Originally Posted by
Kritias
I've taken the liberty to highlight the problematic parts. So, what do we think about this?
1. Racist identity politics coming from the left is just as conflating argument as the premise of this thread; employing a self-professed socialist as a defender of conservative ideals. As I have already pointed out on an other thread, our entire political philosophy is based on identity politics - in fact, it's the only way we are able to do politics because we simply do not care enough about arguments that doesn't somehow involve our sense of identity. Examples:
a) During the Athenian democracy, the major political configurations were the Democrats and the Oligarchs. The first were advocates for the rule of the Demos, hence the name, where every citizen would be able to vote and be appointed to public offices; the latter were those Athenians who claimed that politics should be left to the 'aristoi' - those who had the birthright (noblemen) to rule. Guess who supported the latter group at the crushing majority? That's right, the Athenian aristocracy who, if successful, would be the only ones to benefit from the system. Are these to groups not based on identity?
b) During the early Roman republic the tensions between the Populares and the Optimates begun with the first secession of the Plebeians from the city to found the Aventine city, demanding equal footing with the Patricians. Before that 'strike', plebeians couldn't be elected on public or religious offices, nor could they marry with patricians. They were de facto and de jure second class citizens with no right to determine their own fate. The fact that we know important Romans who weren't patricians is precisely because at some point the identity of what it meant to be plebeian was redefined. During the Civili Wars, Livius Drusus, a Roman, was proposing to enfranchise all Italians as Roman citizens; identity politics or not?
c) During the middle ages, identity politics were mostly based on religion. The Byzantines and the iconomachoi and iconoclasts, the schism of west and east Christian churches, the crusades, the protestant and catholics one hundred wars etc were all based on the identity of the opposing sides.
d) The rights of women to vote came out of identity politics, when men voted for women to have the vote among sexual identity arguments and the ability of either sex to exercise logic. Still not identity politics, I assume?
e) The totalitarian regimes during the mid-20th century were about identity politics, racial and class identity. No?
f) Civil rights in America were also based on identity politics, with African Americans demanding equal rights to everyone else, all cuminating from a century's struggle of identity politics that first ended slavery until the final civil rights act. Still no?
I can go into much further detail but that's not the point. The point is that identity politics were, are and will be how we understand politics. The alt-right has attempted to say they have a monopoly on 'logic' and 'reason', depicting their opposition as 'crazed', 'irrational' and 'snowflakes', while at the same time regressing in part or in whole towards reactionary positions. At some point the alt-right needs to understand that 'Make my country great again' slogans, ie slogans that search greatness in regressing to the past isn't a promise for a great future for many of their fellow citizens - it's a threat.
2) The alt-right hasn't a coherent distinction between these varying groups. What's closer to the truth is that libertarian and ethnonationalist positions intermingle and it's up to the individual to say 'yeah, but I agree with x but not y'. The problem with this is that their advocates agree with both x and y, using libertarian ideas to slip past ethnonationalist and socialnationalist ideals.
3) The too intelligent cynical young men who refuse to drink the cool aid of liberal propaganda bit - that's self-flattering propaganda, mate. Are you saying everyone else is less intelligent than the alt-right cynical young men, or that they possess extra human intelligence? Either way, propaganda and self-flattery.
4) The threats to physical violence bit hints that you're talking about the antifa again. At which point I am going to ask: When you have people advocating suspending democracy, racial supremacy and genocide, at what point do you think that people should start to react?
5) We are debating right now. The only threat to destroying your ideas comes from my arguments.