Such gross oversimplifications as what these "departures" indicate are a perfect illustration of why I have no use for them.
Any group that thinks "there is no point in believing in the Constitution" is, quite frankly, profoundly misguided, IMHO.
Classical liberals/conservatives/libertarians have a pretty good idea of what it means to be American, to be protected equally under the law, and to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
So, presuming these "departures" you've cited are accurate, such foolish thinking belongs right where it is: on the extremist fringe.
Thus, alt-right does not share the ideals of the FR community, coincidental overlaps notwithstanding.
I'm with Donald Trump on this. We don't want the votes of supremacists, anti-Semites, or fools who dismiss the American Constitution and who don't believe in Unalienable rights for all people.
If there are "differences in races", they have no relevance to how any individual should be treated under the Law.
Vote Trump!
I think you have a reading problem. I've presented what they are, and don't claim to be sympathetic to them, but whatever else they may be, they aren't "oversimplified," just summarized.
Any group that thinks "there is no point in believing in the Constitution" is, quite frankly, profoundly misguided, IMHO.
Then you need to take that up with the Federal Judges, who believe -- as Holmes so eloquently and nefariously articulated -- "The Constitution is nothing except what the Federal Judges say it is."
In fact it's worse than that, because we've now had decades of decisions by the Federal Judiciary, including one in the last year, that say that the plain and exact wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reaffirms equality under law, means THE OPPOSITE of equality under law.
If there are "differences in races", they have no relevance to how any individual should be treated under the Law.
Nice straw man, and who claims they should? Except for the Federal Courts which you're implicitly defending.
Tell me... what use should we have for a Constitution which asserts a right of homosexuals to "marry?" A right, defended on the basis of "equality under law" by The Majority Opinion, by the way, and which up until ten years ago no sane person believed was implicit there. Certainly the Founders -- who regarded homosexual sodomy as a serious crime -- did not.
Tell me what use we should have for a Constitution which permits AND EVEN ENSHRINES racial set-asides, preferences and quotas? Who are the racists here, again?
Co-opted conservatives believe we should defend a "Constitution" that none of the Founders would remotely recognize. Jefferson himself predicted this would happen, and on this issue at least, the Alt-Rightists are correct. To have a living, evolving Constitution of the kind that Anthony Kennedy (and all of the other progressives believe in) is to have NO CONSTITUTION at all.
So spare me your humble opinion on that point.
The belief that Israel's national interests are not ours is shared by a great many FReepers and Paleo's. It isn't a belief that I share. Frankly, I doubt we have a reliable ally anywhere outside of the Anglosphere that is even remotely reliable except for Israel. So failing to help and protect them is not only stupid, it is counter to our own national interests. Nevertheless, having the belief that Israel shapes too much of our policy does not constitute "anti-Semitism." To claim it does is preposterous virtue-signaling of exactly the kind that has brought about the term "cuckservative."
I'm not Alt-Right, but frankly, I do agree with their criticism that "conservatives" are more energetic in their denunciations of "heretics" than they are in the pursuit of restoring Constitutional order and destroying progressivism. Your knee-jerk post is demonstrative of that kind of thinking, and it needs to stop.