“Race Realism” and other similar phrases are terms often tossed about in online discussions of racial issues, especially in less moderated forums. Below is a fairly good definition of this term by Christopher Langan:
Christopher Langan
Question: What is “race realism”?Answer: Given a stable and constructive society which produces a reasonable quality of life for its members, race should not be as hot an issue as it now is. However, once it has been officially included as a critical parameter in various official policies and decisions, as it certainly has been throughout the modern world, it cannot be rationally ignored. Instead, people must be allowed to objectively discuss issues of race from all sides without being censored, censured, punished, or accused of “hate speech”
Roughly, “race realism” can be defined as
(1) The acknowledgement that races exist, and that their existence is reflected in population genetics, coherent social and cultural differences, and valid psychological and behavioral statistics objectively reflecting their respective spectra of observable traits and behaviors (where valid statistics are available);
(2) The acknowledgement that race and racial attributes and differences evolved via natural and artificial selection on the individual and group levels, by adaptation to physical and cultural stressors and reinforcements (those who couple with a given environment tend to be selected for survival and reproduction in that particular environment and may not be as well suited to existence in other environments),
(3) The acknowledgement that modern identity politics are primarily political and economic in character, driven by political and economic motivations that often have little to do with known realities of history, biology, and human psychology:
[etcetera]
In addition, it demands that the members of any given racial group objectively recognize when they ARE, or ARE NOT, presently being abused or systematically persecuted due to hatred of or prejudice against their ethnicity, as opposed to simply failing to couple in a constructive way with their (otherwise constructive) environments and other inhabitants thereof, and also that they reject propaganda and resist indoctrination designed to interfere with this capacity.
It’s a pretty good definition of a common sense idea that people sometimes have trouble properly putting into words, and I really like the way Langan described it. Having the idea properly defined helps one communicate with other people, and more importantly, helps one recognize when the idea is being twisted and subverted.
Now if only he would also define what a “woman” is.
Original screen cap:
Temple of Zagan 