To the extent that it exemplifies thinking in the New Right, I found this article by Cole Simmons at The American Mind interesting:
Before the Spirit of ‘76 there were two generations of theorizing and political change. From John Wise’s naughty little book to Patrick Henry’s noble speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses, nearly 60 years of theorizing and acting prepared for the emergence of the American. A new work is underway. We probably won’t be sticking to the name “American Whig†and I doubt there will be a republican solution. The republican was a great type of man in American history, but we cannot will him back into existence. The township cannot be artificially constructed. Property cannot be artificially made equal enough, and a relative equality in property would be necessary. We cannot make the populations small enough. The militia will never again be the backbone of our military. These hurdles and many others lead me to believe the republican character of the citizens is through.
Sadly, I find the thinking of the New Right just about as concerning as that of Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialists or Black Lives Matter activists. It is far too elitist, too rejectionist, and, frankly, not conservative at all.
Greer recently published a good article on “The Problem of the New Right.” It’s pretty long, but I think the key insights are that the New Right’s notion that it is or must become a coalition of ideas “puts too much faith in ideas as such.” Cultural forces are as, if not more important, and there is not a single American culture. He goes so far as suggesting the New Right are Yankees, operating in highly educated sphere far removed from the mass of potential Republican voters.
https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-problem-of-new-right.html
Last Hurrah of the New England Brahmins?
I hadn’t even heard the term New Right and so did some research. If accurately described, it seems a hodgepodge of positions, and I certainly don’t know of any people substantially fitting the description.
More cynically, the critiques seem a thinly veiled, if clumsy, attempt to denigrate Trump supporters.
From what I can tell they seem to be trying to back a philosophical positions out of a series of oppositions: they not Trump populists, they’re not anarcho-capitalists, they’re not paleoconservatives, and they’re not neoconservatives.