Post: #1

Gavin did a video explaining the groups he thinks comprise the entire right.





1. Alt Right - Richard Spencer
2. Paleocons - "pure conservatives," isolationists
3. Neocons - liberals that support Israel
4. Uptown Black Conservatives - Thomas Sowell, Allen West
5. Downtown Black Conservatives - more "ghetto" than number 4
6. Outcasts - the "freaks," Charles C Johnson, Mike Cernovich, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones
7. Broadcast Patriots - Bill Whittle, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh
8. Islamophobes - Pamela Geller, Ezra Levant
9. National Review - "monocle wearing elites"
10. Cruz Cons - more Christian, Glenn Beck, Nick Searcy, Ben Shapiro
11. Trump Con - Matt Drudge, Milo, Ann Coulter
12. Factual Feminists - CH Sommers, Sargon Of Akkad, Lauren Southern, Me (18:16)
13. Free Speechers - Mercedes Carrera, Adam Baldwin
14. Libertarians

Post: #2

Good list only person I think should be in a different group is Mike Cernovich. He's more of a free speecher with an alt right leaning than an outcast with views that are a bit out there.

He has a lot of growing mainstream credibility on twitter for calling out establishment bullshit and challenging sjw censorship and most importantly doing it in a way that is rational.

His documentary coming out soon puts him more in that free speech camp too.

Post: #3

Where do the "South Park conservatives" fit into this? I basically mean ones who like South Park.

Atheism is also growing on the right. Where would they fit into this?

Post: #4

15. Mind Numbing flag wavers - can't really explain why they're patriotic or why this is "the greatest country on earth" but damnit...!
16. Black Neocons - Blacks in the right only to spread 'privilege' and progressive ideas
17. Constitutionalists - self explanatory, purists toward the founding document
18. the Voluntarism umbrella - possibly one of the widest variety of opinions and interactions you'll have on the right (Stefan Molyneux)

Post: #5

19. White Nationalists (Jared Taylor, folks at Amren)

This may be a little controversial, but...

20. Us (in theory, we are not, but in practice, in many aspects we are a part of that umbrella).

Post: #6

(04-29-2016 10:59 PM)puckerman Wrote:  Where do the "South Park conservatives" fit into this? I basically mean ones who like South Park.

Atheism is also growing on the right. Where would they fit into this?

The right wing atheists tend not to make their atheism a central part of their identity unlike a lot of those in the left who will go through the effort of organizing groups centered on atheism.

Post: #7

^ Correct. Actually I even respect Christians somewhat, even if I'll go no holds barred against them in religion debates. They've at least got decent right-wing morals (usually), versus the far-right Muslims or the leftists.

Post: #8

Too many categories. I'd just whittle it down to this:

1. Alt-right (Race fixated)
2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)
3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)
4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

Free-speech and anti-feminism is issues are really more moderate in nature. Free-speechers will fight against both moral majority types and SJWs, and similarly anti-feminists tend to oppose both left-wing feminism and right-wing pussy pedestaling.

I thought about putting Trump supporters in the list, but frankly aside from the alt-right supporting him as the best option, Trump is really just moderate populism, despite liberals trying to paint him as Hitler.

Post: #9

(04-30-2016 04:17 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  1. Alt-right (Race fixated)
2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)
3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)
4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

Much cleaner. Why did you break with style on 4? "Capital fixated" seems much more applicable and would cover extreme anarcho-capitalists all the way to rent-seeking corporatists.

Post: #10

In comparison, the Left only has 1 group (Useless to Society Parasites), sub-categorized in 3 sub-groups:

1- Fat female SJWs and beta-orbiting White Knights
2- Pervert LGBQs
3- BLM opportunistic racists

Post: #11

Saw this map the other day of the "alt right" (too large to post):

http://i.imgur.com/k4yzsVs.jpg

Post: #12

Where's Stefan Molyneux in your views? I follow his videos and personally think he is more Libertarian

Post: #13

Uptown Black Conservative checking in.

I would add

19. Devout Hispanic Catholics - anti-gay marriage and all
20. Commie haters - Naturalized US citizens from ex-communist/communist spots like former FSU countries, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and Nicaragua.
21. Orange County Republicans - liberals who want to keep their money eg. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jenna Jameson

Post: #14

(04-29-2016 11:21 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  18. the Voluntarism umbrella - possibly one of the widest variety of opinions and interactions you'll have on the right (Stefan Molyneux)

Yep. Voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists, the Mises group. My boys.

Post: #15

(04-30-2016 10:38 AM)Different T Wrote:  

(04-30-2016 04:17 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  1. Alt-right (Race fixated)
2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)
3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)
4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

Much cleaner. Why did you break with style on 4? "Capital fixated" seems much more applicable and would cover extreme anarcho-capitalists all the way to rent-seeking corporatists.

If I'd thought of it last night:
4. Randroid (NAP fixated)

Post: #16

The main camps I would personally say are:

Neocons - Nationalist leaning; typically more middle of the road Republican voters, more liberal on social issues, more likely to support interventionalism

Paleocons (Traditionalist conservatives) - More of a "God, country, Apple Pie" type of conservative, may cross over with social conservatives or the Christian right to some extent

Classical "liberals" - Constitutional conservatives and libertarians, in favor of limited government and lower taxes; some are more socially liberal while others may be socially conservative but believe the government should not regulate people's lives

Anarcho-capitalists - Radical libertarians, adherants of Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, etc

"Small government conservatives" - Typically socially conservative on a state level but opposed to the federal govt (ex. die hard "Southern patriots" or secessionists fit this camp); sometimes call themselves "libertarians" but this is a pretty inaccurate description

White nationalists / supremacists - Race is a primary issue for them; often lean socially conservative on other issues such as religion, homosexuality, abortion, etc

Misc nationalists - Typically in favor of isolationism and focusing on American issues versus foreign issues with cultural unity being a big issue

Christian right / christian nationalists - Usually socially conservative on issues like abortion, same sex marriage, sexual modesty, a belief that America was founded as a "Christian nation" etc; often associated with evangelical or fundamentalist Christians; some are Zionists who are huge supporters of Israel while others are opposed to Israel

-----

As far as the left goes, these are what I consider the main camps:

Social democrats (SJWS) - Main focus is on ending alleged discrimination or racial, sexual inequality; this would include subgroups like LGBT rights, 3rd wave feminism, "Black Lives Matter", etc

Democratic socialists - Main focus is on ending economic inequality; some are more socially conservative than other left-wing groups (ex. many low income, religious blacks and hispanics vote Democrat over the race and economic issues alone despite being opposed to abortion, homosexuality, etc)

Tend to also favor social regulations such as smoking laws and gun control and have a much more "pro establishment" mindset than the rebellious leftists of the 1960s; may include members of "mainline" or "progressive" Christian congregations

Left leaning libertarians - Main focus is on less social regulation, such as ending the drug war, reducing criminal sentences, free speech, and censorship; usually also opposed to war and interventionalism; more along the lines of the hippie "anti-system" mentality of the 60s and possibly less in favor of big govt regulation than the other groups

Environmentalists - Favor regulations in favor of protecting nature or wildlife

Progressives - Typically fall in the social justice and democratic socialist camps; but with a bigger emphasis on the importance of funding science and technology to achieve social progress

Atheists (Secular Humanists) - Typically favor social justice and progressive economics, but opposed to organized religion promoting an ideology of "science / evolution" as gospel; big issues for them are the "creation vs evolution" controversy and separation of church and state

Misc far left - Communists, anarchists, radical environmentalists, etc

Post: #17

Where do you put teh corporatists then?

Post: #18

(04-30-2016 05:28 PM)Different T Wrote:  Where do you put teh corporatists then?

Typically neocons, or radical libertarians who believe the "all taxation / government is wrong" spiel; progressives / democratic socialists probably also fit the bill

Post: #19

@ EDantes

Alright, thanks.

@ Bortimus

Where do you put teh corporatists then?

Post: #20

(04-30-2016 04:17 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  Too many categories. I'd just whittle it down to this:

1. Alt-right (Race fixated)
2. Moral Majority (Jesus fixated)
3. Neocohen (Israel fixated)
4. Randroid (Libertarian spergs)

Free-speech and anti-feminism is issues are really more moderate in nature. Free-speechers will fight against both moral majority types and SJWs, and similarly anti-feminists tend to oppose both left-wing feminism and right-wing pussy pedestaling.

You've managed to leave me out entirely - none of those are my fixations.

5. Wastelanders (Apocalypse fixated)

Come lift some iron with the bigger guys at any traditional gym and you'll spot the tribe members a mile away.



It's probably why I get 'Bane' from girls a lot:



It's easy to mistake it as Paganism. I think we just see a futile civilisational pattern of the strong being expected to carry the weak until each society collapses from the weight, and rather than have the boring conversation with the entitled and dysfunctional, we'd rather just let natural selection take care of them.

Note that the mindset doesn't come from priviliged apathy, but backgrounds in experiencing poverty and hardship first-hand, where you learn the world simply doesn't care about your survival, particularly the Leftists who wring their hands, beat their chests and sing songs of how deeply they do care, none of which changes the reality on the ground.

It's interesting to note that three of us in the manosphere experienced harsh physical lessons earlier in life that offered us perspective and humillity, whilst also making us driven to achieve, just to stare down natural selection as it tried to throw us off a cliff and say "Not today."

1) Quintus' collapsed lung, which he did a great podcast about

2) Cernovich's skin condition, which he's talked about on his blog

3) My post-adult-chicken pox fibromyalgia, which I've mentioned on here in the past

I suspect other guys on here have similar stories. No-one else can be rightfully-expected to care about you, let alone fight for you, but yourself. People present an ego-flattering fantasy of caring so much about others, but, think of how ineffective people in an office are at comforting a co-worker who has suffered a loss, and how quickly they avoid the person until behavioural patterns are back to normal. Do you think they're losing sleep over the fate 'The People' on the other side of the world or in a different victim class, or is simply about creating Phantasms to hand-wring over in search of moral gratfication and meaning?

You can't care about everyone. It's simply not possible.

Post: #21

delete

Post: #22

(04-30-2016 05:53 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  It's easy to mistake it as Paganism. I think we just see a futile civilisational pattern of the strong being expected to carry the weak until each society collapses from the weight, and rather than have the boring conversation with the entitled and dysfunctional, we'd rather just let natural selection take care of them.

Really seems like more of an anti-ideology. I mean, the root premise of a political ideology is that a society would be stable if everyone followed its directions.

Post: #23

Quote:1. Alt Right - Richard Spencer
2. Paleocons - "pure conservatives," isolationists
3. Neocons - liberals that support Israel
4. Uptown Black Conservatives - Thomas Sowell, Allen West
5. Downtown Black Conservatives - more "ghetto" than number 4
6. Outcasts - the "freaks," Charles C Johnson, Mike Cernovich, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones
7. Broadcast Patriots - Bill Whittle, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh
8. Islamophobes - Pamela Geller, Ezra Levant
9. National Review - "monocle wearing elites"
10. Cruz Cons - more Christian, Glenn Beck, Nick Searcy, Ben Shapiro
11. Trump Con - Matt Drudge, Milo, Ann Coulter
12. Factual Feminists - CH Sommers, Sargon Of Akkad, Lauren Southern, Me (18:16) Laugh
13. Free Speechers - Mercedes Carrera, Adam Baldwin
14. Libertarians

My comments are in the context of large groups. Gavin is commenting on mostly pundits, but not always, which makes his groupings a little confusing.

1. Apt
2. Apt
3. Apt
4. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.
5. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.
6. Not its own group. I don't count Rogan as conservative. He's a libertarian. Gavin likes him because Rogan invited him on his popular podcast.
7. Span the spectrum and thus not their own group.
8. Span the spectrum and thus not their own group.
9. Should be grouped with Neocons.
10. I suspect that most of these people are Christian Neocons. Neocons could be split into the Christian (likely trend toward social conservatism) and non-Christian (likely trend toward social liberalism) varieties.
11. Trump con = probably a mix of 1 and 2.
12. However small, these guys are probably their own group due to ideological uniqueness.
13. I'm unfamiliar
14. Not conservatives.

Gavin isn't a race mixer as he claims, which is evident if you've seen his wife. He's social signalling to liberals, which is in-fact a large sin ironic to the non-sin that he's so self-righteously taking a platform for. Vocally pandering to the liberal social zeitgeist enforces its power over narrative control (political correctness). Just when you start to keep it real again, Gavin...

Gavin explains the Neocons succinctly, but I'm unsure as to why he likes them within the bounds of his own definition. He likes liberals as long as they support Israel? He makes no sense unless you consider that Israel might be a priority for Gavin.

The NRO aren't monacle wearing conservatives. They're the result of the non-Christian Neocons, previously communists, who overtook the NRO in the Buckley Era.

Post: #24

(04-29-2016 09:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  4. Uptown Black Conservatives - Thomas Sowell, Allen West
5. Downtown Black Conservatives - more "ghetto" than number 4

(04-30-2016 11:02 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  4. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.
5. This group might not be large enough to count as its own group.

I think we need to rejigger this explanation.

It's not that those groups are too small, it is that they fit within other ideological groupings. The same could be said for all minorities that are a part of the party.

As the party pivots towards being more inclusive (except for possibly southern Republicans), I foresee people joining the party because they agree with the family values, fiscally conservative policies, pro-business attitude, ideas surrounding self-actualization, personal responsibility, tolerance and personal liberty.

Putting people into sub-groups in the Republican party based on race or ethnicity defeats the purpose of the party being the party of ideas rather than identity. Everyone is included as long as they have a desire to contribute to the ideological pot.

Post: #25

(04-30-2016 05:53 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I suspect other guys on here have similar stories. No-one else can be rightfully-expected to care about you, let alone fight for you, but yourself. People present an ego-flattering fantasy of caring so much about others, but, think of how ineffective people in an office are at comforting a co-worker who has suffered a loss, and how quickly they avoid the person until behavioural patterns are back to normal. Do you think they're losing sleep over the fate 'The People' on the other side of the world or in a different victim class, or is simply about creating Phantasms to hand-wring over in search of moral gratfication and meaning?

You can't care about everyone. It's simply not possible.

But it is possible to care about some. And be genuine about it. And see that through.

The 'office space' that you so accurately abstract here AB, would make an excellent thought laboratory for our purposes:

How long would my co-workers put up with my shit if I really was genuinely struggling?

Would even one of them offer real world, real time help if I was in a pickle?

Et cetara.

We all know that kind of office-world space. And maybe we don't expect much more, when we know what we know.

But what about other spaces, like being in a band, being part of an artistic movement, running a club, starting a record label? Et cetara.

Those are spaces where there are real bonds being formed. And just to cut to the chase, you still get betrayed. Not always for riches either, some times just for convenience and expediency.

It hurts extra hard when you buy into that. And then you get burned. But surely these people, this system, are different? No, they aren't. They are just better liars. They will kick you as hard as everyone else when you are on the floor. And when one starts kicking...

I make a point of not helping anybody these days. It's got me in to too much trouble, especially with strangers. I can see now it was part of my learning curve as a human being, but I've learned the painful lessons, and have moved on. I would always help a brother out, but I'd have to know he was worth it. You simply would not believe the flak I've got for going above and beyond the call of duty. No more. I've put my money where my mouth is.

I've fallen into a very barren wasteland myself. I'm still in shock and trying to come to terms with it, such is the size of the abyss that I find myself in, right here, right now. Long held relationships (can't really call them friendships) that counted for nothing at the end of the day. Not even betrayal a lot of the time, but a lot of indifference. Not sure what is worse.


I've used up my nine lives, and am glad to be alive. I've suffered what would be some people's worst nightmares, and come out the other side. And still been trusting and giving. And still got kicked in the teeth.

It's alright. It's really not a problem. I just don't bother with other people any more, as there isn't really anything they can give me. Being a person who is genuine and giving, I can do a lot for them, but I rarely meet anyone who will give unreservedly and unconditionally as I do. People are very obvious, especially when gaming and trying to inveigle their way in to your world. I only choose to be around those that have their own shit together in a big way, or those that are genuinely in need of some help, and I can make a real difference in their life.

So I oscillate between the high-rollers and the truly vulnerable. Normal people don't really figure on my reality map. I'm ok with that.

Sorry for the tangent, I just find these discussions so fascinating, when we explore the cracks around the main issue.