Now that we have a shot at reining in our dangerously bloated federal government, perhaps we need to lay out some terms of what we expect of those who would represent us.
I’ve grown tired of the Alt-Right label and the game being played by the press trying to brand everyone who opposes the progressive agenda a white nationalist. I never found it particularly funny to see some feed the media their worst racist nightmare and then laugh uproariously when the idiots repeat it without reflection on the source.
I’m laying claim to a new term to distinguish those who take freedom seriously from those who merely enjoy trolling the left. I’m calling it the ULTRA-right and have 5 principles for what is expected from those who would don the mantle.
1.) There’s a simple zero sum relationship between freedom and government. The more government the less freedom and vice versa.
2.) Ultra-right doesn’t care about a person’s race, religion, orientation or outcomes. As long as you keep it to yourself and what you believe or practice does not hurt the country, family or others, have at it.
3.) There is no compromising with progressives, liberals, globalists or whatever those who would use government to take freedom from others are calling themselves these days. They must be kept from governing and their ideology mocked and ridiculed on the public square.
4.) Liberty means responsibility, not hedonistic license. It’s pursuing happiness and then shouldering the burden of any consequences of that pursuit.
5.) Free markets and free expression are far superior to central government, or forced compliance, for addressing society’s ills.
That’s my five starting principles. Feel free to critique these, propose your own, and discuss what is and is not Ultra-right.
To democrats, the “ultra right” or “far right” or “right wing extremists” are pretty much anyone to the right of Chairman Mao.
I like it, however one point. Have you noticed the NeverTrumpers picked up that AltRight real quick. By their definition the only difference I see in their beliefs vs ours is trade. Levin pounds on the constantly. These people our so far removed from what’s actually taking place on our markets that they have no clue. So “Free Trade” needs to be re defined or re labeled.
Call it Free Equitable Trade
How about Smart Trade? – Dr. Tar
Well done. I’m ready to don that mantle.
Superb choice, #4.
This is rather long, but it’s something out of that latest Iprimus that I mentioned the other day (Who We Are As a People — The Syrian Refugee Question). My thoughts are in brackets:
“The EU is not a constitutional government: it is an administrative state ruled by unelected bureaucrats.” [The U.S.A. today is similarly run by unelected bureaucrats and regulations have overshadowed the rule of law].
“It (the EU) attempts to do away with both borders and citizens, and it replaces rights and liberty with welfare and regulation as the objects of its administrative rule. Constitutional government–to say nothing of liberal democracy–will not be part of the politically correct, borderless world into which so many of our political leaders wish to usher us.
How did we reach such an impasse? The answer is simple, but no less astounding for its simplicity. It has been frequently observed by competent thinkers that Americans have abandoned the morality engendered by what the Declaration of Independence called the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration confidently proclaimed as its first principle the “self-evident” truth that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among them “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” As part of the created (and therefore intelligible) universe, rights cannot be something private or subjective; they are part of an objective order. The idea that every right has a corresponding duty or obligation was essential to the social compact understanding of the American Founding. Thus whatever was destructive to the public good or public happiness, however much it might have contributed to an individual”s private pleasures or imagined pleasures, was not a part of the “pursuit of happiness” and could be proscribed by society. Liberty was understood to be rational liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was understood to be the rational pursuit of happiness–that is to say, not only a natural right but a moral obligation as well.”
[So, yes, our pursuit of happiness should be as unecumbered as possible and yet there is a moral line or “obligation” that exists that is the basis of our liberty and freedoms. Again, John Adams, writing about the nature of our Constitution, said that one critical part of our form of government was a “moral people”, otherwise it just wouldn’t work. In other words, it wasn’t enough that we not harm individuals (even ourselves) in our pursuit of happiness, we must not harm the morality of our society as a whole.]
Read Os Guinness’s “A Free People’s Suicide” or Eric Metaxas’s latest “If You Can Keep It” if you get a chance. Both are on the same point. – Dr. Tar
It turns out there’s already a word for exactly that set of principles. You need to call yourself a libertarian.
Kindly note that I do NOT mean Libertarian with a capital L.
Oh, how about “Situational Awareness?” Simply being self-aware is not enough, but I guess that would fall under #4 or #2. I think people should practice “intolerance”, in that one should not tolerate others’ poor outward behavior.
Simple example would be scaring the crap out of some butthead texting while driving by blowing your very loud truck horn…
Makes ’em put it down every time.
“I’m laying claim to a new term to distinguish those who take freedom seriously from those who merely enjoy trolling the left. I’m calling it the ULTRA-right and have 5 principles for what is expected from those who would don the mantle.”
Fur, just thinking here, so not totally attached to this: I think instead of labeling “right” anything, we might have better luck by maybe calling it Ultra-American. It’s because the things you list are really American at their base. The Left is and always has been antithetical to America — despite their false claims with orgs like the ACLU, #BLM, #NT, etc. So instead of carving out a small(er) slice of turf, let’s go for broke and start out by asserting that Ultra-American is the correct point of departure and anything that argues against these principles is not Ultra-American and, by default, anti-American.
Sorry, Dr. Tar. I meant you, above.
I always take the confusion as a compliment. : ) – Dr. Tar
Overall I would concur, with one slight modification to #2 and “orientation”. Feel free to act out your sexuality but don’t expect me to pay for bad outcomes health wise.
#3 — Absolutely! Isn’t that why IOTWR exists? haha.
You mean be American?
What a novel concept.
Fcuk these retards that want to be like everyone else, move there if you don’t like it here!
Two additional cornerstones of freedom in the sense you are using:
1. Property rights
2. Rule of law
These might seem to be implied by your statements, but I don’t like loose ends.
I use to make my students memorize those two freedoms along with Freedom from too much government as the fundamental responsibilities of any government. – Dr. Tar
@Uncle Al: Right on the money. Libertarian in every sense.
Basically agree with all this! Great stuff. The only thing I would argue is that, as libertarian has already been ‘taken’ it does suggest the need for a new name. I like Ultra-American too. We shouldn’t define ourselves in comparison to those other guys (and ‘right’ is such a nebulous term) but rather by those principles that we stand for. Americanists? Americanians?
The problem with your 5 principles is that they are not ultra right. Not even close. They aren’t even cuck-flavored left-of-center ‘right.’ They are magic-dirt libertarianism.
Libertarianism is a utopian pipe-dream that will get us kicked into mass graves. It might feel nice in theory, but is societal suicide in practice. Noble and principled defeat does not pave the path to our survival.
Goot-nuf for me.
Can Martha McCallum be our spokesmodel? Well, and Stacey Dash….
I’m totally down with your ideas, Dr. Tar. Excellent, especially #3. I’m sure other good point will be made here.
Gee, I was just getting used to racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic hater. But, we should have a label that defines us and pisses off the left.
How about, WINNERS!
These are tenants of libertarianism, which by the way (AC), never was/is/will be intended to be a utopian pipe dream.
Does there have to be a divide between Conservative and Libertarian?
It always seemed to me that foreign policy was the main bone of contention between the two schools, with libertarian’s preferring to fight them here and Conservatives wanting to fight them there. But that’s just my opinion, there might be more.