I. HOPE as an Acronym.
Everyone within the spectrum of the new conservative movements, which range roughly from new-right to NRx, believe that hierarchy is natural and that it can be a good thing. As such, it is a cornerstone of these ideologies.
Broader than hierarchy, members of these new conservative movements believe that order is superior to the many forms of anarchist ideology, which seems to make up an increasing share of far-leftist thought. There are a few anarcho-capitalists present in the new-right spectrum but they seem to be in the minority, they also already have their own well-defined ideology and so I am not including them here.
Members of the new-right are usually anti-war when war is defined as interventionism. The most obvious recent example of this is the situation in Syria, where older conservatives are in favor of interventionism in the country while younger conservatives are against it.
We are against globalism (as an ideology) which we define as an attempt to erase indigenous cultures and traditions. We are not against globalization (as trade) nor are we against cultural exchanges in of itself. We don't believe that "cultural appropriation" exists. We do believe that most exchanges must be done in a formalized setting. A contemporary example of this is how President Trump wants asylum refugees to apply at ports of call, not to apply for asylum only after they get caught by immigration enforcement; this is the kind of idea that I assume we can all agree with. Paraphrasing Mencius Moldbug, a broad conception of formal exchange can include his definition of "formalism" which states that the official reality of political power should match its actual reality. It can also encompass the general desire for controlled borders, the defense of social formalities within society etc. We believe that being formal is both efficient and a virtue.
Conclusion re: HOPE
I believe that all of the beliefs of the new right, as well as most alt-right and NRx theories are compatible with the concepts listed in the above acronym. Obviously not all of the ideas can be summarized therein but many of them can be. Notably, the pun here and the use of the word "hope" is not an accident -- it seems inevitable that leftist degenerates will win some significant victories in the short term. It may sound dramatic but we will need to hold onto hope if we are going to persevere.
II. Didactic Materialism as a Methodology.
Younger conservatives have discovered that traditional and religious arguments do not make it very far within the diverse, sacrilegious and troll-infested forums of the internet. The trend has been to move towards materialist arguments, usually employing some form of materialist teleology because regardless of what religious beliefs or traditions a given conservative may or may not hold themselves, it is for better or worse only a materialist arguments that can be free of distracting associations and tangents.
Even though new right argumentation could often be classified as materialist, younger conservatives are not Marxists and they are not arguing as dialectical materialists. Most younger conservatives believe that Marxism has failed by its own terms; that social classes in the west have been supplanted by economic classes and that conditions are now too different from the 19th century for dialectical materialist arguments to be relevant. As such, they make materialist arguments without being dialectical materialists or western-style communists.
The new right employs a unique and new form of materialist argumentation. Their arguments are oriented towards what they believe are constructive and instructive ends. Hence the word "didactic" is employed along with the term materialist. A didactic materialist (a term that I believe describes the most common forms of argumentation employed by younger, internet-savvy conservatives) employs materialist arguments in a way that is intended to teach, particularly when having moral instruction as an ulterior motive (i.e., the definition of "didactic").
III. Some Examples of Didactic Materialist Arguments Commonly Employed by the New Right.
(1) The Legitimacy of Lineage Presumption.
A common argument when engaging with "SJWs" who want "all white people to die" or whatever is to point towards the fundamental legitimacy of a commonly held desire, wherein a person instinctively wants to invest in the success of their own offspring or other relatives. Adherents of the new right philosophies do not necessarily view this desire as an imperative; we also respect it when a person feels as if they have a higher calling that might delay or circumvent having a family. What differentiates us from the far left in this regard is that we don't demand it of people as they seem to do when they are attempting to justify their desire for white people to die out, why someone shouldn't have children for the planet etc. The presumptive legitimacy of caring for your own bloodline or extended family, even if it is merely in a materialistic and genetic sense, is always treated as a legitimate desire if someone chooses to have it. This has been a consistently effective argument for the new right and will likely continue to be because there is simply no debating against it from a perspective of rational materialism.
(2) The Reproducibility Crisis.
Liberal colleges are telling us a lot of things that we don't agree with and can often easily argue against. At the same time, many of the experimental results coming out of western colleges in the areas of the social sciences are proving to be unreproducible. The problem is so bad that a culture of dishonesty is arguably spreading into the hard sciences as well. For the first time in perhaps hundreds of years, scientists in places like China are beating western scientists to the punch when it comes to producing new technological advancements, which is what science has presumably been about in the modern era; to try and produce some kind of useful advancement before anyone else can, so that we might profit from it. It is our presumption that right now, western colleges are almost universally biased in favor of social liberalism and this is negatively impacting their results, not only in the social sciences but also in the "hard" sciences. If their agenda is not stopped the west will fall behind technologically and socially because they are not trying to uncover the truths of the universe, they are not even trying to make a buck, they are merely virtue signaling or faking evidence to support things that they wish were real.
(3) "Wikipedia is Garbage."
It is almost a rite of passage or a gold medal by now in the internet Olympics, wherein someone wins an argument against someone who is involved in the Wikipedia project by citing Wikipedia and in response that person (who in our case, is usually a leftist) goes and changes Wikipedia so that they can declare themselves the winner. When someone is on the internet, they can read a Wikipedia article on (for example) Aristotle and proceed to troll someone who has actually read Aristotle for a week by pretending to be dense. Having an internet connection and typing in "wikipedia" does not make someone educated. The public may not yet be completely familiar with this Wikipedia phenomenon. Ultimately, a person needs to either be more educated on a subject than Wikipedia or they need to take the argument down to a level of fundamental level that essentially undercuts Wikipedia (what we might call common sense or, as I have been arguing here, a didactic form of materialism).
(4) "I'm a Gay/Black/Trans/Muslim/Furry Conservative."
A somewhat less popular idea is that modern conservatism vs. liberalism is less about philosophy and ideology right now, more about someone's physical and social position in life. It's been noted that people who go to the gym and become stronger (they get that "swollen" look) are more likely to become "far-right extremists" after they've succeed in becoming a member of the "swolletariat". In other words, when a person is physically stronger and socially more successful, they are more likely to value self-reliance and freedom of expression. When a person is less self-reliant and less socially successful they are more likely to value charity and censorship. Although the implications of this are many, it may explain phenomenon such as that of the homosexual conservative. When conservatism was more about race, religion and tradition, a homosexual (or whatever) conservative would have arguably been a contradiction. Now that conservatism (and liberalism as well) is arguably more about personal outlook than it is about philosophies and yet-unproven economic theories, phenomenon like the homosexual conservative may no longer be a contradiction. One issue we have is that people closer to the NRx or Dark Enlightenment spectrum are much less likely to be interested in working with gay, Muslim, trans, furry etc. conservatives than the 4chan and T_D "autist" new right crowds are. The former still mostly reject these people, the latter embrace them and may even be proud to have them.
(5) Bateman's Principle.
Nota bene that the Wikipedia article on this subject has been mauled almost beyond recognition, yet it can still be a useful example. Bateman's principle provides a foundational materialist argument in favor of more traditional gender roles in society and occasionally also serves as a defense of traditionalism in this area. A basic definition of the principle is that females typically invest more energy into the rearing of a species' offspring because it is the female that produces eggs and usually will also gestate or care for them. Eggs are expensive and often involve more investment, sperm is cheap. It is also the case female that a female can almost always be certain about paternity, whereas from an evolutionary perspective there is no individual advantage if a male were to always take care of his own offspring because he can usually not be 100% certain about his paternity. Many observations about the social interactions between men and women can be extrapolated from this material fact; it is cheaper to produce sperm than it is to produce and gestate eggs, one healthy male can theoretically inseminate an almost unlimited number of females etc. These principles can be used to explain many things about human culture and the relevant differences between the sexes, even in an environment where traditional and religious dialogues have been rejected.
A popular example of Bateman's Principle in science is the aptly-named phenomenon of "penis fencing", a term that describes the reproductive method of a species of tapeworm. This species of tapeworm is naturally hermaphroditic. When two of these tapeworms meet, they attack each other with their penises. Whichever tapeworm loses the "fencing match" is pierced by the other tapeworm's penis and is injected with sperm. In this way, the more physically fit tapeworm acts as a male while the less physically fit tapeworm acts as a female. Although tapeworms are compartively simple creatures, this is perhaps the clearest example of Bateman's Principle to be found in nature: the fitter tapeworm is free to go on and possible inseminate a large number of other tapeworms, literally fighting with his penis until "he" either dies or becomes another tapeworm's woman.
(6) Don't Virtue Signal.
Virtue should not be expressed for personal or political gain because that is not real virtue. Real virtue includes a willingness to state unpopular facts when and where it may be appropriate.
The radicalization of millennials in college, which I feel created a lost generation, has basically corrupted the Democratic party's voter base so that no matter what, they cannot be civilly viable in the future.
IV. Proposed Forms for Further Didactic Materialist Arguments.
(1) The Lowest Common Denominator Fallacy.
Many western leftists use what I will call the "lowest common denominator" fallacy when dividing people into different interest groups. Someone who is hostile towards sluts is a mysogynist because apparently, all women are sluts. Someone who wants stricter punishments for felons is racist towards blacks because apparently, all blacks are felons (taken from a CNN headline). Someone who wants a more pro-active policy against terrorists is an Islamophobe because apparently, all Muslims are terrorists. In California, the punishment for knowingly infecting someone else with HIV was reduced from a felony with equivalence to murder, down to a misdemeanor because the law was "homophobic"; apparently all homosexuals want to give other homosexuals AIDS. Whatever their reasons may be, the left seems to be emotionally invested in defining every group by their lowest common denominator and this makes their dialogue regressive, anti-social and materialistically impotent when they are acting within the confines of the law.
Although I've attempted to expand upon this idea in other writings with some mixed success, I strongly believe that allowing this kind of argument, which I view as inherently fallacious, has a fundamentally degenerative effect upon society and debate. I would in short urge people to try and use the highest common denominator for any identifiable group and not the lowest common denominator. If a subject individual cannot be analogized to the highest common denominator at all then they should not benefit from group affiliation; they are just a problematic individual. This is essentially because we want society and people to become better, not worse and we don't believe that defining each and every group by its worst members is the path towards improvement.
(2) Subconscious Bias Goes Well Beyond Racism.
Far leftists of the AntiFA variety apparently believe that they are the most tolerant people around and that anyone who is not as tolerant as they should be punched in the face. This is of a startling example of subconscious bias; it should be presumed that even when we are talking about something like toleration of diversity, a human being's subconscious mind is capable of classifying people as tolerant or intolerant based upon what is socially/politically useful to them as an individual. A person who argues for an action as a change from the norm, even in the name of something like tolerance, should have the burden of proof in explaining why their proposed change is rational and unbiased. If they can't do that they cannot reasonably expect other people to become their actors.
There is a large amount of material evidence which suggests that most people, perhaps even all people are subconsciously incapable of completely shedding their personal bias. There is no reason to presume that this does not apply to liberals and their talking points as much as it does conservatives.
(3) The Hearsay Evidence Standard vs. Political Correctness.
Political correctness was originally a euphemism for lying for personal gain; now it is sometimes treated like an ethical standard. This can be awkward since the very words used in the phrase say something about what it originally meant. Most Americans are against political correctness. An appropriate standard for what is "admissible" in debate would be something like the hearsay evidence standard (no "anonymous sources") and not whether something is politically correct. The left essentially uses a "politically correct" evidence standard -- if it sounds PC or furthers a PC agenda then it is admissible, even if it is an anonymous source. The right uses something closer to the hearsay evidence standard, which might be simplified to mean that anonymous sources are not appropriate. Another way to put this is that material evidence is always better than immaterial evidence, or evidence such as "I heard a person say this although I can't produce that person" which also extends to dubiously reproducible university studies that are sometimes chains of hearsay.
(4) Rights as Objective Values.
I've argued that rights do not really exist; they are merely concepts that make laws easier to understand. But there are also other, more subtle roles that rights play. At the risk of sounding like a bad internet version of Sprengler, it seems to be the case that when a group of people agree upon what they believe rights are, such as when they agree upon a bill of rights or a constitution, they are "constituting" the standards by which their mutual society will function and declaring what ethical norms the citizens are expected to aspire towards. A group that values and attempts to follow agreed upon objective values possesses a form of group consciousness, one that exists above their individual subjective viewpoints; a group that considers their own subjective viewpoints to be the only truth is not the same as this. A group of subjectivists is merely a potentially fickle mob run by the tyranny of the majority. To tie this into the concept of didactic materialism, rights can be discussed according to their material effects.
Just as dialectical materialism provided a framework for the debates that fueled communism, it's my hope that the new conservative movements can develop a reliable rhetorical method or vehicle for promoting their own agendas. The truth is that the conclusions to be drawn from materialism have changed since the 19th century, when Marx and Engels shocked the world. Maybe it is time for the new right movements to shake things up. This may already be happening. Although we aren't dialectical materialists, I think that we may be didactic materialists and that if we can hold onto our "HOPE" we or our descendants will some day be the leaders of our countries.