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

[JimBowie1958]

All very interesting as are your subsequent posts, but I simplify it to the the extreme thusly:

There are really three types of 'conservative' as "conservative" is most often defined in modern day American culture:

Those who are part of the permanent political class, i.e. those who express right of center beliefs but in actuality are concerned only with their own personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth--lots of leftwingers in this group also--. . .and

All those who oppose the permanent political class, whether left or right of center, and embrace a concept of personal liberty allowed by a small, efficient, effective central government that does only what it is constitutionally authorized to do. This group can include representatives of the so-called 'religious right', the Tea Partiers, the 9/12ers, the classical liberals/libertarians (little L), etc. No leftwingers in this group.

And finally the tiny fringe groups, all disavowed by the others, such as white supremacists, anarchists, and opportunistic groups like the Westboro Baptists who are not conservative in any sense of the word but who are classified as right of center. Perhaps these could be the alt-right people.

You could find representatives of the so-called 'neocons' in any of the three groups.

That is a very good summation of the functional level of our political system.

There is also the Alt-Left that is pretty much the Bernie Sanders movement of Nordic Model Socialists. But they reject and hate the Alt-Right of Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh far more than they hate and reject the corporate crony network though they do complain about the latter as well.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Alt-right is a large group of people who oppose the Neoconservative establishment in the GOP.

You know who else is part of that large group? Democrats! LOL

[Alt-right folks] don't see the intellectual divide on the right as between neocons vrs paleocons any more. They see it as Neoconservatives vrs EVERBODY ELSE to the right. And that is a fairly large group.

Yes, particularly seeing as it does include Democrats.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Alt-right is a large group of people who oppose the Neoconservative establishment in the GOP.

You know who else is part of that large group? Democrats! LOL

[Alt-right folks] don't see the intellectual divide on the right as between neocons vrs paleocons any more. They see it as Neoconservatives vrs EVERBODY ELSE to the right. And that is a fairly large group.

Yes, particularly seeing as it does include Democrats.

Lol, yes, but I am talking about opposition to the Neocons from within the GOP.

Thanks for the constructive critique.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Alt-right is a large group of people who oppose the Neoconservative establishment in the GOP.

You know who else is part of that large group? Democrats! LOL

[Alt-right folks] don't see the intellectual divide on the right as between neocons vrs paleocons any more. They see it as Neoconservatives vrs EVERBODY ELSE to the right. And that is a fairly large group.

Yes, particularly seeing as it does include Democrats.

Lol, yes, but I am talking about opposition to the Neocons from within the GOP.

Thanks for the constructive critique.

You're welcome.

 

[konradv]

It seems like the alt-right battle amounts to a Civil War on the right. Why do some insist it's a designation invented by the left?

 

[thanatos144]

The alt-right are Not conservatives and they are race baiters. They think European Culture is greater then the constitution. As if being white means you are great.

 

[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.

 

[Correll]

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".

 

[Correll]

It seems like the alt-right battle amounts to a Civil War on the right. Why do some insist it's a designation invented by the left?

THe ideological split in the GOP has been going on for a long time, and this is the first I've heard of the term "alt-right".

 

[konradv]

It seems like the alt-right battle amounts to a Civil War on the right. Why do some insist it's a designation invented by the left?

THe ideological split in the GOP has been going on for a long time, and this is the first I've heard of the term "alt-right".

They named themselves, so if you weren't party to the group, it's not surprising you've never heard it. Not many people had, but that doesn't mean it's recent or made up by liberals. "Alternative right" was originally coined by a paleo-con in 2008 to differentiate his group from the neo-cons. That morphed into alt-right on certain political blogs, long before being picked up by anyone on the left.

Paul Gottfried - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[alang1216]

Until about a year ago I had not heard of the Alt-Right.

Nicely done, thanks. One question though, what is the current definition of RINO? I know it stands for Republican In Name Only, but I hear Republicans calling each other that all the time, and they can't all be right. So who is a Republican anymore and can/should the party split giving the Paleocons control and letting the rest become fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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".

Well, "immigrant" as in assimilating into the predominant core Anglo culture here in the USA;

1. Amerindians taught us which foods grow better here in the USA. They also gave us some ideas on forming a federation that were similar to other European models but different in that they did not require a strong chief executive except in times of war and a personal desire for self sufficiency. We would not be here without their contribution,literally.

2. Irish gave us a contrasting view of Christianity with their Catholicism that will likely be Christianity's life boat here in the US.

3. Hispanics have given us the Cowboy, modern ranching techniques, a competitive sense of Machismo and our first Unifying Enemy.

4. Black gave us untold man-years of unpaid labor, Jazz, and genetic heterosis.

I could go on, but I think I have made my point. We are not European in the sense that Europeans would see us as European like they are. We are only European in the same way that Quebecois are French and the French laugh at them behind their backs for thinking it so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Until about a year ago I had not heard of the Alt-Right.

Nicely done, thanks. One question though, what is the current definition of RINO? I know it stands for Republican In Name Only, but I hear Republicans calling each other that all the time, and they can't all be right. So who is a Republican anymore and can/should the party split giving the Paleocons control and letting the rest become fringe parties like the Greens and Libertarians?

*My* impression is that RINO means a person who either 1. runs for office as a Republican conservatives but then votes as a moderate. or 2. a Republican that votes more with the Democrats than they vote with the Republican party in Congress.

In the Democratic Party similar people were called "Boll Weavels".

 

[AmericanFirst1]

One of the big issues that divides the Alt Right and the Far Right.

The Far Right sees Israel as the home of God's favorite people and work to preserve Israel. They promise Israel their undying support.

Like the radical Islamisists, the Alt Right want to see Israel destroyed and the Jews killed the way the Far Right wants the gays killed.

Israel is not Gods favorite people, they are Gods chosen people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It seems like the alt-right battle amounts to a Civil War on the right. Why do some insist it's a designation invented by the left?

THe ideological split in the GOP has been going on for a long time, and this is the first I've heard of the term "alt-right".

Yeah I only became aware of it last year when I started digging into this term 'cuckservative' which I think is a very useful concept as so many Conservative Incs are willing to let their fellow Americans rot in poverty and ship their jobs over seas.

 

[Correll]

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".

Well, "immigrant" as in assimilating into the predominant core Anglo culture here in the USA;

1. Amerindians taught us which foods grow better here in the USA. They also gave us some ideas on forming a federation that were similar to other European models but different in that they did not require a strong chief executive except in times of war and a personal desire for self sufficiency. We would not be here without their contribution,literally.

2. Irish gave us a contrasting view of Christianity with their Catholicism that will likely be Christianity's life boat here in the US.

3. Hispanics have given us the Cowboy, modern ranching techniques, a competitive sense of Machismo and our first Unifying Enemy.

4. Black gave us untold man-years of unpaid labor, Jazz, and genetic heterosis.

I could go on, but I think I have made my point. We are not European in the sense that Europeans would see us as European like they are. We are only European in the same way that Quebecois are French and the French laugh at them behind their backs for thinking it so.

1. Learning the local crops is not really a cultural aspect. And parliament's were already up and running in Europe,

2. Did we really need the Irish to understand that there were Catholics in the world?

3. Interesting point about the Ranching. I will consider it.

4. Jazz is nice. But not all that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

1. Learning the local crops is not really a cultural aspect. And parliament's were already up and running in Europe,

Farmers farmed back then based on traditional crops, planting times and things that they were familiar with they had to absorb the new crops into their culture as well as the seed. It was a different way of farming and a different way of life.

And yes there were Parliaments in the Old World, but none of them were as oriented toward the Will of the People as was ours. Mostly they were a noble advisory to the monarch who was usually some kind of dictator bound by tradition. The English Parliament was the most democratic of all Parliaments and its House of Commons did not reach ascendancy until the late 1800s, well after we set the example for them. We owe the Cherokee, IMO, for much of our form of government we have today.

2. Did we really need the Irish to understand that there were Catholics in the world?

No, but to understand Catholicism, yes. Prior to the integration of the Irish into the North just before and during the Civil War, which saved the Union, btw, The Anglo establishment thought of Catholicism as something you thought about on Guy Fawkes Day, if even then.

We know that Taoism exists, but what do any of us know about it and understand about it, and yet it is one of the most conservative religions in the world.

3. Interesting point about the Ranching. I will consider it.

So I take it you like steaks, lol.

4. Jazz is nice. But not all that.

I like a lot of it, but mostly the influence it had on the development of Whore House Music and its progeny like Blues, Western, and Rock and Roll.

Where would we be without ACDC?

 

[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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?