CDZ Paleoconservatives, White Nationalists, 1488ers and the New Alt-Right Defined

[320 Years of History]

The Alt-Right consists of the 'Natural Conservatives' who are more moderate and assert that one cannot separate culture from ethnicity and race (I disagree), but they do correctly assert that ideology and politics flow downstream from culture and that I most certainly do agree with. Along with the "Natcons" are the Memers and the 1488ers and the remnants of the Paleocon movement and Cultural conservatives of various kinds and both of whom are the vast majority of the Alt-Right.

This embraces a huge number of people in that subspectrum of the anti-Neocon Right from Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Andrew Breitbart to those who would object to their own inclusion like Rush Limbaugh and Rudy Giulliani, to those who want to be, not just members, but thought of as the definers of Alt-Right ideology like the 1488ers and this loser.

The lefts reaction to the Alt right is similar to many of the right's reaction to Islam in that both groups tend to identify their opposition by the most extreme views that they find among that group.

Red:
That may be, but I also don't hear the more rational folks, folks who, if what you write is true, should exist among the Alt-Right, jumping up and saying, in effect, "Whoa, there Nellie. Those "wingnuts" and their views do not reflect the predominant lines of thought among the Alt-Right. Don't listen to them; don't lump us with them."

It may be that as with the distinction between other social action/political groups, Act UP vs mainstream gays, for example, the Alt-Right's philosophical bases are similar to those of the GOP mainstream, but their methods are so very not at all the same. That's important for not all means to an end are acceptable or right.

As my demented mother becomes increasingly violent and harmful to herself and others, I could have her straightjacketed and tossed into a padded room. I could have her lobotomized or kept heavily sedated too. Those solutions would certainly keep her from being harmful to herself and others, but I hardly think any of them are the right ways to obtain that end.

The Neocons put Ann Coulter among the Alt-Right because she locks horns with them frequently, but I doubt that Ann Coulter would say that she is in the Alt-Right, but maybe she would. The editors of Breitbart do not see themselves as Alt-Right either.

But as the term is coming to be used over the last year or so, the Alt-Right is the in-party opposition to the Neocon Republican Establishment. That includes the old Traditional right as well as the White Nationalists and Neonazis. And the wishes or preferences of those they so group is irrelevant to them, just as Trumps wishes are similarly irrelevant.

Seems to me the logical end to the line of thought you've depicted is the conclusion that political parties are the bane of the political process. Now they may be. They seem so to me, but then I've long not belonged to one.

 

[Ozone]

of all the guidebooks to the alt-right that have emerged, this one is the best so far. of course, it could be about crop circles, which are the hoaxes and which ones are genuine ufo's, but that's about as deep as the mythology gets. it's the white man's watermelon joke, practically aristocrats with le maymay and everything. but the political system of america? explain it all away a million times, just some get it and some don't, for what it all means. is it really possible for anyone's beliefs, any person with a brain and in that brain are stuff and in that stuff are beliefs, how can that be owned by or belong to some encyclopedia of stereotypes and strawmen such as this? this is how skin color becomes a token of some kind of debt, and once that happens, the debt is translated into schedules of demographics sold to politicians and news media. ultimately, it's not about white people or any other color of people at all, it's a struggle between those who want people to program machines vs those who want machines to program people. which side are you on now, meemers?

 

[Foxfyre]

2. I agree that large scale immigration and population growth of the 1800s helped turn this nation into a giant but I don't see that the Diversity was a plus, but instead that the Assimilation managed to avoid a potential pitfall.

Oh, yeah definitely the assimilation was the only reason that it all worked at all. But the assimilation was never 100% and usually it left a very helpful addition of the best qualities into the national culture, especially at the regional scale.

Melting Pots work, Salad Bowls do not.

Name a cultural aspect that an immigrant group contributed that was something that made America a "stronger place".

They ALL have by contributing their own culture to the whole WHEN they assimilate and become American. We all have some unique heritage that contributed to the whole that ultimately created the unique American culture. The two things that make that bad are:

1. Those people who immigrate here and then demand that we change to not interfere with whatever culture they brought with them. If they wanted THAT culture they should have stayed where they were. There is nothing wrong with celebrating our own unique heritage whether that be Islander, Middle Eastern, Spanish, Mexican, Irish, Scottish, British, French, or whatever. It should add flavor to the American culture but not otherwise expect to change the American culture in any significant way. The rule of thumb is 'When in Rome. . ." and all that.

2. The other bad thing is the rejection of the American culture and the values that created it. The ones most guilty of this are the prodigy of the anti-establishment, anti-cultural rebels of the 60's who were the first generation to totally reject the values of their parents and look for utopia through a haze of dope and general fuzzy thinking. They have rejected the Church, the flag, and all principles the Constitution was founded on but have embraced socialistic government as the solution to almost all of our problems. We now most often refer to them as the far left.

Excellent points.

When did this stop being the consensus among our intellectuals?

It began in the social rebellion of the 60's I believe. This was the first generation to almost completely reject the values of their parents. They zoned out, dropped out, tuned out. For most, the Biblical platitude of "raise a child up in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it' kicked in for many when they re-entered the real world and they returned to common sense. But not all. Those that did not gravitated toward those professions where they thought they could make a difference based on their fuzzy anti-culture view of the world. They went into politics, science, academia, and the media. And they mentored others to be like themselves and ostracized or closed out those who disagreed with them until they, their prodigy, their mentored replacements became modern American liberalism in its worst form. So now political correctness, environmental wackoism, open borders, one-world societal views, and a fuzzy sense of economic justice forms their core. They reject temperance based on faith, traditional values, or personal liberties and tend to have a fascination with European models as superior to ours and reject most of American exceptionalism.