So “Super-Alt-Right-Con” actually means just regular conservative as far as I can tell from reading the page you linked. How are the two different in your mind? Genuinely curious what your definitions are since this is confusing as an outsider.
What's true is that "median" political discourse in conservative circles has swung pretty hard on the sneering side over the past few years. But this doesn't so much reflect the views of "regular" voters as it does an attempt to use this as a wedge issue to pry a small handful of voters from the other side.[1] But "median" discourse is aimed at a tiny fraction of the population! "Regular" politics is boring, so no one reports that stuff. Only voter-motivating controversies make their way into press conference material.
[1] Basically: there are a lot of people, mostly older voters, who hate gender pronouns and all the new social conventions, but who might otherwise be tempted to vote for a democrat.
In Europe everyone who needs to state that things so seriously is usually a fascist nutjob. Not that you can not hold some of that views (well the guns one is definitely US-centric) , I myself may be not so far from some of them (as they are stated, which seems like a trap) but if you need to make them the issues to die on a hill for... yes you are really, really leaning fascist.
> Who represents people with those beliefs if not?
Generally what people would consider to be alt-right politicians, although the alt-right is basically the mainstream powerhouse of the republican party now so maybe we're due for some new labels. Perhaps the better question is "who represents people with "regular conservative" beliefs and I guess the answer is people like Joe Manchin and Romney.