Please try to have some intellectual integrity, OK. You can read the referring posts backwards, quite easily.
I didn't post this gratuitously, or claim that it has any connection with what most people on Free Republic believe. I mentioned that the term "red pill" was used by Vox Day and other alt-right types (who, in turn, I brought up because he wrote several posts on Q).
I was asked what his "16 points" were and I posted them.
I tend to answer direct questions as clearly as I can.
The alt-right BS was this made up BS to do just that.
So, your theory is that the Alt Right was made up to reflect badly on conservatism? That's ridiculous. It's not a position that anyone who has done even the most superficial reading could believe.
The Alt Right has it's own pedigree and history. Whether you like it, hate it, or don't care about it is your choice. But it certainly is not a left-wing plot to stealthily attack conservatism.
The history of the Alt Right is readily available. The first use of term was in Taki Mag, among a group of people who were younger writers who were broadly aligned with the paleo-conservatives. Richard Spencer, who coined the term, was an editor at Pat Buchanan's "The American Conservative" before moving on to Taki Mag where he came up with the term Alt Right, along with Paul Gottfried.
There have always been disagreements in the conservative movement, and the National Review vs. The American Conservative conflict was pretty well known by people who were paying attention to the various streams of Conservative thought in the early 2000s.
Do you claim that Pat Buchanan is not a real Conservative?
Both sides of the Neo-Con and Paleo-Con divide claim the other are not "real conservatives". Perhaps you feel you alone can decide what a "real conservative is? Please, enlighten us!
If you were a true Constitutional conservative, you would understand this.
I am sure I understand the Constitution as well as you do. Stop with the condescension.
You will have to understand not all conservatives are white, like myself, and many conservatives, regardless of skin color, who do not agree with this BS at all.
I do understand that not all Conservatives are white. Do you understand that not all conservatives are National Review types?
If you understood our founding documents, All Men Are Created Equal and most Constitutional freedom-loving conservatives understand this I have found throughout my life having met many of these conservatives.
Again, I understand the Constitution as well as you do. So do many of the people on the Alt Right. You would claim that they are mis-interpreting it, they would claim the same of you.
I'm quite familiar with your arguments, and those of Constitutional Conservatives, but I doubt you you are at all familiar with theirs. By the way, please note I said "theirs" and not MINE.
Nice try with that BS,
Nice try with pretending that people who disagree with you are simply wrong, without actually debating any of their points. Usually that's a liberal tactic. It's a form of "ad hominem" argumentation, a sign of a weak grasp of your own position.
I still don't trust you.
I never asked you to trust me, and I don't really care if you trust me. I don't know you, even by handle. You've been here 5 years, I've been here 20. Stick around, you might learn something.
I’ve been around FR since 1998 and have admitted many times so who is the one being condescending?
You have way too much nuance about alt-right for my liking. Nuance IS a liberal thing. By your own posting it ties white supremacy to the alt-right. That is what was intended to do and tie today’s good Constitutional conservatism to white supremacy.
Why do you think Hilliary Rotten Clinton and other deep staters uses that phrase all the time???? It is obviously trying to marginalize good freedom-loving conservatives, no doubt. Keep nuancing this fake alt-right and I will continue to post why I don’t trust it or you.
CGato