Replies

OK, here is another of the examples you gave. The National Alliance. Another bunch of assholes. Here are excerpts of their proposed "utopia":

The fact is that we need a strong, centralized government spanning several continents to coordinate many important tasks...

That does not sound very conservative.

It might not be too much to say that the most important single institution in the government we want will be the one which selects, trains, and tests the people who will be the judges and the legislators and the executives in that government people who will be more like secular priests...

Again, this hardly sounds conservative.

What do they think about capitalism?

Without a unifying principle, however, a capitalist society easily can fall prey to certain inherent weaknesses. One of these weaknesses is the instability which leads the rich to become richer and the poor to become poorer, not solely because of differences in ability but because the possession of capital gives the possessor an enormous advantage in the competition for more capital. When personal gain is the only motivation in a society, those who already are rich can arrange things to favor themselves: they can buy the legislation they want, and they can block threats to their power in ways that may be destructive to the welfare of the society as a whole. They can hold down the price of labor, limit healthy competition within the society, and exploit the environment without regard for the long-range consequences.

Does that sound conservative to you? Now, to be fair, they also do rail against Marxism, and they do acknowledge there is some good in stressing values in education (although I want nothing to do with their values) and some good in the competitive nature of capitalism. Are they conservative or liberal? I don't think a strong case can be made either way. They are, simply, lunatics.

Another example you gave was a group I have never heard of, the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Having never heard of them, I am less confident in what I say about them, so I am only going off their website here. Are you sure they are a white supremecy group? Here is what I see at their site:

We don't condemn minorities - we want the best for them, both from a compassionate Christian-point-of-view, and because if they escape from the cycle of poverty, drugs, and crime - then we too will be better off...
Discriminating against whites is as morally wrong as it is against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or anyone else...
The National Association for the Advancement of White People is a non-violent civil rights organization demanding: "Equal Rights for All Special Privileges for None"

Are they white supremecists? If so, they have a strange way of showing it, calling for equal rights for all and calling discrimination against blacks, hispanics, asians and anyone else morally wrong. Are they racist? It sounds like they may be to me, since it does seem as if they blame a lot of America's problems on non-whites. Yet, their stated goals are equal rights for all. It doesn't surprise me to find that of the groups you pointed me to, this would end up being the most conservative sounding, since conservatism is for equal rights for all. It is a liberal myth to believe otherwise.

So out of the four groups I have looked at as a result of our discussion, we have Aryan Action which is clearly socialist, we have the Nazi party which by your admission leans more to the left than right (although parts of their "platform" are conservative), we have the National Alliance which seems to hate both liberalism and conservatism, and we have the NAAWP which calls for equal rights for all. Yet, your original position was that clearly white supremecists find kinship with conservatism. I think I have shown that to be a misperception.

I just noticed that a few days ago I missed a few of your replies. I will go back and get to them as time allows.