How Large is your Penis?

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Conservative White Nationalists

I am a conservative. All what conservative means is someone who wants to "conserve" the state. Someone who wants to decentralize power and authority, or in some cases even outright abolish it. This is all what the word "conservative" means. I know it has very different meanings today. I know that when I say I am an extreme right-wing conservative people have to assume that I am some religious freak who loves George Bush. But that is the modern formulation of what conservative means. What it really means is so different from how the word should be applied. Thomas Jefferson was a conservative. Very hardcore conservative. In fact, I draw a lot of inspiration from Jefferson himself. But the modern usage of conservative has changed, this is perhaps why there is now a "neo-conservative" term for mainstream "conservatives" who want to increase military power. I wanted to explain what I think about conservative white nationalist members of the KKK.

It is true, there is no denying it whatsoever, that the conservative movement has white nationalists. All the people from the KKK are probably strong conservatives. I wanted to explain how I feel about klansmen and white nationalists who turn out being my allies. It does not bother me in the slightest. I even sometimes joke and mention that my allies include KKK members and white supremacists, because the irony is very funny.

The KKK happens to be right-wingers. But Nazis and Soviets happen to be left-wingers. I know that the left managed to convince almost everybody that Nazis are right-wingers but their arguments make no sense. Why are Nazis right-wingers? What does "right-winger" even mean? All what it means is someone who is a conservative. Someone who is a right-winger is someone who wants to diminish the state. Someone who is a left-winger is someone who wants to increase the state. The further one moves to the right the further one wants to diminish state power. At the right extreme is an anarchist. The further one moves to the left the further someone wants to increase state power. At the left extreme is a communist or a totalitarian (though there are people who call themselves "anarcho-communists" but I do not want to get into that). That is the basic understanding of the distinction between left and right winger. Now I ask why are Nazis left-wingers? Nazi stands for "National Socialist". We agree that socialists are left-wingers so why are Nazis exempt? The left somehow managed to convince lots of people, including conservatives, that Nazis are right-wingers, but the left never gives a justification for their label. So I do not care how the left calls Nazis, Nazis are left-wingers and I will continue to call them that until someone manages to explain to me why I am mistaken.

If you want to understand how I feel about conservative white supremacists then you should understand how you feel about left-wing Nazis and Soviets if you happen to be a liberal. Many of the policies that Nazis and Soviets support are supported by left-wingers. I have read an excerpt from the Nazi Party and compared to what the left says today. If you hide the date and where this excerpt came from a lot of people will guess it comes from the left-wingers today. The similarities between the Nazi Party, Soviets, and the liberal left in the US today is strong.

But should the liberals worry or be concerned by their similarities to the Nazi Party? No! Because the liberals and the Nazis often come to the same conclusions but for different reasons. The major distinction between liberals and Nazis are not their conclusions, but their reasoning process. The liberals want to promote more state programs to help people, and hence want to increase the state. The Nazis were racists whose plan included extermination of non-German subhumans and so they supported an increase in state power. The fact that there is a strong overlap between liberals and Nazis, or Soviets, is completely irrelevant. What is important are not the conclusions but the manner in which those conclusions are arrived. Nazis are bad people because their plans included (includes) human extermination and world domination, but liberals do not share any of these fantasies. And so it is unfair and ridiculous to compare liberals to Nazis.

Now let us get to my relationship between conservatives and white supremacists. White supremacists, nationalists, and klansmen have one main goal, and that is white dominance. They do not have the same fantasy to exterminate the non-white people but they want white dominance. Some of them would love to own themselves some black slaves. The reason why white supremacists oppose the state is simply because they see the state as getting in their way. Klansmen do not like to pay taxes, they love guns (to be fair I love guns too), and they want the state to leave them alone to their racist ways. That is why Klansmen oppose the state, all because of convenience. I am positive that if the state was on their side they would not oppose it, they would like it; this is why KKK and Neo-Nazis are on friendly terms with one another even though they are different. The real reason why white supremacists oppose the federal government is because the government overturned the state decisions of segregation and slavery. Segregation and slavery were protected institutions by the state governments. White nationalists had no problem using the state governments to keep their own self-interests. But they do have a problem with the federal government because the federal government, for once, actually made the correct decision. The federal government is what prevents them from having slaves or imposing segregation policies. This is why white nationalists are conservatives.

Now I am a conservative because I am opposed to human-ownership in all its forms. People own themselves, but no one owns anyone else. I am a conservative because I am influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and John Locke. Also because I am against the idea of ordering society around with violence. In addition I see the state as the last great obstacle for mankind to overcome. It is the institution of misery and evil. I also have an economic point of view. I am a supporter of the free market and so I see state control as damaging to the economic system. All of these are my reasons for being a conservative. I support guns and militias because people need a way to fight tyranny. I seriously doubt that klansmen share my reasons that I have. They have their own reasons, as I explained, which makes them conservatives. But I have my own reasons, entirely different, opposed to what white nationalists are in fact. The only similarity between myself and white nationalists are just our conclusions. However, as I explained the conclusions are irrelevant. It is the manner in which we come to our conclusions that make all the difference between us. Thus, it would be unfair and ridiculous for a liberal to compare me to a KKK member. This is why I am entirely unbothered by my correlation with white supremacists in the conservative movement.


  1. There are some typos here that make this very hard to read or follow what you are saying. You seem to have swapped the v and the s in "conserve" and done it a few other times. (Since "converse" isn't a verb I'm pretty sure that's what happened. I'd be very confused to hear the claim that "conservative" came from from "converse.")

    But the word conserve doesn't mean to alter or reduce in power so I'm puzzled by your claim that it means "Someone who wants to decentralize power and authority, or in some cases even outright abolish it." That sounds much closer to libertariansim than conservativism. To conserve means literally to keep things as they are.

  2. 1) Jefferson owned like 600 slaves. I'm not sure it's fair to say he wasn't a white nationalist.

    2) You are confusing the libertarian-authoritarian political axis with the right-left political axis. They are orthogonal: you can be a left-libertarian (say, me) or a right-authoritarian (Hitler) or a left-authoritarian (Stalin) or a right-libertarian (you.) See the Political Compass.

  3. "1) Jefferson owned like 600 slaves. I'm not sure it's fair to say he wasn't a white nationalist.":

    I knew I would have to address this at one point or another. People bring this up constantly. It is not true that the founders supported slavery. The impression I got when I was younger was that the founders wanted to keep all the slaves to themselves. But this is not how things really went. Slavery existed far before 1776, when America was established it was still far until it can be abolished. Jefferson's position on slavery was clear, he wanted to end it, but he was prevented from doing it. I am not sure what prevented him, but I know he described his position as, "caught the wolf by its ears", in other words he was in a stalemate. Jefferson was an abolistionist and so where the other founders. If you look at this ( ). Thomas Paine, when he died, only a few people were at his funeral, few of which were black men whom he helped free. Jefferson and most of the other founders were not white nationalists. That is a very big mistake. You can say that Jefferson and others should have put more effort into ending slavery, that is a fair point to make, but it is entirely unfair to call them white nationalists.

    "2) You are confusing the libertarian-authoritarian political axis with the right-left political axis. They are orthogonal: you can be a left-libertarian (say, me) or a right-authoritarian (Hitler) or a left-authoritarian (Stalin) or a right-libertarian (you.) See the Political Compass.":

    First of all that is a terrible test. Why does everyone always take this test? It is a terrible measure. Second of all you are entirely wrong about Hitler being right-authoritarian. Hitler was a supporter of capitalism? Haha. Of course not. He hated it and so did the Nazis. Hitler was for rigid economic control. If he was not then he would be a right-authoritarian. But until you can convince me that Hitler had a capitalistic leaning to him I will continue to refer to him as a left-winger because I still cannot understand by what scale is he judged to be a right-winger.

  4. 1) It's true that Jefferson (hypocritically?) wanted to abolish slavery, but he also wanted the freed slaves and all Blacks to be deported, as far as I understand it anyway. He also clearly held (and wrote) that Blacks were inferior to Whites in almost every way. Thinking that Whites are superior + wanting the U.S. to be Whites only = White Supremacist. Sorry.

    2) That test puts Hitler just slightly right of center. It's true that the Nazis distanced themselves from the conservatives and embraced some socialist policies, but they were clearly pro-corporate and very anti-communism at the same time. I don't think it's fair to call him left-wing.

  5. 1) You are being too harsh on Jefferson. He was certainly a hypocrite. There is a guy on YouTube who once used the expression "the Thomas Jefferson effect". Which basically means you think something is immoral and needs to end up you continue doing it anyway. If I said "it is wrong to kill animals for our consumption and we need to end it" but I went into McDonald's and brought myself a cheeseburger I would be committing the Thomas Jefferson effect. Or if I say we are releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere but I fly my own private jet into Copenhagen that would be the Thomas Jefferson effect. It is a form of hypocrisy, but it is more specific. However, Jefferson and the founders were ahead of their time with the position on slavery, you are too harsh with them. Recognizing it is evil is an important step. Paine, in particular, was way ahead of the entire group on all issues including slavery. (Not a surprise why Hitchens called Paine to be his biggest influence and wrote that if Paine only wrote "Rights of Men" that would be enough to mark his spot as the most important English Enlightenment philsopher. Sadly, history does not teach this. We are taught, or at least get the impression, that Jefferson is the evil one. And Lincoln is the great one who freed the slaves - which is false. And there hardly no mention of Paine anywhere. But I am getting off topic, only bringing it up because I think it is interesting).

  6. 2) That test sucks! Just to give you an idea how much that test sucks I took it some time ago and I was on the center line with like .5 points to the right. That means Hitler is more of a right-winger than I am! This test is a terrible way to measure someone's spectrum. Notice they put Friedman near the authoritarian dividing line, wow. The test on Cupid is superior, not to mention a lot of entertaining. Hitler represented the National Socialist Labor Party, which wrote the following in 1920:

    "We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

    This does not sound like a capitalism friendly party. It is a left-wing party.

    Now I will address two points you make. Those are that Hitler was anti-communist and pro-corporations. Being an anti-communist does not make you not a left-winger. I known plently of out of the closet socialists who condemn communism. One can be lean far to the left and be opposed to communism also. Hating the USSR does not automatically make you a capitalism lover. Now you bring up that he was pro-corporations. Let us assume this is true. Here is the problem. I am not pro-corporations! I am opposed to corporations. Corporations are not really allowed to exist in a free market. I am a right-winger but I am opposed to corporations. Does my opposition to corporations automatically make me a left-winger? No. In a similar way one can be pro-corporations but be a left-winger too. Read the exceprt. It sounds so left-wing.

  7. Yes, there are some clearly left-wing parts in there, but when you think of Hitler you don't think of profit sharing and public education. All the things he is most known for are authoritarian and traditionally understood to be right-wing.

    Let's just agree that his totalitarianism was much more relevant than his economic policies, yes?

  8. "Let's just agree that his totalitarianism was much more relevant than his economic policies, yes?":

    Of course. When I think "Hitler" I first think a man with an weak mustache (not sure why people adore the toothbrush mustache, it is too gay, it needs to be giant and awesome like a walrus or handlebar) and then I think of a dictator that needs to get what he wants. However, the Nazi party ran on left-wing policies.

    Now you say, "All the things he is most known for are authoritarian and traditionally understood to be right-wing". Why is that right-wing though? When I was younger I had this impression, from just the context in how the word was used, that "left-wing" means you are an easy going person while "right-wing" means you are constantly angry and seeking to impose control. If you have this childish version of what left and right wing actually means then no surprise why people associate Hitler with a right-winger. But if you use the definition of right-winger that I used above then you cannot call Hitler a right-winger anymore.

    We can also agree that Joseph Stalin and his totalitarian state was more relevent than his economic policies. So why continue calling him a left-winger? It would make sense, as with Hitler, to now start calling him a right-winger if you still continue to use the standard "definitions" for left and right wingers (there are not even definition, more like already establish wings with no basis for them that we just repeat over again).

  9. Words are just sounds or letters strung together. They only mean what we agree they mean. Especially when you get someone as atypical as a Hitler or Stalin, they're going to throw any normal system of describing politics way out of wack.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your general point that just because some odious group happens to be on "your side" of some political issue -- even some set of political issues -- doesn't mean that you are wrong or odious.

    That said, the definitions you are presenting for "conservative" appear to have nothing at all to do with American "conservatives." They say they want smaller government, but it's not really true. Those who get medicare want to keep it. Even Rand Paul wants to keep it because it pays his bills. What American "conservatives" really want is less taxes with the same or increased spending -- and that's exactly what Republicans have been delivering since Reagan, except for George HW Bush's brief moment of sanity when he raised taxes and subsequently lost all his "conservative" support.

    The whole idea of coherent political philosophies is suspect, in my opinion. It's like religion -- 99.99% of people are gonna believe whatever it takes to make them feel superior to everyone else. Note how much you seem to enjoy feeling superior to "the left," for example.

  10. "Words are just sounds or letters strung together. They only mean what we agree they mean.":

    The meaning of left-winger is someone who wants to expand the size of the state. A right-winger wants to contract it. White nationalists and supremacists are right-wingers because they want to contract the federal government so that it cannot overturn state governments. But people like Hitler and Stalin wanted to strengthen the federal government and were anti-capitalists, supproted numerous government programs. Thus, they are left-wingers. I am very well familar with the common accusation that Hilter was a right-winger. But this accusation makes no sense. No matter what scale you use can he turn out being on the right. That is why I call Hitler a left-winger and not a right-winger.

    "Note how much you seem to enjoy feeling superior to the left, for example.":

    Of course I feel superior. And? What is the big deal? I feel superior to non-mathematicians. I feel superior to people who are stupid. I feel superior to religious people. By the way, do not hide this, but almost every atheist feels superior to a religious person. Especially the ones who like to debate with religious people. Atheists debate with religious people because it makes them feel superior. It makes them feel like they posses an intellect that religious people do not. Scientists argue against creationists for the same reason. The scientists feel superior to the stupidity of creationists. The atheist feeling of superiority over religious people is so apparent in their psychology, just watch YouTube videos. They make those videos because it makes them feel dominant.

    My question is so what? I feel superior over the left and I do not hide it. But what is the problem? If all the other superiorities we feel are acceptable then why is this superiority not acceptable? Unless you say no superiority is acceptable. But if you say that then we must stop being human. It is in our nature to dominate the will of others.

  11. Well, with the way the words are thrown about, it seems someone ought to ask just why they are named for directions. It turns out they refer to where people sat in the French parliament. So historically, if we can talk of a 'correct' use of terms, we should put things in the framework of that time period. The right wanted to 'conserve' the rigid hierarchy and deterministic social structure that existed before the industrial revolution, while the left embraced the leveling possibilities, and the idea of choosing things like a career and role in life, and earning it through merit. So conservatives favor an authoritarian, tradition-based approach, while liberals favor individual choice. Then FDR happened, who ran on a liberal Democratic platform - hard money, free enterprise, end Hoover's interventions - and yet behaved in a more 'conservative' manner in office, yet was called a liberal, spawning a tremendous amount of confusion. I suggest the following: the difficulties with the Shortest Test say nothing about the Nolan chart itself, and the idea of orthogonal axes seems quite good because we can avoid the confusion attached to many of these words. So those who identify with the historical right would favor corporate welfare policies, while those on the historical left would favor ending those policies - but so long as they exist, redistributing in the opposite direction. So long as billionaires receive government handouts, the argument goes, some rebalancing is not a bad thing.
    To claim the right wing wants to reduce the size of the federal government just seems absurd, given the past 8 years, unless you want to play the 'no true scotsman' game. If you want to describe an ideology that consistently wants to shrink government, that word would be libertarian. Furthermore, your argument that Hitler is not right-wing because he didn't favor capitalism (whatever that bundle of ideas means) is putting the cart before the horse. Surely there must be some word to describe the difference between the society Hitler wanted to build, and the one Mao wanted to build, even if both used similar totalitarian means. One identifies the right with rigid hierarchy, and the left with leveling, and the difference between Hitler and Mao becomes clear.

  12. Puzzled, if you use that definition for what a right-winger means then Stalin would be a right-winger too. My point is very simple. If you write out a definition for what you mean by "right-winger" and "left-winger" you will notice that whatever that definition is both Stalin and Hitler always end up on the same side. It seems that Stalin is a left-winger because of his economics. Hitler is a right-winger because of his social policies. But then that is an unfair comparision. We must compare economy to economy or social to social, not social to economy. Which is again why I have no idea why people put Hitler on the right-winger. Whatever definition you want to use to put Hitler on the right-wing can be backfired and used on Stalin as well.