Quoted By:
I am by all means a conservative thinker, not in the GOP sense, but in belief that the quality of society is determined by individual rights and traditional family structures.
My issue lies in the argument for ethnicity and culture being inherently tied together. I should first say that I do not regard Richard Spencer as a good representative for conservative ideals, nor Gavin McInnes and his cult of boy-men as a productive group. I say this, because when arguing my beliefs of culture and ethnicity, I fear people would identify me with their ideals.
I do not believe that there is an inherent divine superiority to any ethnicity, as per laws of nature and implicit competition. I do believe that it is the duty as a member of a respective ethnicity to champion one's ethnic peers, I base this statement upon reproductive success and the biological purpose of hereditary inheritance. I do not believe that different cultures can cohabit a single society without artificial selections being imposed on one group or the other; artificial selections often imposed by a government that constitute an inherent violation of individual rights.
From this point of cultural disagreement I would then argue that ethnicity is inherently tied to culture from a biological argument. The measure of individual success is reproductive success, producing offspring, at its most basic level. When evaluating more complex organisms though, individuals reproducing often foresee the reproduction of future generations beyond themselves, because obviously, the success of a species cannot be offset by a single reproductive success. Thus, it is in the best interest of the immediate reproducing individual to instill the behaviors and characteristics that led to the parent's reproductive success, to help guarantee their offspring's success. In this way, cultural behaviors are paired with ethnic continuation.
How do I water this down for normies?
What are some opposing arguments? What is my logical flaw?
