I'm going to re-post something:
The reason that white populism (that culminates in white racism) naturally meshes with the conservative mindset is because the conservative has notions of equality of opportunity existing in the U.S., despite the fact that if pushed, they will generally admit that free-market capitalism does
not exist, which should actually be a major clue that the statist interventionism that characterizes U.S. economic history has not produced moral outcomes. So the conservative sees racial minorities “unfairly getting a leg up,” thanks to social welfare and affirmative action programs, and is indignant. Why is it that others should receive extra benefits merely by virtue of their race, when whites who work just as hard as everyone else are relegated to an underclass position because of whatever the sins of their long-dead ancestors might have been? That is a form of reverse racism! That was exactly what was supposed to have been eradicated. It’s only natural that white social conservatives will be resentful, and non-white social conservatives sympathetic to that resentment.
Now, humans have a tendency to conceive of things in terms of generalities, since we can’t reasonably account for every minor exception to rules, and will look to what’s regularly the norm instead of occasional deviations. As a result, since most recipients of welfare are thought to be racial minorities (though that’s not necessarily true; more whites receive welfare than blacks simply because there are more of them), and since most recipients of affirmative action are racial minorities (alongside females, and while that’s a separate topic, the angry white male conceives of them similarly), their race and color becomes a convenient mechanism for quickly and effectively categorizing them, since they are
generally composed of racial minorities, the conservative believes.
And since the users of “nanny state” programs are simply obtaining rewards without having worked for them (with the conservative belief in equality of opportunity always central, since this entire mindset is dependent upon it), they are engaging in immoral behavior. From an initial point of equality, they have actually descended into
inferiority, since they are the ones that lack responsibility and self-discipline, and are instead reliant on free handouts from the nanny state that they did not work to receive. And the race categorization mechanism means that these immoral people are associated with racial minorities.
This is a subconscious thought process, but its evolution into a conscious thought process (i.e. racial minorities clearly use these programs more than whites, and are generally more immoral than whites as a result) breeds further mental inquiry (perhaps these racial minorities have an inherent disposition to be dependent on whites, since they cannot be self-reliant), and possibly serves as a springboard to white supremacist ideology. Here is an example of angry white male syndrome taken to the extreme of full-fledged white populism:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
As we can see, the foundations for white populism do exist in the social conservative mindset, though the transformation to explicitly racist beliefs is relatively uncommon. But the common resentment can be seen:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
You’ll also notice at this point that white nationalists’ comments bear an interesting similarity to those of mainline conservatives. This is not superficial or accidental; it is a result of those related foundational beliefs between the two groups. Look at this post:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
That post could have been easily made by many of the social conservatives on this forum, though the comment about whites being “the majority of taxpayers and true conservatives” might have raised some eyebrows. The point is that political views, racist ones certainly included, are not formed when a previously apolitical person sits down one day and logically deduces each and every one of his or her stances. Rather, they’re formed by upbringing, experiences, and the intuitions that result. As with mainline conservatives, most white supremacists were at one point simply resentful of the greater “entitlements” that racial minorities received for no merits other than the color of their skin (ultimately becoming more immoral than whites as a result of their acceptance of them), and eventually took that to a higher level.
Here’s a perfect example of the mentality I’m referring to:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Stormfront
The wealth of the “hard-working successful people” (since conservatives’ belief in equality of opportunity means that the wealthy generally rose to that level through persistent hard work), is “redistributed” to the “less hard working unsuccessful people,” those immoral folk who sit and wait for government handouts instead of working for their rewards like the good and upright rich people. Since humans think in generalities and race is a convenient categorization mechanism, and since most of the moral rich hard workers are thought to be white, with most of the immoral and lazy welfare dependents thought to be racial minorities, these groups come to be associated with morality and immorality, respectively. This is further validated by others in that thread:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Page 2 - Stormfront
All the taxes to subsidize the minority lower classes, that is, punishing the morality of hard work and rewarding the immorality of sloth.
And last but not least, this mindset is certainly not limited to economic success and failure. The dominant social institutions of American culture are seen as pandering to racial minorities at the expense of whites, a reflection of the perverse and corrupt economic system that robs from the productive to subsidize the unproductive:
Are Tea Partyiers Racist? - Page 2 - Stormfront
But the false belief in equality of opportunity is the keystone to the majority if not all of these other beliefs, as far as I’m concerned. And if true conservatives and true supporters of the free market employed logical deduction to reach their conclusions instead of relying on emotional intuitions, they would be forced to conclude that current economic conditions have been spawned by a long history of statism and economic interventionism in various forms, which has created corporatism, not free-market capitalism. And why should that be supported, or its consequences espoused as moral?
