Race realism is to the alt right what intersectionality is to SJWs. They are two irrational, unscientific sides to the same idealistic coin, and that's what makes arguing in material terms with them useless, because to the meaning of the reality which the materialist tries to interpret, the idealist instead tries to attribute what they believe ought to be the meaning. Idealists are still in the cave and that makes it impossible for them to accurately describe, much less effect, really existing phenomena.
Without a firm foundation in material analysis any definition or plan or philosophy is completely worthless. Marx understood this, and this is what makes his analyses valuable almost 200 years later.
It's not bad to talk about things that are commonsensical here with all the newfags around.
Ethan Bailey
I agree. We all agree. Then why we didn't drop the liberals already? why we aren't antagonizing those useful idiots of the neo liberal "radical centrist" establishment as much as wea antagonize the right? I posted numerous time how I'd rather take reactonaries over liberals, truth is that if we drop liberals there wouldn't even be such problem
HBD is real, polocks just have a very crude understanding of it.
Samuel Mitchell
there isn't any difference though
Jayden Torres
It's a bit more specific than just "idpol". "Right" wing (to use some common terms) idpol ultimately relies on race realism to justify social hierarchies. For SJW it's intersectionality and it's constant oppression olympics. It's the inversion of race realism.
The problem is that liberals have always been the left. It's only later that communists tried to inject themselves into the left-right axis. It's all thrown on one heap, and most people can't be bothered to read Marx. If you really want to know where people stand, call yourself an anti-capitalist. Not a socialist (which it was supposed to mean anyway), not a communist, not a communalist, not even ML, maoist or even anarchist. Just anti-capitalist.
Xavier Torres
Same argument has been made by Walter Benn Michaels, amongst others
James Bell
Most of them don't have any understanding of it. That's the point. The polcuck conception of HBD is the same as the SJW conception of individuality. Neither are based on any material examination of what actually is. Instead they're both based on how they think things should be.
Connor Jackson
There is. Or at least used to be. Today you won't find a majority of mainstream politicians suggesting a return to serfdom, divine right and manorialism. Today it's mostly a struggle between neoliberals and populist-would-be-fascists. The ones that have their feet firmly on the acceleration-pedal, while perhaps supporting some reforms to prevent the system from collapsing on itself outright, and those who want to return to a mythological perception of past times.
Jack Martinez
This can be useful, but recall that fascists also define themselves as anti-capitalists. We have to define ourselves as much by what we favor as we do by what we oppose.
Sebastian Parker
'Left'-idpol at least has ostensibly noble goals behind it. The thing that makes the far right idpolers worse is that we don't even agree on social policy or what a good outcome of a non-capitalist society would be. And, whether or not we like it, in many cases the liberals really are more inclined to look into left movements.
Not even saying we should never shit on them - just why the shitting we already do on them is done less than it is to the far right.
Xavier Miller
I wouldn't go that far. They have a very low low resolution understanding of it. For example, their concern about the 'white' phenotype would be better directed at whether one's ancestors were from within the Hajnal Line.
Julian White
2010s 'idpol' was less a concrete ideology and more a pattern of emotional engagement driven by the content farm economy and communicative capitalism. 'idpol' content was not meant to be read, but to be shared in social media, either for 'virtue signalling' purposes or as reactionary outrage material. Makes no difference, as engagement/ad metrics only care about clicks and shares. Headlines were alpha/beta tested to optimise shareability. Content consumers were conditioned to engage in this pattern of emotional engagement much like Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the ring of a bell.
Today's media landscape is shifting rapidly. Content farms are becoming unprofitable, laying off thousands of employees in a desperate attempt to 'pivot to video' and keep the ad revenue flowing somehow.
But you are finding a majority of mainstream politicians actively rolling back previously one social progresses like social security, public education, etc, and also actively opposing new reforms such as increasing the minimum wage or decriminalizing drugs.
SJWs also believe in arresting change because of the central pillar of their basis of social position on identity, which is seen as something static and unchanging. The entire ideological current is inherently reactionary.
"Reactionary" doesn't just mean "return to feudalism." They are reacting to the changes brought about by the society they both seek to maintain. Instead of choosing revolutionary solutions that obviate the contradictions that produced these changes, instead they choose conservative or reactionary solutions that seek to retard or arrest the processes creating these changes. Racists are trying to artificially put a halt to things like demographic change. SJWs are trying to artificially maintain various identity groups created by the existence and functioning of Capitalism. Neither do anything to actually resolve the contradictions that created the conditions for either to exist.
That is what separates Communism from all currently existing, ostensibly emancipatory programs. Communism as a movement seeks to create the conditions that will obviate the need for a Communist movement. Nationalism doesn't seek to obviate the existence of the Nation, and bourgeois Feminism doesn't seek to obviate the existence of the female Identity or sexual identity in general. Just like how the American and French Revolutions are both Revolutions while the Confederacy's secession in the American Civil War wasn't (aside from the Confederacy losing I mean). The Am&Fr Revolutions both sought to make Feudalism impossible, but the Confederacy wasn't in any way trying to overthrow Capitalism. It was a reactionary rebellion attempting to arrest and reverse processes that were making it obsolete.
It's the same as these two variations of identity politics. That is the essence of their reactionary character.
Ian Collins
Maybe you know better than me. All I ever see when they stumble in here to vomit up their inane bullshit is a litany of anecdotes and memorized rebuttals to common answers for their bigotry. There's no real insight, just memorized responses paired with links that they're told prove their biases correct, but that they never actually read.
Kevin Fisher
Intersectionality is all-encompassing. Race realism is kind of specific. I don't see much of a parallel here to be honest. The most significant things they have in common are
Gabriel Wilson
'intersectionality' is a product of a postmodern cybernetic society that has disposed of all 'grand narratives'. You are not a human subject, but an object to be constructed.
'race realism' is a product of a liberal individualism succumbing to cybernetic postmodern society as well as to its own inherent contradictions. wonder why so many fascists tend to be former 'libertarians'?
Xavier Garcia
Have some perspective. That's probably how we sound to them when we talk about economics.
To just disregard 'Race Realism' because "it's bigotry" is incredibly lazy. Holla Forumsyps forfeit the moral highground, but that itself doesn't make them wrong.
Go read up on the subject yourself. Find out where they are correct, and where they are incorrect. Too often I see these arguments play out the same way over and over again. Every time it's the same shit being rehashed because both sides are just skimming and regurgitating wikipedia so they can find whatever quip will shut up the other person so they can go back to some other nice and mindless thread with their ego intact.
If you want to see Race Realism steelmanned (which you should), check out the HBD blogosphere. Beware, you may come back a NazBol
Leo Wright
No such thing. Idpol is idpol. Mugabe is a left idpoler. See how that worked out
Ayden Fisher
Anis Shivani has been anti idpol for a long time, this is nothing new.
Easton Scott
...
Brandon Johnson
this article is good even if you aren't very interested in literature.
Intersectionality was created so that feminists actually think about struggles outside of their own, but by now it's just turned into a buzzword. Race realism is a (highly incorrect and pseudoscientific) theory that attempts to give racist views legitimacy as part of natural science. I disagree with both for being incorrect with intersectionally clearly lacking any focus, direction or a material basis, and race realism just being flat out scientifically wrong.
