He says the race realist position is more like the historical norm and closer to a state of nature - that is, disparate people have come to the conclusion that race is a real and observable phenomenon with tangible consequences without significant exposure to propaganda and without the necessity of indoctrination. That is, even in a time before mass-media people came to the conclusion that there were broad differences in intelligence and behavior between racial groups.
Effectively, the thesis that disparate outcomes are caused by disparate potentials is fairly self-evident even within races (that is, individuals have different talents, abilities, and levels of intelligence) and therefore doesn't need to be bolstered by cult-like indoctrination and constant reinforcement on pain of excommunication, whereas the tabula rasa requires constant management of doublethink and therefore a cult-like set of behaviors designed to prune sources of intrusion on the core beliefs of the cult must be maintained.
The claim is made with a substantive argument related to the similarity of structure between what is classically understood to be a cult and the structure of the progressive social matrix. That is, labeling and excommunication of heretics, creation of feelings of guilt in followers, demands of investment of time and money in the doctrine, etc.
Cameron Reyes
Why does the alt-right rely heavily on cult-like indoctrination to absorb and insulate its "members" from dissenting opinions then?
Ever heard them bemoan "black-pillers" because it strays from the correct path?
Why does every meme spread through the mind of every alt-righter or anyone sympathetic with them in less than a day?
Why do they all use the same talking points?
Why do they talk in coded language?
Why do that ascribe mysticism onto race?
Answer me, ryan.
John Powell
I'd say you're not correct, simply put. If you make the claim that the alt-right is using cult-like methods, you'll have to elaborate on your claim. They don't ask that you excommunicate people for their beliefs, they're open to debate, and they engage frequently with the left's ideas.
The rest of what you describe is either incorrect or not cult-like. There's plenty of argument and dissent among the right and there are a huge number of different ideas concerning the correct strategies, outcomes, methods, and so on. That's why right-wing forums are actually active whereas your club seems not to be able to discuss a topic without degenerating into something completely tangential.
Nolan Rodriguez
I needn't expound on what's evident if you just go to where you nutjobs congregate. Literally every point I've listed is on full display.
The only dissent that's present is the methodology and not the substance itself, no one is going to disagree on the "veracity" of race on your forums. Heck, most contrarian opinions are ironic or plain shitposting.
Samuel Long
this is a joke right
Luis Diaz
can we go back to discussing sminem?
Joshua Collins
Yes, the defining characteristic of the new right or alt-right of whatever you wish to call it is a belief in race and a rejection of the blank slate, but that doesn't make it a cult. The belief in race isn't upheld and created through cult-like means. There's no original sin, no struggle sessions, no demands that one disassociate from their family, and there's plenty of genuine engagement with blank slatists and their arguments.
Of course not. We're not the ones agitating violently outside of university events and forcing people from their places of employment if they dare to question the prevailing narrative. I understand that eventually there's a certain dismissive attitude toward certain types (SJWs and similar sophists are ridiculed or ignored) but that's the reality of all intellectual movements, because you simply can't waste your time forever on people who refuse to argue in good faith. Again, this isn't a characteristic of a cult but a simple reflection of the reality of limited time and a recognition that productive argument requires a level of honest engagement of which most people (right and left) aren't capable.
You guys are welcome to discuss what you want. I come here occasionally to try and keep your board lively, because from what I can tell you lads have a difficult time keeping a conversation going amongst yourselves.
Landon Jackson
Is it his real name?
Austin Martin
Not once, but used twice. Is it that hard to keep consistent with your own repudiation of being a cult?
You want to partition an existing nation and fragment its institutions, infrastructure and capital. That is NOT natural and has to come around through either strong ideology or force, you're a complete idiot if you think this would just come about if we left people to their devices.
You want to regress to the 1950's, yet fail to account that is beyond the liberalisation and progressivism set forth by the enlightenment. The 1950's America was a transient boon period that can't be recaptured without the conditions that had fostered it in the first place. No, not race, war and imperialism.
Xavier Richardson
the problem with the idea that race realism is self-evident is that…it isn't, really
it's an example of the motte and bailey fallacy - making an easy to defend, common sense statement (races are different) to claim victory for a statement that is not quite as "obvious" and needs considerable further argumentation (we need apartheid)
the latter belief is not self-evident at all and needs to be asserted through indoctrination
