As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.

More specifically:

1. Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.

2. Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.

3. Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.

4. Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.

5. Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might become uncontrollable, is characteristic of Libertarianism.

So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Libertarian perspective, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with the other three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.

Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations of it seem way off point.

As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.

More specifically:

1. Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.

2. Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.

3. Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.

4. Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.

5. Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might become uncontrollable, is characteristic of Libertarianism.

So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Libertarian perspective, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.

Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations of it seem way off point.

As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.

More specifically:

1. Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.

2. Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.

3. Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.

4. Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.

5. Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might go out of control, is characteristic of Libertarianism.

So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Far-Libertarian camp, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.

Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations of it seem way off point.

As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.

More specifically:

1. Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.

2. Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.

3. Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.

4. Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and nothing about it resonates with me.

5. Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might go out of control, is characteristic of Libertarianism.

So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Far-Libertarian camp, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5, with three of your points being too 'statist' from that perspective.

Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+exclusive form of tribalism or nationalism, your characterizations seem way off point.

As someone who lands clearly in the Right-wing totalitarian camp (i.e. what most people think of when they are fearmongering about the 'Far-Right'), I couldn't care less about most of what you mentioned: you seem to be conflating Far-Right with something like 'Far-Libertarian'.

More specifically:

1. Repeal Income Tax - Don't care about it either way.

2. Bar Usury - The only Far-Right argument that I can see against it is the general 'Jewishness' that is often ascribed to it (for instance, that Jews condone it whereas Muslims, say, clearly oppose it). If we ignore that, there are no longer any arguments that compel me to one side or the other.

3. Bans corporate ownership of media - Agree.

4. Bars government officials from owning any property - I've never heard anyone argue for this, and I don't care about it either way.

5. Dual citizenship in government - Well, all forms of dual citizenship would be removed. I don't see any reason to deprive it only from those who are in government: the power-averse double standard applied here, in which those with power need all sorts of constraints put upon them to assuage the fear that they might go out of control, is characteristic of Libertarianism.

So what you get from me is 2/5. But even if we look at it from a Far-Libertarian camp, it looks to me like I would only agree with #1 and #4. I don't see how Libertarianism conflicts with #2 (for banks should do whatever they want and state intervention in anything is 'tyranny'), #3 (for all things should be privately owned and state ownership of anything is 'tyranny') and #5 (for opposition to dual citizenship is probably also 'tyranny', impinging on individual rights, or whatever). Thus you still end up with a 2/5.

Whatever Far-Right means to you: whether extreme libertarianism like that of Rothbard or a blend of totalitarianism+reactionism+ethnonationalism, your characterizations seem way off point.