I'd make, although not in front of the Left. :) There is no permanent defeating the Left until Christ comes. The Left, as Haywood defines it (and close enough to how I define it too) is the animus of Satan himself. We can use Christ's own words on how to judge to determine that; by their fruits shall we know them. And do they bring us closer to Christ or drive a wedge between us and Christ? The ideology of the Left clearly does the latter, as well as between each other. The ideology of the Left is based on envy, covetousness, and spiteful, nihilistic despair that would see society burned to the ground because other people seem to be happy while Leftists are not. Why do you think that their modus operandi is all about finding some way to create groups who are supposedly victimized, and therefore society needs to be broken down and rebuilt? And as soon as it is done so, they find an ever more fringe and dubious victim group and do it over and over and over again. Some on the Left have a Babel-like belief in the creation of a utopia on Earth if only we can finally once and for all destroy human nature, but others of them just like watching the world burn because of spite and hate and envy. Is that not exactly the position of Satan? Of course it is.

So, we should not expect that the Left can be permanently defeated until Christ comes. In fact, we shouldn't expect that it can be defeated at all until Christ comes; we should probably expect it to continue to grow in strength until that point. We should, however, continue to oppose it. This isn't like the fatalistic approach of our pagan ancestors who went into battle expecting to die, but rather; we already know that in the long run we will win! To use Tolkien's term, we already understand the reality of the eucatastrophe and how it will upset the plans of the Left. It's just that Christ is the author of it, and we cannot win without Him. But ultimately, the Atonement has already happened. As Jeffrey Holland said, "The future of this world has long been declared; the final outcome between good and evil is already known. There is absolutely no question as to who wins because the victory has already been posted on the scoreboard. The only really strange thing in all of this is that we are still down here on the field trying to decide which team's jersey we want to wear!"