The Limits of ‘No Enemies on the Right’
A year and a half ago, I interviewed Charles Haywood, the political thinker who popularized the phrase “No Enemies on the Right” (NEOTR). Like many viral ideas that lose their original meaning as they are memed by a largely online audience, NEOTR has, for some, transformed into a principle of transgression. To both liberals and certain provocative figures within the dissident right, it now signifies a rejection of standards, provided the Left remains the target. In essence, some interpret NEOTR as a willingness to overlook any flaws or errors as long as they do not hinder efforts against the Left. In this way, the idea has become distorted
For Charles Haywood, NEOTR is “a present-day admonition for political success, aimed at the critical goal of breaking the Left’s power, not a philosophical claim that the right has no theoretical enemies.” In other words, NEOTR is tactical.
To explain this, I have often turned to a prison camp analogy. Picture yourself in a camp with various factions, each using different tactics to undermine the guards—the shared enemy. To resist them, you collaborate with groups that don’t always see eye to eye. At times, you might need to urge caution or address weaknesses, but you never bolster the guards’ authority, as they remain the primary foe. Above all, you do not want to be a tool of the system, serving the enemy’s interests for personal gain at the cost of your fellow prisoners.
This is clearly a political strategy, not a guide for leading a church congregation or managing employees whose behavior harms your business. It is simply an acknowledgment that the Left wields a powerful hammer to crush its opponents, and you should not pick up their tool to strike your own side. Yet, many conservative operatives do just that—rushing to outlets like the New York Times or CNN to denounce elements on their political right, thereby ingratiating themselves to the Left’s power matrix. This escape hatch move only strengthens the Left’s weapon and keeps conservatives trapped within a liberal framework. In the end, prisoners are never accepted by the guards and will never be freed.
In my view, NEOTR is a sound strategy well-suited to the conditions described. However, as circumstances evolve, including the Right’s recent and increasing successes, greater clarity is needed, even though discussing internal strategy publicly has its drawbacks.
NEOTR keeps us from being derailed by the Left’s priorities and witch hunts alike and ensures we stay focused on the primary goal: defeating the Left. At its core, it is a way to assess threats and prioritize the most significant ones. However, misunderstandings of this strategy have led some to adopt erroneous and counterproductive assumptions for any movement. I would like to outline these misinterpretations and explain why I think they’ve emerged.
Error 1: A City Without Walls
One common misconception is that NEOTR shields the Right from all criticism, as if its members cannot or should not maintain their own boundaries. Every movement needs gates—without them, it ceases to exist. A city without gates is indefensible and vulnerable to being overrun by enemies. The key question is who controls those gates. NEOTR insists that the Left should not be the gatekeeper of the Right’s domain; we must guard it ourselves. This means, for example, that some individuals on the Right may not deserve a platform. NEOTR does not prevent internal critique within the Right—it just opposes letting the Left dictate the terms of critique. Charles Haywood addressed this directly, saying: “[NEOTR] doesn’t mean we necessarily need to spend our time embracing literal Nazis or something like that… we can have disagreements on the right… but those disagreements should not be aired in public, which is done merely to… benefit the individuals… who want to kowtow to the Left.”
When Haywood articulated this stance, public discourse was heavily constrained by regime-approved censorship in various forms. While our situation has improved considerably, we still inhabit a Left-dominated world where their media, education, and entertainment empire wield the biggest hammer. Criticisms must be voiced carefully, targeting undermining forces without amplifying the Left’s machinery. This leads me to another common misunderstanding.
Error 2: A Universal Principle
Some treat NEOTR as a universal doctrine, when in fact it’s highly conditional. It applies only while the Left remains the primary threat, and it does not deny that dangers could arise from the Right. Haywood himself clarifies this: “Right now the Left has all the power, so let’s say in the future the power of the Left will be totally broken… and at that point there will in fact be enemies on the right. I’m willing to cooperate with all sorts of people now, but in terms of forming and running the new post-Left society, new divisions and existing divisions will arise and become important again because there are plenty of people on the right who I would not necessarily want to be running the society.”
Currently, the Trump administration is working assertively to forge a counterweight to the Left’s dominance. The MAGA movement essentially resembles a loose coalition, united by a few shared values and one commanding figure. Within Trump’s circle, there are both commendable individuals and, as with any movement, those with questionable motives. All this goes with the territory.
Another factor to consider is how platforms like X are reshaping discourse. This weakens the Left’s grip on information while exposing new hurdles for the Right. In essence, we need discerning leaders who can identify threats from the Right—not just because they might derail present objectives, but because they could undermine the stability of a future Right-led order. None of this contradicts NEOTR.
Error 3: Deviate Slightly, Lose NEOTR Shield
Another frequent misinterpretation of NEOTR is the notion that it permits attacks on members of the Right deemed insufficiently right-wing. There is much to unpack here, but at its core, this stems from a group viewing themselves as the true torchbearers of right-wing ideology, distinct from the supposed pretenders who oppose the Left yet do not align with their specific beliefs. In my experience, those who hold this view often overestimate their own conservatism and depth of knowledge while clinging to rigid standards. They believe they are entitled to criticize anyone on the Right they perceive as slightly more moderate, all while claiming NEOTR’s protection for themselves. This stance betrays a fundamental misreading of the principle’s purpose, which is to unite in focusing on the greater threat. As Haywood put it, “Anything that is done that is not advancing that goal [the total, permanent, utter defeat of the Left] should not be done. This is just a very practical way of approaching politics.” In other words, NEOTR prioritizes the direction of the effort more than the ideological impulses of members making it.
Why the Misunderstanding?
Now that we have explored some misunderstandings of NEOTR, I would like to consider why these basic misinterpretations keep arising. Years ago, a seminary professor warned me about the “democratization of truth.” He saw it as a threat—not because he sided with the ruling class, who fear losing their grip on society and its perception of reality, but because he foresaw the chaos that would follow a crisis of trust. The online world has made it possible for anyone, regardless of knowledge, wisdom, or skill, to amass a following based on superficial traits like style, optics, or charisma. As standards for influence erode, market forces—rather than experience, virtue, or credentials—now crown the new gatekeepers of “knowledge.”
We are witnessing this unfold. Breaking the Left’s stranglehold brings real benefits and relief, but it also introduces new challenges. One is that, online, ideas are often shaped by the loudest voices, which tend to cluster around the lowest common denominator. Take “post-war consensus”: once a nuanced term for modern liberalism (especially relating to foreign policy), it is now reduced to the notion that “Hitler was bad” in some circles.
Slang is inevitable, but the question is whether the masses can be trusted to wield this new power wisely. The notion that “Hitler was bad” does not encompass all, or even most, of the destruction that the post-war consensus has wrought. Such a reductionistic characterization is not sufficiently explanatory and, therefore, yields insufficient and often juvenile reactions. Perhaps worse, this kind of meme reality diminishes the challenges still facing the Right under the Leftist order. It is the opposite of knowing what time it is.
The media does still hold sway, which pushes public figures into a liberal mold, but it now faces competition from a fragmented social media landscape. This collective force, which encompasses both right and left-leaning platforms, can exert significant pressure and increasingly dictates how terms are defined and who a friend or enemy is. Misapplying NEOTR to criticize rivals on the Right is, at its core, a gatekeeping tactic, even if those doing it do not realize it. Gatekeeping and standards are unavoidable; the real question is who controls the gates. NEOTR’s political lesson is clear: we do not let the Left anywhere near ours.
Image Credit: Unsplash
