This will be three posts.
First, I think your political connections are rather surfical shallow, and I will demonstrate.
Second, using your supposed connections, I guess it is free to use that same level of connections to build a rather surprising case relating to Progressive thought and some others.
Third, I will point out some ideals and issues that are very much highlight some rather stark issues and differences.
-----
I asked for political beliefs. You did a wonderful job of pointing out supposed end goals or results. But that litany to a great extent suffers a shallowness, but in what it purportedly tries to describe, *and* the actual idea of not a 'goal' but a 'political belief'. A political belief has to have an end goal, and a purpose and a principle why that goal is proper.
An example: For California Proposition 8, (the amendment of the state Constitution to define marriage solely between a man and a woman), the polls indicated that about 90 per cent of the votes cast in favor were for the 'traditional' reason that one would expect. The vast majority of the remaining votes were cast interestingly for libertarian and populist reasons (i.e. the State Supreme Court exceeded its authority in waxing the previous proposition vote). While one can readily identify the commonality of goal (passing Prop 8), there is a huge difference in the political goal for each one. In fact, the statements you make above all to a great extent are endpoints; and most conservatives/republicans would gladly actually change their stance on the (often broad stated) goals you mention if you supplant the 'conservative' goal with the many times radically different "skinhead" goal (which you dont differentiate in the slightest), or if you supplant the 'conservative reasoning' with that of the 'skinhead' reason (which you allude to but make fundamental and absolute short shrift of, mind you).
With that backdrop of the duality of 'degree' and 'purpose' in mind, lets take a little trip through your 'political ideals of skinheads that are shared by Republicans/conservatives'.
-----------
Your point 1 "Strict border enforcement".
First, you obviously leave of the political philosophies connected with this (probably for good reason). A better statement would be:
"Adherence to current written law on immigration" vs "Fundamentally closed borders especially for ragheads, Jews, n--gers, and any other mudpeople we can think of".
In fact, most of the written principles of the 'fun dudes in armbands' call for a racially homogenous state and the forcible extradition of anyone not meeting those racial criteria. But, you seemingly overlook both the 'cause' (to keep ragheads and other mudpeople out vs. to ensure border security, to allow for the rule of law to prevail in immigration, to negate a rule by by fiat) that are the political belief systems behind each, *and* the fundamental level of enforcement with your bull**** application of 'strict'. Yes, the Aryan Nation truly believes in a 'strict' border policy, and it truly is astounding to see a reach for congruency that you do with 'strict' in the conservative in a sense, which really closely follows the meaning of 'strict' rule of law; i.e. why the hell should illegal activities invite a pass to the front of the bus? So to be blunt, shame on you for your 'waffle word' of strict there.
Good for you for finding such a good word to describe two highly different ethos. But it doesnt change that the bull**** word usage, when looked at in detail, really detracts from substance. Kind of a horsehit cheesy sideways move, but.... lets move on.
----------------------
- Curtailing Civil Rights laws (for white nationalists because of racism, for some Republicans, to combat federalism/remove regulations)
Thank you for actually highlighting the bifurcation in 'reasons behind'. So we have, in your own words, negated one half to the unity needed for a unity of political belief ethos. But, again you use a waffle-wiffle word 'curtail' which kind of blows your argument here apart as well.
So in the "strict" (heh, used the word 'strict') Aryan Nation meaning, 'curtail' is a nice word to 'kick the fing ragheads and mudpeople out, only whitey has any semblance of rights', along with the 'repeal the 14th, 15th, and 16th amendment claptrap that is part and parcel of their meaning of curtail. I would suggest that you use a better, more descript word, but that wouldnt aid you when it is much better to use a very loose ill-defined word that fits both posts.
Huge fing difference between the articulated position of 'perhaps disparate outcome really isnt a proper determination of discrimination', or, as the position of a temporal expectation of reduction of such rights, posited by Justice O'Connor's somewhat famous 25 Year Expectation, and the other extreme which so cutely fall under the rubric of 'curtail'.
So you are two for two for using soft and broad language to show common cause of vastly different views. Damn, you should think about being a blowhard lawyer like yours truly.
----
"generally reducing federal power and strengthening states rights"
Again this falls when you actually tag along 'the reason for'. But at least on this one you didnt handi-wipe the actual item with a word that means vastly different expectations when actually investigated.
I would put forth that the Aryan Nation really isnt for a 'reduction' of Federal Power, they wish to replace federal power with there own nation-state, to be specific.
And, if you put forth the ethos that "we need to reduce Federal power" goal with the "reason for" (i.e. to maintain the purity of the white race and put the mudpeople away from us), I doubt yo would find very few 'conservatives' who actually believe in the concept of federalism that would be joining that lifeboat. But feel free to place them in the same political context. I dont expect anything less. Again, you are conjoining the existence of a goal with an ispo facto sharing of political belief. When you find a significant number of conservatives who would buy in to the goal with the express purpose of segregating out the mudpeople, I think you might have a case. You dont here, though.
--------
A strong disdain for "political correctness" that often revolves around race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Again, tag on the reason (which seems so blithely ignored in this list). You are correct that the Aryan Nation set has a 'strong disdain' (my is that *another* waffle word there? heavens to Betsy I do believe it is) for political correctness about "race, gender, or sexual orientation". One only need replay the tape of Charlottesville and start counting up the signs and words that relate to 'fing fags', 'queers out the USA', 'n-ggers back to Africa' and such to be aware of *that* "strong disdain". Again, 'strong disdain' seems a real shallow word here, and considering the online fight we got into about Charlottesville and the participants in that melee I find it interesting that you would downplay it to that extent.... lolz.
I would agree with you that disdain is shown by conservatives for PC, mainly because many see it as a serious threat to the principles behind the 1st amendment. Including threat of forcing complete nimrods, like I just described above, into silence.
And again, when you conjoin the "reason" for the 'disdain' (good weasel word, kudos) with eachside, I again doubt you would find a common political goal, and a not anywhere a common political purpose, for that 'disdain'.
----------------
As for the last point, alas I have not read Death of the West. Sorry. Have you? Or are you just commenting on what others have told you about this piece?
---
Lastly you state:
Quote: I would say the big difference is what the underpinning/foundation of the idea is built on. A vast majority of Reps do not build those ideas on racism, while those on the fringe do.
You hit it right on the button. The reason behind the goal actually matters when you label one group a 'faction' of another.
Next post I will expand on this.
