A better socialism for a better population

[Grand Design]

I was thinking that I don't often hear about left wing parties that do support socialistic economies, but have some certain right wing traits about them.

Think about Bernie Sanders, with the same socialistic economic polices, but with Trump's rhetoric on immigration.

An idea of what kind of political platform I am thinking about:

A candidate who is NOT for deportation, but supports legal immigration of almost all people [of course choosing only socially liberal, and educated people], but is against Muslim immigration. So yeah, think Bernie with some of Trump's rhetoric [wall on US-Mexico border, no muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted].

Lets be honest, Trump doesn't want to deport Muslims that are already in the US. And he supports legal immigration by worthy applicants and their families. In short, Trump is NOT a Geert Wilders. But, what if he had a socialistic economic policy like Bernie as if he was a Democrat candidate.

A possible platform for the kind of left-wing candidate I am suggesting:

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

[Jochistan]

Yeah but he still wants to register Muslims in the US or some shit. And is generally against them. Sort of similar thing going on with Mexicans there.

While illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated, he does take an extreme route for it. Also, only social liberal people? do you know who Trump is?
Anyway, who gives a shit, socially liberal attitudes are the reason most western countries are having a bad time with cultural relativism, welfare dependency (the socialist policies are even worse for that one) and mentality of misguided "progress" and "egalitarianism" anyway.

[Ostroeuropa]

I was thinking that I don't often hear about left wing parties that do support socialistic economies, but have some certain right wing traits about them.

Think about Bernie Sanders, with the same socialistic economic polices, but with Trump's rhetoric on immigration.

An idea of what kind of political platform I am thinking about:

A candidate who is NOT for deportation, but supports legal immigration of almost all people [of course choosing only socially liberal, and educated people], but is against Muslim immigration. So yeah, think Bernie with some of Trump's rhetoric [wall on US-Mexico border, no muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted].

Lets be honest, Trump doesn't want to deport Muslims that are already in the US. And he supports legal immigration by worthy applicants and their families. In short, Trump is NOT a Geert Wilders. But, what if he had a socialistic economic policy like Bernie as if he was a Democrat candidate.

A possible platform for the kind of left-wing candidate I am suggesting:

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

It'd work out pretty well if you also scrapped SJWIsm in other sections and supported actual gender equality and such, along with pro-western rhetoric and Westernist foreign policy and such.

The new far-right is aligning with your suggestions currently after years of political wilderness. The shift in attitude is typified by the /pol/ /lgbt/ "dating" ruckus.
"Rommel was a homosexual, you know."

Scrapping of biological racism on the grounds that it's anti-scientific, and thus, anti-western, and adopting of "culturalist" attitudes and such.

I'm interested to see if the new far right capitalizes on its gains. Polls show a majority of some european countries sympathetic to their goals.

TL;DR:

The Far-Right is currently re-aligning to be socially libertarian, secular (With a nod toward "Our history as judeo-christian and pagan nations, and these religions having a prominent place in our history and heritage, but never our laws."), social democratic, but nationalistic, westernist, and anti-third world immigration (especially with incompatible cultures). It may well become a force to be reckoned with.

[Grand Design]

I was thinking that I don't often hear about left wing parties that do support socialistic economies, but have some certain right wing traits about them.

Think about Bernie Sanders, with the same socialistic economic polices, but with Trump's rhetoric on immigration.

An idea of what kind of political platform I am thinking about:

A candidate who is NOT for deportation, but supports legal immigration of almost all people [of course choosing only socially liberal, and educated people], but is against Muslim immigration. So yeah, think Bernie with some of Trump's rhetoric [wall on US-Mexico border, no muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted].

Lets be honest, Trump doesn't want to deport Muslims that are already in the US. And he supports legal immigration by worthy applicants and their families. In short, Trump is NOT a Geert Wilders. But, what if he had a socialistic economic policy like Bernie as if he was a Democrat candidate.

A possible platform for the kind of left-wing candidate I am suggesting:

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

It'd work out pretty well if you also scrapped SJWIsm in other sections and supported actual gender equality and such, along with pro-western rhetoric and Westernist foreign policy and such.

The new far-right is aligning with your suggestions currently after years of political wilderness. The shift in attitude is typified by the /pol/ /lgbt/ "dating" ruckus.
"Rommel was a homosexual, you know."

Scrapping of biological racism on the grounds that it's anti-scientific, and thus, anti-western, and adopting of "culturalist" attitudes and such.

I'm interested to see if the new far right capitalizes on its gains. Polls show a majority of some european countries sympathetic to their goals.

TL;DR:

The Far-Right is currently re-aligning to be socially libertarian, secular (With a nod toward "Our history as judeo-christian and pagan nations, and these religions having a prominent place in our history and heritage, but never our laws."), social democratic, but nationalistic, westernist, and anti-third world immigration (especially with incompatible cultures). It may well become a force to be reckoned with.

Isn't the far right still against all forms of immigration, even legal immigration? Can you please give a few examples of these recent new far-right parties that are socially liberal? Are they for legal immigration for anyone who is not Muslim?

[Jochistan]

I was thinking that I don't often hear about left wing parties that do support socialistic economies, but have some certain right wing traits about them.

Think about Bernie Sanders, with the same socialistic economic polices, but with Trump's rhetoric on immigration.

An idea of what kind of political platform I am thinking about:

A candidate who is NOT for deportation, but supports legal immigration of almost all people [of course choosing only socially liberal, and educated people], but is against Muslim immigration. So yeah, think Bernie with some of Trump's rhetoric [wall on US-Mexico border, no muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted].

Lets be honest, Trump doesn't want to deport Muslims that are already in the US. And he supports legal immigration by worthy applicants and their families. In short, Trump is NOT a Geert Wilders. But, what if he had a socialistic economic policy like Bernie as if he was a Democrat candidate.

A possible platform for the kind of left-wing candidate I am suggesting:

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

It'd work out pretty well if you also scrapped SJWIsm in other sections and supported actual gender equality and such, along with pro-western rhetoric and Westernist foreign policy and such.

The new far-right is aligning with your suggestions currently after years of political wilderness. The shift in attitude is typified by the /pol/ /lgbt/ "dating" ruckus.
"Rommel was a homosexual, you know."

Scrapping of biological racism on the grounds that it's anti-scientific, and thus, anti-western, and adopting of "culturalist" attitudes and such.

I'm interested to see if the new far right capitalizes on its gains. Polls show a majority of some european countries sympathetic to their goals.

TL;DR:

The Far-Right is currently re-aligning to be socially libertarian, secular (With a nod toward "Our history as judeo-christian and pagan nations, and these religions having a prominent place in our history and heritage, but never our laws."), social democratic, but nationalistic, westernist, and anti-third world immigration (especially with incompatible cultures). It may well become a force to be reckoned with.

Nah, the far right isn't leaning towards your goals, pal. they're still pretty much the same as they've always been with their values.

Call me an SJW all you want, but it's the truth.

[Ostroeuropa]

It'd work out pretty well if you also scrapped SJWIsm in other sections and supported actual gender equality and such, along with pro-western rhetoric and Westernist foreign policy and such.

The new far-right is aligning with your suggestions currently after years of political wilderness. The shift in attitude is typified by the /pol/ /lgbt/ "dating" ruckus.
"Rommel was a homosexual, you know."

Scrapping of biological racism on the grounds that it's anti-scientific, and thus, anti-western, and adopting of "culturalist" attitudes and such.

I'm interested to see if the new far right capitalizes on its gains. Polls show a majority of some european countries sympathetic to their goals.

TL;DR:

The Far-Right is currently re-aligning to be socially libertarian, secular (With a nod toward "Our history as judeo-christian and pagan nations, and these religions having a prominent place in our history and heritage, but never our laws."), social democratic, but nationalistic, westernist, and anti-third world immigration (especially with incompatible cultures). It may well become a force to be reckoned with.

Isn't the far right still against all forms of immigration, even legal immigration? Can you please give a few examples of these recent new far-right parties that are socially liberal? Are they for legal immigration for anyone who is not Muslim?

PEGIDA is the most prominent example. Legal immigration from western countries is accepted.

Nah, the far right isn't leaning towards your goals, pal. they're still pretty much the same as they've always been with their values.

Call me an SJW all you want, but it's the truth.

Got any proof?
LGBT people are the biggest supporters of the swedish democrats, who routinely stage gay rights parades through Islamic neighborhoods.
Geert Wilders party is openly socially liberal, pro-marijuana, and one of their chief policies is protection of LGBT rights from Islamic hate.
PEGIDA is likewise liberal.

The old far-right is dead, and SJWs and their arrogant takeover of the left has led to the far-right sensing potential supporters.

They're topping polls in a few european countries.

You just haven't been paying attention.

[Valystria]

What you're looking for is not going to be left-wing. It's far-right.

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

Geert Wilder's far-right Freedom Party is remarkably similar to your desired specifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom#Party_platform

Harsh punishment of violence against Jews and the LGBT community, which particularly comes from the Islamic corner (p. 13)
Recording ethnicity for all Dutch citizens. (p. 11)
Prohibition of Islamic and kosher slaughter (p. 55) (However Wilders has stated that opposition to kosher slaughter was not part of his party’s agenda and that support for the ban had been withdrawn)[71]
Limitation of Cannabis coffee shops within a radius of no less than 1 kilometer from schools (p. 11)
Active repatriation of criminals of foreign citizenship and Dutch nationals originating from the Netherlands Antilles (p. 11)
Deportation of criminals having foreign nationality or multiple citizenship back to their country of origin, after a prison sentence (p. 13)
Restrictions on immigrant labour from new EU member states and Islamic countries (p. 15)
Removal of resources from anti-climate change programs, development aid and immigration services (p. 17)
Abolition of the Senate (p. 19)
Shutting down of all Islamic schools (p. 15)
Ban on Islamic "gender apartheid" (p. 15)
General Pension (AOW) age must remain 65 (p. 21)
Governmental communication to be exclusively in Dutch or Frisian (p. 35)
Dutch language proficiency and a 10-year Dutch residency and work experience requirement for welfare assistance (p. 15)
Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture of the Netherlands (p. 35)
Choosing to defend the essential elements of Dutch culture: freedom of the LGBT community, as well as assured equality of men and women which Islam may challenge (p. 33)
Repeal of anti-smoking legislation in bars (p. 39)
Investment in more nuclear power plants and clean coal plants to reduce dependency on imported oil and because coal is cheaper (p. 47)
Withdrawal from the European Union.
Return to the guilder (old Dutch currency) and cease use of the euro.
Abolition of the European Parliament and no cooperation in any EU activity.
Ask the EU to remove the "Dutch" star in the European flag.
Repeal flight tax or carbon dioxide tax.
Binding referendum on subjects like the EU and a multicultural society.
No more tax money to "(political) left" organizations.
Keeping track of the ethnicity of people who have committed crimes.
Select policemen on "decisiveness."
Binding assimilation contracts for immigrants.
Taxes on the Islamic headscarf and prohibition of the Koran.
Ban on headscarves in any public function.
Support "Afrikaners", as it is Dutch heritage.
Opposition to Turkey's membership in NATO and remaining in NATO because it is crucial.
Halt all support and "propaganda" for Palestine and Palestinians.
No more windmills and funding for durability or CO2 reduction; no more "fiscal greening".

However, as you're wanting someone within a US context, Trump is by far the best available and is going in our desired direction.

The main priority is not allowing Islamic immigration, and Trump delivers.

TL;DR:

The Far-Right is currently re-aligning to be socially libertarian, secular (With a nod toward "Our history as judeo-christian and pagan nations, and these religions having a prominent place in our history and heritage, but never our laws."), social democratic, but nationalistic, westernist, and anti-third world immigration. It may well become a force to be reckoned with.

It's a beautiful sight to behold, and we're already a force to be reckoned with, as the polls indicate.

Yeah but he still wants to register Muslims in the US or some shit. And is generally against them. Sort of similar thing going on with Mexicans there.

While illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated, he does take an extreme route for it. Also, only social liberal people? do you know who Trump is?
Anyway, who gives a shit, socially liberal attitudes are the reason most western countries are having a bad time with cultural relativism, welfare dependency (the socialist policies are even worse for that one) and mentality of misguided "progress" and "egalitarianism" anyway.

Socially liberal attitudes being the problem? No.

It's Islam's attitudes.



No, we're not going to roll back the equal rights given to gay people and women to appease Muslims.

Misguided progress and egalitarianism? Because gay people, women, trans people, adulterers, alcohol users, and apostates shouldn't have civil rights? There are plenty of Islamic countries for Islam's adherents to go to and they ought to stay there.

Nah, the far right isn't leaning towards your goals, pal. they're still pretty much the same as they've always been with their values.

Call me an SJW all you want, but it's the truth.

Let's see your evidence.

Do you have any? Or is this going to be a denial of an inconvenient reality?

[Jochistan]

Socially liberal attitudes being the problem? No.

It's Islam's attitudes.

(Image)

No, we're not going to roll back the equal rights given to gay people and women to appease Muslims.

Misguided progress and egalitarianism? Because gay people, women, trans people, adulterers, alcohol users, and apostates shouldn't have civil rights? There are plenty of Islamic countries for Islam's adherents to go to and they ought to stay there.

Careful with that source, man. not sure you know how to use it.

Listen kiddo, you don't even know what Shari'ah is. you have no idea about the vast stretch of ideas within Islam that many adhere to, outside of maybe cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an and Sunna and sites like Islamwiki.

You are in no place to judge "Islam's" attitudes. The idea that "Islam" is one monolithic thing with unanimously or fundamentalist values is just a retarded viewpoint on it.

And, hate to break it to you, but just viewing Adultery, alcohol use, fornication, drug use, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is immoral doesn't effect you in the slightest. Sorry if those beliefs trigger you.
I don't exactly agree with them all the time either (the homosexuality one). But come on, these are common views normal christians have as well, although knowing kefka cultists, I suppose that wouldn't phase you.

Nah, the far right isn't leaning towards your goals, pal. they're still pretty much the same as they've always been with their values.

Call me an SJW all you want, but it's the truth.

Let's see your evidence.

Do you have any? Or is this going to be a denial of an inconvenient reality?

Sorry, did he provide any evidence? Oh he didn't did he, right. I'm just going off of how far righters actually act and what their views are, go on any given far right discussion board like /pol/, or Stormfront, or NSG and see for yourself, right?

But again, feel free to be a complete hypocrite. And completely disregard every argument people give against you with an arrogant, ignorant handwave.

[Ostroeuropa]

Socially liberal attitudes being the problem? No.

It's Islam's attitudes.

(Image)

No, we're not going to roll back the equal rights given to gay people and women to appease Muslims.

Misguided progress and egalitarianism? Because gay people, women, trans people, adulterers, alcohol users, and apostates shouldn't have civil rights? There are plenty of Islamic countries for Islam's adherents to go to and they ought to stay there.

Careful with that source, man. not sure you know how to use it.

Listen kiddo, you don't even know what Shari'ah is. you have no idea about the vast stretch of ideas within Islam that many adhere to, outside of maybe cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an and Sunna and sites like Islamwiki.

You are in no place to judge "Islam's" attitudes. The idea that "Islam" is one monolithic thing with unanimously or fundamentalist values is just a retarded viewpoint on it.

And, hate to break it to you, but just viewing Adultery, alcohol use, fornication, drug use, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is immoral doesn't effect you in the slightest. Sorry if those beliefs trigger you.
I don't exactly agree with them all the time either. But come on, these are common views normal christians have as well, although knowing kefka cultists, I suppose that wouldn't phase you.

Let's see your evidence.

Do you have any? Or is this going to be a denial of an inconvenient reality?

Sorry, did he provide any evidence? Oh he didn't did he, right. I'm just going off of how far righters actually act and what their views are, go on any given far right discussion board like /pol/, or Stormfront, or NSG and see for yourself, right?

But again, feel free to be a complete hypocrite . And completely disregard every argument people give against you with an arrogant, ignorant handwave.

PEGIDA:
Approves the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution.
Advocates the decentralised acceptance of refugees and torture victims, instead of often poor quality refugee centres.
Suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union.
Demands a decrease in the ratio of asylum seekers per social worker from current number of 200:1.
Suggests modelling German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, to speed up processing of applications.
Demands an increase in funding for the police.
Demands enforcement of all asylum laws including expulsion.
Mentions zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
States that Pegida opposes a misogynistic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose Muslims in-country who have integrated into society.
Supports an immigration model like Switzerland, Australia, Canada or South Africa.
States that Pegida supports sexual self-determination.
Argues for the protection of Germany's traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
Supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
Opposes weapon exports to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
Opposes parallel societies and parallel jurisdiction in our midst, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police, Sharia magistrates (Friedensrichter), etc.
States that Pegida opposes gender mainstreaming, and politically correct gender neutralisation (Geschlechtsneutralisierung) of our speech.
Indicates that Pegida opposes any radicalism, whether religious or politically motivated.
Says that Pegida opposes hate preachers (Hassprediger), regardless of religion.




Freedom Party, val dealt with above.


There's many others.



What have you got.

[Valystria]

Socially liberal attitudes being the problem? No.

It's Islam's attitudes.

(Image)

No, we're not going to roll back the equal rights given to gay people and women to appease Muslims.

Misguided progress and egalitarianism? Because gay people, women, trans people, adulterers, alcohol users, and apostates shouldn't have civil rights? There are plenty of Islamic countries for Islam's adherents to go to and they ought to stay there.

Careful with that source, man. not sure you know how to use it.

Listen kiddo, you don't even know what Shari'ah is. you have no idea about the vast stretch of ideas within Islam that many adhere to, outside of maybe cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an and Sunna and sites like Islamwiki.

You are in no place to judge "Islam's" attitudes. The idea that "Islam" is one monolithic thing with unanimously or fundamentalist values is just a retarded viewpoint on it.

And, hate to break it to you, but just viewing Adultery, alcohol use, fornication, drug use, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is immoral doesn't effect you in the slightest. Sorry if those beliefs trigger you.
I don't exactly agree with them all the time either. But come on, these are common views normal christians have as well, although knowing kefka cultists, I suppose that wouldn't phase you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

Insulting an opponent doesn't refute their position. Your ad hominems indicate you don't actually have anything to defend your claims with.

You have presented no counter-evidence. Ad hominems do not suffice. A strawman is not a refutation either. A tu quoque based on a false equivalence isn't a refutation. Deflection accomplishes nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

And, yes, viewing victimless behaviours as immoral does affect people, especially when there is no valid reason to view those behaviours as immoral. It's what results in discrimination against people. It's what results in Islamic law.

Sorry, did he provide any evidence? Oh he didn't did he, right. I'm just going off of how far righters actually act and what their views are, go on any given far right discussion board like /pol/, or Stormfront, or NSG and see for yourself, right?

But again, feel free to be a complete hypocrite. And completely disregard every argument people give against you with an arrogant, ignorant handwave.

More ad hominems, and this time, projection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news-19-4/sweden-right-wingers-plan-lgbt-march-through-stockholms-muslim-majority-neighbourhoods-10415932.html

As various evidence has been provided in this thread, the far-right has been realigning towards exactly what the OP has been requesting.

Now present your counter-evidence. Ad hominems and strawmen will not suffice.

[Ostroeuropa]

Also lol.

Bringing up /pol/ and pretending you understand:

http://i.imgur.com/CWUE3yl.jpg
http://shimmie.4chanhouse.org/index.php ... e/4437.jpg

Around 2014 4chan was hosting a winter ball, where the various boards would take each other on dates to the ball, so on.
/pol/ as a result of being caught up in the happenings as well as generally assuming /x/ was their date, was caught by surprise when /v/ stole /x/ out from under him and took her as his date to the winter ball. Suddenly /pol/ found themselves alone and with only two options to choose as a date: they could date /biz/ the business board or /lgbt/, which is self-explanatory.
Now they hated /lgbt/, but they felt /biz/ was "run by Jews". At that point /lgbt/ tried to court them, talking about their mutual hatred of feminism and how Ernst Rohm was himself a homosexual. They kept poking and poking at /pol/'s buttons, until at last a poll came for who /pol/ should date, with /lgbt/ ending up winning.

Oh, and by the way:

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

[Kincoboh]

I was thinking that I don't often hear about left wing parties that do support socialistic economies, but have some certain right wing traits about them.

Think about Bernie Sanders, with the same socialistic economic polices, but with Trump's rhetoric on immigration.

An idea of what kind of political platform I am thinking about:

A candidate who is NOT for deportation, but supports legal immigration of almost all people [of course choosing only socially liberal, and educated people], but is against Muslim immigration. So yeah, think Bernie with some of Trump's rhetoric [wall on US-Mexico border, no muslim immigration until they can be properly vetted].

Lets be honest, Trump doesn't want to deport Muslims that are already in the US. And he supports legal immigration by worthy applicants and their families. In short, Trump is NOT a Geert Wilders. But, what if he had a socialistic economic policy like Bernie as if he was a Democrat candidate.

A possible platform for the kind of left-wing candidate I am suggesting:

Pro-Gay
Pro Universal Healthcare
Pro-Choice
Pro legal-Immigration
Against deportation of any existing immigrants
Against "new" Muslim immigrants
Against illegal immigration [Mexicans, etc.]
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro free university
Against Wall street [but not totally against capitalism just like Bernie]

Do you see any possible future candidates with such a platform? Would you like to see a candidate like this in future USA elections? Thoughts/Opinions...

And you would pay for all that how? The only answer is to stop spending so much on the military. It's almost 60% of the budget! How can you pay for everything when so much of what you can afford is locked up in the military?

[Jochistan]

Careful with that source, man. not sure you know how to use it.

Listen kiddo, you don't even know what Shari'ah is. you have no idea about the vast stretch of ideas within Islam that many adhere to, outside of maybe cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an and Sunna and sites like Islamwiki.

You are in no place to judge "Islam's" attitudes. The idea that "Islam" is one monolithic thing with unanimously or fundamentalist values is just a retarded viewpoint on it.

And, hate to break it to you, but just viewing Adultery, alcohol use, fornication, drug use, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is immoral doesn't effect you in the slightest. Sorry if those beliefs trigger you.
I don't exactly agree with them all the time either. But come on, these are common views normal christians have as well, although knowing kefka cultists, I suppose that wouldn't phase you.



Sorry, did he provide any evidence? Oh he didn't did he, right. I'm just going off of how far righters actually act and what their views are, go on any given far right discussion board like /pol/, or Stormfront, or NSG and see for yourself, right?

But again, feel free to be a complete hypocrite . And completely disregard every argument people give against you with an arrogant, ignorant handwave.

PEGIDA:
Approves the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution.
Advocates the decentralised acceptance of refugees and torture victims, instead of often poor quality refugee centres.
Suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union.
Demands a decrease in the ratio of asylum seekers per social worker from current number of 200:1.
Suggests modelling German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, to speed up processing of applications.
Demands an increase in funding for the police.
Demands enforcement of all asylum laws including expulsion.
Mentions zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
States that Pegida opposes a misogynistic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose Muslims in-country who have integrated into society.
Supports an immigration model like Switzerland, Australia, Canada or South Africa.
States that Pegida supports sexual self-determination.
Argues for the protection of Germany's traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
Supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
Opposes weapon exports to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
Opposes parallel societies and parallel jurisdiction in our midst, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police, Sharia magistrates (Friedensrichter), etc.
States that Pegida opposes gender mainstreaming, and politically correct gender neutralisation (Geschlechtsneutralisierung) of our speech.
Indicates that Pegida opposes any radicalism, whether religious or politically motivated.
Says that Pegida opposes hate preachers (Hassprediger), regardless of religion.




Freedom Party, val dealt with above.


There's many others.



What have you got.

Minor parties. Barely significant in the far right scene. Try again. Has the BNP reformed in such a way? NDP? Golden Dawn?

[Jochistan]

Careful with that source, man. not sure you know how to use it.

Listen kiddo, you don't even know what Shari'ah is. you have no idea about the vast stretch of ideas within Islam that many adhere to, outside of maybe cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an and Sunna and sites like Islamwiki.

You are in no place to judge "Islam's" attitudes. The idea that "Islam" is one monolithic thing with unanimously or fundamentalist values is just a retarded viewpoint on it.

And, hate to break it to you, but just viewing Adultery, alcohol use, fornication, drug use, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality is immoral doesn't effect you in the slightest. Sorry if those beliefs trigger you.
I don't exactly agree with them all the time either. But come on, these are common views normal christians have as well, although knowing kefka cultists, I suppose that wouldn't phase you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

Insulting an opponent doesn't refute their position. Your ad hominems indicate you don't actually have anything to defend your claims with.

You have presented no counter-evidence. Ad hominems do not suffice. A strawman is not a refutation either. A tu quoque based on a false equivalence isn't a refutation. Deflection accomplishes nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

And, yes, viewing victimless behaviours as immoral does affect people, especially when there is no valid reason to view those behaviours as immoral. It's what results in discrimination against people. It's what results in Islamic law.

Sorry, did he provide any evidence? Oh he didn't did he, right. I'm just going off of how far righters actually act and what their views are, go on any given far right discussion board like /pol/, or Stormfront, or NSG and see for yourself, right?

But again, feel free to be a complete hypocrite. And completely disregard every argument people give against you with an arrogant, ignorant handwave.

More ad hominems, and this time, projection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news-19-4/sweden-right-wingers-plan-lgbt-march-through-stockholms-muslim-majority-neighbourhoods-10415932.html

As various evidence has been provided in this thread, the far-right has been realigning towards exactly what the OP has been requesting.

Now present your counter-evidence. Ad hominems and strawmen will not suffice.

Bugger your worthless fallacy accusations you dug up from reddit.

[Jochistan]

Also lol.

Bringing up /pol/ and pretending you understand:

http://i.imgur.com/CWUE3yl.jpg
http://shimmie.4chanhouse.org/index.php ... e/4437.jpg

Around 2014 4chan was hosting a winter ball, where the various boards would take each other on dates to the ball, so on.
/pol/ as a result of being caught up in the happenings as well as generally assuming /x/ was their date, was caught by surprise when /v/ stole /x/ out from under him and took her as his date to the winter ball. Suddenly /pol/ found themselves alone and with only two options to choose as a date: they could date /biz/ the business board or /lgbt/, which is self-explanatory.
Now they hated /lgbt/, but they felt /biz/ was "run by Jews". At that point /lgbt/ tried to court them, talking about their mutual hatred of feminism and how Ernst Rohm was himself a homosexual. They kept poking and poking at /pol/'s buttons, until at last a poll came for who /pol/ should date, with /lgbt/ ending up winning.

Oh, and by the way:

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

What made you think I'm a communist or even liberal?

Anyway, a majority on /pol/, I'm sure

[Ostroeuropa]

PEGIDA:
Approves the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution.
Advocates the decentralised acceptance of refugees and torture victims, instead of often poor quality refugee centres.
Suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union.
Demands a decrease in the ratio of asylum seekers per social worker from current number of 200:1.
Suggests modelling German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, to speed up processing of applications.
Demands an increase in funding for the police.
Demands enforcement of all asylum laws including expulsion.
Mentions zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
States that Pegida opposes a misogynistic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose Muslims in-country who have integrated into society.
Supports an immigration model like Switzerland, Australia, Canada or South Africa.
States that Pegida supports sexual self-determination.
Argues for the protection of Germany's traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
Supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
Opposes weapon exports to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
Opposes parallel societies and parallel jurisdiction in our midst, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police, Sharia magistrates (Friedensrichter), etc.
States that Pegida opposes gender mainstreaming, and politically correct gender neutralisation (Geschlechtsneutralisierung) of our speech.
Indicates that Pegida opposes any radicalism, whether religious or politically motivated.
Says that Pegida opposes hate preachers (Hassprediger), regardless of religion.




Freedom Party, val dealt with above.


There's many others.



What have you got.

Minor parties. Barely significant in the far right scene. Try again. Has the BNP reformed in such a way? NDP? Golden Dawn?

Ignore reality harder and i'm sure it'll go away.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_di ... ts-into-EU

http://www.thelocal.se/20151201/sweden- ... inion-poll

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ection-bid

Or Front Nationale?

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150328/gay-sup ... n-the-rise

(Source is pretty biased, but proves a point.)


Compare that to the BNP, which HASN'T reformed in such a way and earns less than 1% of the vote.
Your understanding of this situation is completely fucking ass backwards. It's frankly laughable that you'd say something so wrong and at odds with the actual facts on the ground.
NDP? Which one? The canadian one? Wtf? Noone mentioned any of those parties, by the way.

Are you going to ever bother providing any evidence for your assertions? Or just continue to fail at passing the bar for that rudimentary level of argumentation? It doesn't exactly do your side much good when all you can do is throw out "REDDIT!" and "Nope!"

[Jochistan]

Minor parties. Barely significant in the far right scene. Try again. Has the BNP reformed in such a way? NDP? Golden Dawn?

Ignore reality harder and i'm sure it'll go away.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_di ... ts-into-EU

http://www.thelocal.se/20151201/sweden- ... inion-poll

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ection-bid

Or Front Nationale?

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150328/gay-sup ... n-the-rise


Compare that to the BNP, which HASN'T reformed in such a way and earns less than 1% of the vote.
Your understanding of this situation is completely fucking ass backwards. It's frankly laughable that you'd say something so wrong and at odds with the actual facts on the ground.
NDP? Which one? The canadian one? Wtf? Noone mentioned any of those parties, by the way.

Are you going to ever bother providing any evidence for your assertions? Or just continue to fail at passing the bar for that rudimentary level of argumentation?

Evidence for what assertions? That the far right isn't socially liberal? Kind of goes without saying bro.

Anyway, even if they did accept homosexuals to whatever extent, it doesn't take away the rest of the social conservatism that you probably really would like. Racialism and such that is.
And the german one, I mean.

And you calling my view ass backwards? Irony at it's best.

[Valystria]

PEGIDA:
Approves the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution.
Advocates the decentralised acceptance of refugees and torture victims, instead of often poor quality refugee centres.
Suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union.
Demands a decrease in the ratio of asylum seekers per social worker from current number of 200:1.
Suggests modelling German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, to speed up processing of applications.
Demands an increase in funding for the police.
Demands enforcement of all asylum laws including expulsion.
Mentions zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
States that Pegida opposes a misogynistic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose Muslims in-country who have integrated into society.
Supports an immigration model like Switzerland, Australia, Canada or South Africa.
States that Pegida supports sexual self-determination.
Argues for the protection of Germany's traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
Supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
Opposes weapon exports to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
Opposes parallel societies and parallel jurisdiction in our midst, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police, Sharia magistrates (Friedensrichter), etc.
States that Pegida opposes gender mainstreaming, and politically correct gender neutralisation (Geschlechtsneutralisierung) of our speech.
Indicates that Pegida opposes any radicalism, whether religious or politically motivated.
Says that Pegida opposes hate preachers (Hassprediger), regardless of religion.




Freedom Party, val dealt with above.


There's many others.



What have you got.

Minor parties. Barely significant in the far right scene.

Minor? Barely significant? What?

Provide your evidence. I'll have to assume you don't have anything to base your claim on.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/dutch-populist-wilders-says-eu-finished-netherlands-must-leave

Geert Wilders leading the Dutch Polls? Leading in the polls is barely significant?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/21/anti-migration-sweden-democrats-once-again-largest-party-in-latest-opinion-poll/

The Swedish Democrats being at the top of the polls is barely significant?

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/13/marine-le-pen-tops-another-french-presidency-poll/

Marine le Pen topping French presidency polls is barely significant?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/germanys-right-wing-afd-party-surges-to-new-high-as-concern-of-refugee-rises-a6810726.html

Alternative for Germany having become the 3rd most popular in Germany?

By what standards are you going by?

As usual, you have presented no evidence. No-counter evidence. No data for your severely faulty claims.

The far-right has reformed, continues to reform, and is rapidly growing no matter how much you claim otherwise.

Has the BNP reformed in such a way? NDP? Golden Dawn?

Parties no one mentioned. Parties that haven't reformed.

Now feel free to disregard the evidence demonstrating your claims are thoroughly without merit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ignore reality harder and i'm sure it'll go away.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_di ... ts-into-EU

http://www.thelocal.se/20151201/sweden- ... inion-poll

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ection-bid

Or Front Nationale?

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150328/gay-sup ... n-the-rise


Compare that to the BNP, which HASN'T reformed in such a way and earns less than 1% of the vote.
Your understanding of this situation is completely fucking ass backwards. It's frankly laughable that you'd say something so wrong and at odds with the actual facts on the ground.
NDP? Which one? The canadian one? Wtf? Noone mentioned any of those parties, by the way.

Are you going to ever bother providing any evidence for your assertions? Or just continue to fail at passing the bar for that rudimentary level of argumentation?

Evidence for what assertions? That the far right isn't socially liberal? Kind of goes without saying bro.

Anyway, even if they did accept homosexuals to whatever extent, it doesn't take away the rest of the social conservatism that you probably really would like. Racialism and such that is.
And the german one, I mean.

And you calling my view ass backwards? Irony at it's best.

"Goes without saying." Why? Do you have any evidence of that? Geert Wilders party is socially libertarian and fairly obviously so.
So no, you don't actually have any evidence then.

What racialism elements are in these platforms? They seem to pretty clearly be culturalists.
What's wrong with the german one?

Yes, your understanding of the situation is ass backwards, as we are proving by burying you in evidence and your response being "But, common sense!"

http://scienceornot.net/2014/02/06/the- ... -gumption/


Let me tell you about common sense. When "Third Way" SJWs took over the left wing and arrogantly assumed they'd have their votes forever, they alienated anyone whos economics is left of centre, and they've been doing their best to alienate social libertarians.
Political parties are coalitions of interests.

The Far-Right, sensing an opportunity, decided to dog whistle to these populations in the hopes of yanking the carpet out from beneath the Establishment left wing parties, and forcing a re-alignment election. (I.E, one where a new political orthodoxy is established.)

Know whats common sense?
Alienate most of your supporters, and they'll find another group to ally with. That this group is an even better fit for us is nice, but not necessary.

It's happened before, and it's happening again.

If the far-right gets their way, the future elections will be:

Social Liberals, Social Democrats, and "Westernists."
VS
Capitalists, Internationalists, and SJWs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realigning_election

With tradcons thrown under the bus.

"Democrats are the racist party, it's just common sense! I don't need to prove shit!" <- You.

[Valystria]

Ignore reality harder and i'm sure it'll go away.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_di ... ts-into-EU

http://www.thelocal.se/20151201/sweden- ... inion-poll

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ection-bid

Or Front Nationale?

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150328/gay-sup ... n-the-rise


Compare that to the BNP, which HASN'T reformed in such a way and earns less than 1% of the vote.
Your understanding of this situation is completely fucking ass backwards. It's frankly laughable that you'd say something so wrong and at odds with the actual facts on the ground.
NDP? Which one? The canadian one? Wtf? Noone mentioned any of those parties, by the way.

Are you going to ever bother providing any evidence for your assertions? Or just continue to fail at passing the bar for that rudimentary level of argumentation?

Evidence for what assertions? That the far right isn't socially liberal? Kind of goes without saying bro.

Anyway, even if they did accept homosexuals to whatever extent, it doesn't take away the rest of the social conservatism that you probably really would like. Racialism and such that is.
And the german one, I mean.

And you calling my view ass backwards? Irony at it's best.

Uhuh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_for_Freedom#Party_platform

Harsh punishment of violence against Jews and the LGBT community, which particularly comes from the Islamic corner (p. 13)
Recording ethnicity for all Dutch citizens. (p. 11)
Prohibition of Islamic and kosher slaughter (p. 55) (However Wilders has stated that opposition to kosher slaughter was not part of his party’s agenda and that support for the ban had been withdrawn)[71]
Limitation of Cannabis coffee shops within a radius of no less than 1 kilometer from schools (p. 11)
Active repatriation of criminals of foreign citizenship and Dutch nationals originating from the Netherlands Antilles (p. 11)
Deportation of criminals having foreign nationality or multiple citizenship back to their country of origin, after a prison sentence (p. 13)
Restrictions on immigrant labour from new EU member states and Islamic countries (p. 15)
Removal of resources from anti-climate change programs, development aid and immigration services (p. 17)
Abolition of the Senate (p. 19)
Shutting down of all Islamic schools (p. 15)
Ban on Islamic "gender apartheid" (p. 15)
General Pension (AOW) age must remain 65 (p. 21)
Governmental communication to be exclusively in Dutch or Frisian (p. 35)
Dutch language proficiency and a 10-year Dutch residency and work experience requirement for welfare assistance (p. 15)
Constitutional protection of the dominance of the Judeo-Christian and humanistic culture of the Netherlands (p. 35)
Choosing to defend the essential elements of Dutch culture: freedom of the LGBT community, as well as assured equality of men and women which Islam may challenge (p. 33)
Repeal of anti-smoking legislation in bars (p. 39)
Investment in more nuclear power plants and clean coal plants to reduce dependency on imported oil and because coal is cheaper (p. 47)
Withdrawal from the European Union.
Return to the guilder (old Dutch currency) and cease use of the euro.
Abolition of the European Parliament and no cooperation in any EU activity.
Ask the EU to remove the "Dutch" star in the European flag.
Repeal flight tax or carbon dioxide tax.
Binding referendum on subjects like the EU and a multicultural society.
No more tax money to "(political) left" organizations.
Keeping track of the ethnicity of people who have committed crimes.
Select policemen on "decisiveness."
Binding assimilation contracts for immigrants.
Taxes on the Islamic headscarf and prohibition of the Koran.
Ban on headscarves in any public function.
Support "Afrikaners", as it is Dutch heritage.
Opposition to Turkey's membership in NATO and remaining in NATO because it is crucial.
Halt all support and "propaganda" for Palestine and Palestinians.
No more windmills and funding for durability or CO2 reduction; no more "fiscal greening".

PEGIDA:
Approves the right of asylum for war refugees and politically persecuted people.
Advocates the inclusion of the right and duty to integration into the German constitution.
Advocates the decentralised acceptance of refugees and torture victims, instead of often poor quality refugee centres.
Suggests creation of a central refugee agency for a fair allocation of immigrants among countries of the European Union.
Demands a decrease in the ratio of asylum seekers per social worker from current number of 200:1.
Suggests modelling German immigration policies after those of the Netherlands and Switzerland, and demands an increased budget for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, to speed up processing of applications.
Demands an increase in funding for the police.
Demands enforcement of all asylum laws including expulsion.
Mentions zero tolerance towards criminal refugees and immigrants.
States that Pegida opposes a misogynistic and violent political ideology, but does not oppose Muslims in-country who have integrated into society.
Supports an immigration model like Switzerland, Australia, Canada or South Africa.
States that Pegida supports sexual self-determination.
Argues for the protection of Germany's traditional Judeo-Christian culture.
Supports the introduction of referenda as in Switzerland.
Opposes weapon exports to radical and non-permitted groups, such as the PKK.
Opposes parallel societies and parallel jurisdiction in our midst, for example Sharia courts, Sharia police, Sharia magistrates (Friedensrichter), etc.
States that Pegida opposes gender mainstreaming, and politically correct gender neutralisation (Geschlechtsneutralisierung) of our speech.
Indicates that Pegida opposes any radicalism, whether religious or politically motivated.
Says that Pegida opposes hate preachers (Hassprediger), regardless of religion.

"Racialism"?

SD rejects the policy of multiculturalism, but accepts a multiethnic society where cultural assimilation is promoted.

Every time you present a false claim, it will be met with evidence demonstrating it's a false claim.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/how- ... tradition/

A biased source who hates the far-right, recognizing the realignment occuring.



Abbot, A traditionalist conservative, also warns his opponents, Liberals, of this danger to the status quo.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... bbott.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 0c2add0b22

[Wallenburg]

If you have "far-right" people supporting things like LGBT rights, business regulations, racial equality, and gender equality, exactly what makes them "far-right"?

[Ostroeuropa]

If you have "far-right" people supporting things like LGBT rights, business regulations, racial equality, and gender equality, exactly what makes them "far-right"?

Rejecting SJW narratives, rejecting anti-western schools of thought, affirming that western civilization is the way forward, "Westernist" nationalism (Nationalism with an open bias and favoritism toward other western nations, seeking to expand western influence.), being anti-multi culturalism, anti-third world immigration, and political genealogy (As in, the predecessors of the movement.). (You may as well have asked "If these conservatives support secularism, capitalism, and are against a clergy class, why are they conservatives?" The answer is because the old conservative coalition was replaced by a new one.)

If it had been the case that all elections were between "Right wing" and "Far-right wing" and then a bunch of far-right wing voters got pissed off and ran over to the "Left wing" party, it wouldn't matter if the coalition was the same as this new one, that would be "The rise of the left wing.". For this one, It's historically the far-right, and so it remains. That it's been injected with social democrats and liberals makes little difference.

SJWs kept insisting everyone who opposed their bollocks were racists, sexists, fascists, and far-right. Reclaiming the term is part of undermining their power.
"Okay, so we're far-right. Now what."

[Valystria]

If you have "far-right" people supporting things like LGBT rights, business regulations, racial equality, and gender equality, exactly what makes them "far-right"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

The premise of your question could hardly be more flawed. Where is the alleged conflict between your list and a far-right position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable. Concerning the socio-cultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), one far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritised.

You having an entirely misinformed and preconceived belief on what the far-right is doesn't mean the far-right isn't far-right for being the far-right. You are assuming the far-right has to conform to your ideas about what the far-right is regardless of how your misinformed view doesn't align with the evidence or established definitions.

[Wallenburg]

If you have "far-right" people supporting things like LGBT rights, business regulations, racial equality, and gender equality, exactly what makes them "far-right"?

Rejecting SJW narratives, rejecting anti-western schools of thought, affirming that western civilization is the way forward, "Westernist" nationalism (Nationalism with an open bias and favoritism toward other western nations, seeking to expand western influence.), being anti-multi culturalism, anti-third world immigration, and political genealogy. (You may as well have asked "If these conservatives support secularism, capitalism, and are against a clergy class, why are they conservatives?" The answer is because the old conservative coalition was replaced by a new one.)

If it had been the case that all elections were between "Right wing" and "Far-right wing" and then a bunch of far-right wing voters got pissed off and ran over to the "Left wing" party, it wouldn't matter if the coalition was the same as this new one, that would be "The rise of the left wing.". For this one, It's historically the far-right, and so it remains. That it's been injected with social democrats and liberals makes little difference.

SJWs kept insisting everyone who opposed their bollocks were racists, sexists, fascists, and far-right. Reclaiming the term is part of undermining their power.
"Okay, so we're far-right. Now what."

Apart from the whole SJW thing, it sounds like that makes this new right wing or whatever you want to call it really just leftism with xenophobia added to it. It doesn't really sound like it merits the term "conservative" at all. More like nationalist liberal.