Why racists are attracted to conservatism and/or socialism.

[DanieltheDragon]

The essential aspect of conservatism is resistance to change. This central point from which many conservative ideologies stem from is the core to why racists are attracted to conservatism.

They don't want things to change. They want things to stay at the status quo. Hence progressivism as antithetical to their goals. So they will internalize conservative ideals to uphold the higher purpose which is to subjugate their opponents. An ends justify the means.

They are not really conservatives, conservative ideologies simply align with what they are trying to accomplish.

On the left of this the attraction to social ideologies would stem from the desire to have the government actively promote their goals. An example here is the NAZI regime, which used a non conservative movement to steer the government and change Germany into a machine that fit their desires. Again ends justify the means.


Conservatives aren't racists socialists aren't racist. Conservatism does not promote racism anymore than socialism does. Racists can be socialist racists can be conservatives.

I point this out because I see a lot of posts from liberal minded people attempting to tar and feather all republicans as racists. This is simply not the case, I will acknowledge why in this country there are racists who flock to the right. It represents an avenue to stem the flow of change. If the tables were turned however like prior to the 60s racists were not part of the Conservative party they were not republicans they were mostly democrats.

[bluethread]

Fascists and socialists are authoritarian. Therefore, they require legitimacy in order to implement and maintain their policies. When presented in a straight forward manner, they are rarely accepted by a free people. Therefore, they must pretend to be libertarian to depose their enemies and appear moderate in order to incrementally chip away at freedoms. One blessing of living at this time is that we can see the inevitable result of authoritarianism, as occurred in eastern Europe in the beginning of the last century.

[JP Cusick]

Why racists are attracted to conservatism and/or socialism.

I would declare that both Republicans and Democrats are both racist, but I must say that the liberal left is far worse than the conservative right. IMO.

My understanding is that God created and divided the different races in order for humanity to confront this reality.

As in the famous prophesy by Jesus in Matthew 24:7 " For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: ... " 8 " All these are the beginning of sorrows. " KJV

The word for nation means ethnicity and race, in that the prophesy is telling that people will rise against each other based on their racial divides.

[bluethread]

My understanding is that God created and divided the different races in order for humanity to confront this reality.

As in the famous prophesy by Jesus in Matthew 24:7 " For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: ... " 8 " All these are the beginning of sorrows. " KJV

The word for nation means ethnicity and race, in that the prophesy is telling that people will rise against each other based on their racial divides.

That is the root term from which we derive the term ethnicity. However, that concept, i.e. race, is an invention of the 17th century and was used as a means to elevate tribalism and use Renaissance philosophy to support the commercial slave trade. Though heredity is referred to in the Tanakh, the concepts of race and racism are nowhere in the Scriptures.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

I disagree conservatives are racist.

My thoughts are that as socialism grows and special interest groups get benefits from identifying as different then overtime we are witnessing that malignancy play out.

Now even the whites are grouping around an easily identifiable characteristic.

It's an if you can't beat the system join it attitude.

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

[bluethread]

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

I agree, not that white nationalists need an excuse. The socialists claim to be fighting for egalitarianism, but in order to inforce equality they inevitably make some more equal than others.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

I disagree conservatives are racist.

My thoughts are that as socialism grows and special interest groups get benefits from identifying as different then overtime we are witnessing that malignancy play out.

Now even the whites are grouping around an easily identifiable characteristic.

It's an if you can't beat the system join it attitude.

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

I feel like you didn't read my post, like at all. Because you would find that I never said conservatives are racist. In fact I said the opposite.

Here read the following:

Conservatives aren't racists socialists aren't racist. Conservatism does not promote racism anymore than socialism does. Racists can be socialist racists can be conservatives.

Now do you care to explain why I should bother debating the content of your post when you can't even be bothered to give a cursory glance to my post?

[DanieltheDragon]

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

I agree, not that white nationalists need an excuse. The socialists claim to be fighting for egalitarianism, but in order to inforce equality they inevitably make some more equal than others.

I think it goes back to there is more than one way to skin a cat. Equality is a nice notion I don't think anyone would disagree. The question at hand then is how do we get there. Socialists claim the need for the state to intervene. However, I would argue that is inherently a flawed premise. You can't make people not be sexist, you can't make people not be bigoted. Just look at what happened when we tried, sexists and bigots just found a way to work the system in their favor anyways. In some instances entrenching themselves deeper. Yet in recent years now that consumers have been empowered through social media etc. they can make more impactful choices on products they purchase and social issues do come up in this regard. Because of this businesses are stepping up in ways at go beyond what the government can and has done.

I wouldn't rule out complete government intervention in an anarchical sense. Limited and stayed is the better way to skin the cat imho.

[bluethread]

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

I agree, not that white nationalists need an excuse. The socialists claim to be fighting for egalitarianism, but in order to inforce equality they inevitably make some more equal than others.

I think it goes back to there is more than one way to skin a cat. Equality is a nice notion I don't think anyone would disagree.

I wouldn't rule out complete government intervention in an anarchical sense. Limited and stayed is the better way to skin the cat imho.

I disagree. I think equality is a terrible idea. When it comes to how the government treats people, equality matters there. However, when it comes to making people equal, that is a fool's errand. When the government gets in that business, they have to abandon the idea of equal treatment under the law. IMO, the best way to skin a cat, if that is what people actually want, is through competition and innovation. Also, the best way to insure competition and innovation is through equal treatment under the law and open markets.

[DanieltheDragon]

But it's socialism that drives the separation by race in my analysis.

I agree, not that white nationalists need an excuse. The socialists claim to be fighting for egalitarianism, but in order to inforce equality they inevitably make some more equal than others.

I think it goes back to there is more than one way to skin a cat. Equality is a nice notion I don't think anyone would disagree.

I wouldn't rule out complete government intervention in an anarchical sense. Limited and stayed is the better way to skin the cat imho.

I disagree. I think equality is a terrible idea. When it comes to how the government treats people, equality matters there. However, when it comes to making people equal, that is a fool's errand. When the government gets in that business, they have to abandon the idea of equal treatment under the law. IMO, the best way to skin a cat, if that is what people actually want, is through competition and innovation. Also, the best way to insure competition and innovation is through equal treatment under the law and open markets.

It seems you made a mistake in your quotations as you ommited words from my quote and then it appears you took them as your own?
Which leaves the meaning of your words ambiguous. So I will reiterate my position more clearly

You can't make people treat others equally and the best way to promote equality is through the free market by empowering consumers and businesses.

At the end when I said limited and stayed government intervention I was specifically referring to the end of what you said

Also, the best way to insure competition and innovation is through equal treatment under the law and open markets

Now this brings me to the only point we actually disagreed on and that is equality.

You don't think people should be treated equally based on their personal merits and demerits? That seems rather an odd position.