• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'm Alt Right. AMA [W 49]

Is there some restriction on who you can associate with?

Absolutely, it's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made such restrictions illegal unless they fell into certain protected spheres. An example is religion, which falls under the auspices of the First Amendment. Look at churches today, they are extremely segregated, not by fiat, but organically, with a few tolerable exceptions, and they work well for both groups.

Look at what happened to both white and black people in Boston during the busing controversy. A bunch of intellectual elites from the suburbs and newspapermen decided that it would be better if the organic communities which existed in the city mixed together. The result was declining achievement for all groups, rising racial hostility, and breakdown of those communities's social fabric. Nowadays it's whitewashed into what is essentially propaganda, and shown to school children, but the history is out there for those who want to look at it. They'll see how the 'great step forward' was actually a bunch of affluent people slapping each other on the back as they kicked over established, working class communities like anthills.
 
Absolutely, it's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made such restrictions illegal unless they fell into certain protected spheres. An example is religion, which falls under the auspices of the First Amendment. Look at churches today, they are extremely segregated, not by fiat, but organically, with a few tolerable exceptions, and they work well for both groups.

Look at what happened to both white and black people in Boston during the busing controversy. A bunch of intellectual elites from the suburbs and newspapermen decided that it would be better if the organic communities which existed in the city mixed together. The result was declining achievement for all groups, rising racial hostility, and breakdown of those communities's social fabric. Nowadays it's whitewashed into what is essentially propaganda, and shown to school children, but the history is out there for those who want to look at it. They'll see how the 'great step forward' was actually a bunch of affluent people slapping each other on the back as they kicked over established, working class communities like anthills.

So really what you are asking for is the right to discriminate as opposed to associate. I don't think there is any law preventing you from associating with any other American. My wife attends Catholic church, I don't believe she was denied entry because of her skin color. In fact I bet they would relax any standards considering the overall drop in membership.
 
So really what you are asking for is the right to discriminate as opposed to associate. I don't think there is any law preventing you from associating with any other American.

The right to associate includes the freedom not to associate, just as freedom of religion includes the freedom not to be religious. Also, the law itself tends towards forceful integration. Just read about Boston busing, the REAL story, and you'll see that it was forced upon both black and white communities which for a large part did not want it, that it hurt both communities, and that we had the evidence beforehand telling us that it would do so:

By 1972, the idea that integration was the fix for education had already been contradicted by the available evidence. If there was anything to the idea of integration, it would require more study to determine the circumstances where it might be a helpful policy.3

In a sane world, if you have a radical social policy idea, you try a small experiment first, and only enlarge it once you prove the experiment works.

In Boston, the experiment was tried and it did not work. Yet, two years later, a federal Judge would force the policy upon a half-million people.

Many black parents had also defied the reassignments because they were bitterly opposed to sending their children to the Fifield and O’Hearn, where they were not welcome. Besides, the Lee contained a modern gym, a pool, a theater, carpeted classrooms, and a curriculum described as “one of the finest in any elementary school.”

The black protesters lived across from the school in the run-down Franklin Field housing project, so close to the Lee that, as one black mother said, “Your mouth waters when you look at it.” Thus many black parents showed up at the Lee and gave false addresses. One black group demonstrated and threatened to “hold a class” in the lobby of the Lee until their demands were met, and some black parents joined Father Burke and white parents meeting at St. Matthews.

Thus we have the myth and reality of racism and segregation.

The myth, that we learn in school, is that “racism” is some malady of the heart, caused by ignorance of the other, and that it can be overcome by mixing and integrating people together, and showing people that we really have more in common on the inside.

The reality, is that tribes coexist peacefully when they have clear boundaries and don’t interfere with each other’s lives. The competition for resources comes first, the demonization of the other comes second, as part of mobilizing to fight a war.

South Bostonians often pointed to the fact that blacks before busing had come often into Southie without incident. Adrienne Weston, an independent, tough woman originally from the West Indies, was one of two black teachers at Southie High in 1973. As Phase 1 began, she feared for her life, but during 1973-74 she said “it was good to teach here. The students did their work and no one called me ‘nigger.’” Of the mobs outside the school, she commented, “Those people out there are crazy, because they don’t like this being shoved down their throats.”

I've linked to this before, it's a very well sourced and well-argued deconstruction of the busing controversy in Boston, which wasn't an attack on anything like Jim Crow (which did no exist in Boston), but on the very idea of organic communities which naturally formed along ethnic and sectarian lines:
https://devinhelton.com/busing-in-boston

My wife attends Catholic church, I don't believe she was denied entry because of her skin color. In fact I bet they would relax any standards considering the overall drop in membership.

Of course, that's my point. Churches manage to be largely segregated without outright discrimination. This is why they aren't absolutely segregated, they just tend to reflect the communities around them, just as Boston schools pre-busing did. There were a few schools with black students and teachers, but that was because communities were not perfectly segregated (they seldom are unless forced by government fiat to be so).
 
Absolutely, it's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made such restrictions illegal unless they fell into certain protected spheres. An example is religion, which falls under the auspices of the First Amendment. Look at churches today, they are extremely segregated, not by fiat, but organically, with a few tolerable exceptions, and they work well for both groups.

Look at what happened to both white and black people in Boston during the busing controversy. A bunch of intellectual elites from the suburbs and newspapermen decided that it would be better if the organic communities which existed in the city mixed together. The result was declining achievement for all groups, rising racial hostility, and breakdown of those communities's social fabric. Nowadays it's whitewashed into what is essentially propaganda, and shown to school children, but the history is out there for those who want to look at it. They'll see how the 'great step forward' was actually a bunch of affluent people slapping each other on the back as they kicked over established, working class communities like anthills.

The question here is how do we know how much of something is genetically hardwired vs. just a contingent, dysfunctional, but deeply rooted cultural practice? After all, culture is a very powerful thing, and sometimes it gets hard to separate our cultural beliefs from hardwired innate biological instincts. After the Gulf War in Iraq, when the Iraqis wanted to write a new constitution, the US told them that they would do well to keep state and religion separate. The Iraqis balked at this. How would they have any sense of moral guidance, after all, without the moral guideposts of the Quran? It was unimaginable. So they went right back to having Sharia law as the backbone of their Constitution.

But they could have done it differently. And it probably would have been a good thing. The fact that they didn't do it is just a reflection of dysfunctional but deeply rooted cultural attitudes. These can potentially be fixed. It has nothing to do with biology. It's like a little boy saying they can't play with their little sister nicely or clean up their room because they are biologically and genetically incapable of it. It's just an excuse to avoid doing hard things.

Same thing with alcohol. When the prohibition was instituted in the 1930s, it was based on mountains of data showing how incredibly dangerous this drug was- the catastrophic public health issues were staggering. But alcohol is a very deeply rooted part of our culture, not of human nature. There are many cultures, societies, and individuals around the world where they don't even know what alcohol is, and they do fine. It's just a dysfunctional cultural practice which is so deeply rooted in our cultures, habits, and traditions that we think it has to do with our genetics. It doesn't. It could be otherwise.

Racism in the US is the same thing. It is a deeply rooted cultural practice, and I don't know if we will ever be able to get rid of it. But that's just a reflection of cultural lag and inertia, not anything innately biological.
 
Last edited:
The question here is how do we know how much of something is genetically hardwired vs. just a contingent, dysfunctional, but deeply rooted cultural practice?

What, tribalism? It's entirely biological. That's why it is literally ubiquitous in human societies. That's why babies begin to divide themselves into racial groups once resource distribution (toys, if I recall correctly) comes into play when it comes to reactions in experiments.

After the Gulf War in Iraq, when the Iraqis wanted to write a new constitution, the US told them that they would do well to keep state and religion separate. The Iraqis balked at this. How would they have any sense of moral guidance, after all, without the moral guideposts of the Quran? It was unimaginable. So they went right back to having Sharia law as the backbone of their Constitution.

But they could have done it differently. And it probably would have been a good thing. The fact that they didn't do it is just a reflection of dysfunctional but deeply rooted cultural attitudes. These can potentially be fixed. It has nothing to do with biology.

I agree that this instance is almost entirely cultural (with geopolitics playing in pretty heavily), though I heavily disagree with it having been a good thing to abandon religious law. Islam evolved as a system for managing the Middle East. It's a very difficult area to manage, and it's much more difficult since the cultural repeaters and institutions of classical Islam were dismantled by colonial powers under similar reasoning to yours. Back in the day, the dual system of madrassahs and Sufi lodges funneled the religiously inclined into either legalistic or mystic fields, and forbade conversion campaigns, preaching, and interfering with other religions/sects when it came to everyone else. Under this system, a bunch of wildly divergent sects, often overlapping with ethnicity, were united into a common whole. Europe came and tried to 'fix' this system. Fast forward, and we have one sect, which declares all the other sects to be polytheists because they pray for intercession from the dead, blowing themselves up and starting civil wars, while being funded by a powerful petromonarchy which has disrupted the geopolitics of the Middle East by establishing a Hanbali system that denies the concept of Ummah. A similar thing happened during Islam's founding; it was called the First Fitna, and the antagonists back then (the Khawarij) had more than a few things in common with the antagonists today. It's almost as if they came up with a system to prevent such things from happening again, we came in and decided, Chesterton's Fence style, that 'I don't see a need for this; to the rubbish heap with it', and everything went to hell. You'd think it would have chastened us a bit, but telescopic philanthropy does have odd effects on people.

It's like a little boy saying they can't play with their little sister nicely or clean up their room because they are biologically and genetically incapable of it. It's just an excuse to avoid doing hard things.

It's like the little boy who thinks he can fly because he watched super man, jumps off the roof, shatters his kneecaps, and tries to repeat the process anyway because his parents told him that he 'just didn't try hard enough'.

I mean, black people are down in comparison to whites on just about every important social and economic metric since the beginning of this grand experiment. And the research undertaken before it predicted that racial tensions would rise and school performance would stagnate. Hey, didn't Trump get the highest primary numbers in the most diverse districts? Nevermind, it's not like the studies into the efficacy of large scale, forced integration could be right, they just made a bunch of accurate predictions, after all. Let's go with the theory which has been wrong on every count, clearly we just aren't trying hard enough.
 
Same thing with alcohol. When the prohibition was instituted in the 1930s, it was based on mountains of data showing how incredibly dangerous this drug was- the catastrophic public health issues were staggering. But alcohol is a very deeply rooted part of our culture, not of human nature. There are many cultures, societies, and individuals around the world where they don't even know what alcohol is, and they do fine. It's just a dysfunctional cultural practice which is so deeply rooted in our cultures, habits, and traditions that we think it has to do with our genetics. It doesn't. It could be otherwise.

It does have to do with our genetics. Alcohol dehydrogenase, to be specific. Native Americans have more trouble drinking on average https://academic.oup.com/hmg/articl...sociation-of-alcohol-dehydrogenase-genes-with. Some Asian people, on the other hand, more often have a bottleneck in the metabolic processing of alcohol due to disparities in the efficiency of ADH and ALDH. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1580147/

Now, if you have these issues, then alcohol causes more social ills, and is more likely to be socially, politically, and culturally censured than in a society in which drinking is less likely to cause problems.

Can it be cultural? Absolutely. Look at Quakers and Muslims. But it can also be biological.

Racism in the US is the same thing. It is a deeply rooted cultural practice, and I don't know if we will ever be able to get rid of it. But that's just a reflection of cultural lag and inertia, not anything innately biological.

Racism is universal. It's everywhere. It's in China. It's in Ethiopia. It's in India. It's in Nunavut. It's not some unique American cultural artifact, it's an integral part of human nature which manifests in infancy. Racial hatred is a specific response to proximity and conflict for resources, it's a tribal animal going into war mode. The best way to prevent that is to have a stable system where competition for resources is for the most part in-group.
 
So really what you are asking for is the right to discriminate as opposed to associate. I don't think there is any law preventing you from associating with any other American. My wife attends Catholic church, I don't believe she was denied entry because of her skin color. In fact I bet they would relax any standards considering the overall drop in membership.

The right to associate includes the right to discriminate. The fact is you can't have the right to association without the right to not associate.
 
No, I think that superior is a bad word to use when discussing things like this. I think that no race is superior or inferior to the others, but that they do possess unique characteristic, both biological characteristics and cultural ones which heavily overlap with ethnic groups (especially if those groups are a 'visible other'). This makes them different, and the traditional system worked by basically claiming that each ethnic group have political sovereignty over its homeland and people. I think that the new globalist norm ignores the difference between both ethnicities and cultures, and in the attempt to reduce people to interchangeable widgets in an economic model are wreaking havoc everywhere.

So, are you Celt? Anglo Saxon? Ethnicity is very specific and each race IS 'visibly other'. The traditional system only lasted as long as a certain ethnic group was able to fend off invasion or assimilation. In the US, and most parts of Western Europe, it has been assimilation that has dotted ethnicity and culture. I would think that people such as yourselves would have DNA Haplogroups all in order and be able to weed out those who do not conform to your desired ethnicity. Political sovereignty is the result of either social contract or domination. So, It sounds to me as though the alt right prefers the latter.
 
So, are you Celt? Anglo Saxon?
Mostly the latter, though I am a mix of mostly Germanic and Anglo blood, with a little Ukrainian.

Ethnicity is very specific and each race IS 'visibly other'.
No they aren't. 'Visible other' is a relative position, it's the 'odd man out' who has little hope of assimilating because he sticks out like a sore thumb. Now, the Irish COULD be a 'visible other' to the English if the most exotic substantial minority in England were Irish people, but that isn't the the case right now. Toni Morrison had a really good interview with Charlie Rose wherein she discussed the concept and how it has affected American literature; I recommend it to anyone, but it is particularly elucidating on this particular question.

The traditional system only lasted as long as a certain ethnic group was able to fend off invasion or assimilation.

True, that's why ethnic solidarity is so important.

In the US, and most parts of Western Europe, it has been assimilation that has dotted ethnicity and culture. I would think that people such as yourselves would have DNA Haplogroups all in order and be able to weed out those who do not conform to your desired ethnicity.

Oh, in a vacuum, you would be right. But we aren't in a vacuum, not even close. And someone else has already given us an identity, against our protests. We wanted to be Italian Catholics, Pennsylvania Dutch, Irish, Scandinavian, etc., scattered into our respective enclaves. We were perfectly happy with those communities, a few decades ago. But people of my current political persuasion have been being told that we are 'white people', that we hold collective guilt, and have been been cast as public enemy #1 by the far left since we were teenagers, some since they were children. Meanwhile, any space where white people congregate with one another is seen as somehow 'oppressive' (the logic on that one is mind-bending), so the identities we used to have weakened as our old neighborhoods were 'enriched' and those cultural identities broke down. So we've stepped into those shoes that were cobbled for us, just as the English stopped thwopping the Irish over the head the second the Luftwaffe started droning off their shores. A threat, perceived or real, makes smaller differences seem insignificant.

Really, when you melt something down, blend it together, and pour it into a mold, the outcome is pretty predictable.

Political sovereignty is the result of either social contract or domination. So, It sounds to me as though the alt right prefers the latter.

Political sovereignty is always based on dominion. People just like saying 'social contract' because it sounds much more nice than 'do what I say or I'll put a bullet in the nape of your neck'. People like to feel like they have power, especially when they don't, so they tell themselves that they voluntarily gave it all away to someone else before they were born. Most states are an iron fist in a velvet glove.
 
Last edited:
It does have to do with our genetics. Alcohol dehydrogenase, to be specific. Native Americans have more trouble drinking on average https://academic.oup.com/hmg/articl...sociation-of-alcohol-dehydrogenase-genes-with. Some Asian people, on the other hand, more often have a bottleneck in the metabolic processing of alcohol due to disparities in the efficiency of ADH and ALDH. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1580147/

Now, if you have these issues, then alcohol causes more social ills, and is more likely to be socially, politically, and culturally censured than in a society in which drinking is less likely to cause problems.

Can it be cultural? Absolutely. Look at Quakers and Muslims. But it can also be biological.



Racism is universal. It's everywhere. It's in China. It's in Ethiopia. It's in India. It's in Nunavut. It's not some unique American cultural artifact, it's an integral part of human nature which manifests in infancy. Racial hatred is a specific response to proximity and conflict for resources, it's a tribal animal going into war mode. The best way to prevent that is to have a stable system where competition for resources is for the most part in-group.

I think you are confusing "universal" with genetic. Just because something has been near-universal does not mean it's genetic. Slavery and misogyny, physical abuse of women and children, illiteracy and superstition, arranged marriages, etc.... have also traditionally been near-universal practices in human societies. I can go on and on about near-universal practices and traditions which we have left behind. But biologically hardwired? Must we resign ourselves to dysfunctional behaviors and mindsets and not even try anything different with the easy excuse that it's biologic? Seems like a copout excuse for weaklings who lack imagination and/or willpower, and who want to cling fearfully to a dysfunctional tradition and past, thinking they have no choice.

Pretty pessimistic view of human nature, I would say. "Human nature" has been far more malleable than we usually give it credit for.
 
Oh, in a vacuum, you would be right. But we aren't in a vacuum, not even close. And someone else has already given us an identity, against our protests. We wanted to be Italian Catholics, Pennsylvania Dutch, Irish, Scandinavian, etc., scattered into our respective enclaves. We were perfectly happy with those communities, a few decades ago. But people of my current political persuasion have been being told that we are 'white people', that we hold collective guilt, and have been been cast as public enemy #1 by the far left since we were teenagers, some since they were children. Meanwhile, any space where white people congregate with one another is seen as somehow 'oppressive' (the logic on that one is mind-bending), so the identities we used to have weakened as our old neighborhoods were 'enriched' and those cultural identities broke down. So we've stepped into those shoes that were cobbled for us, just as the English stopped thwopping the Irish over the head the second the Luftwaffe started droning off their shores. A threat, perceived or real, makes smaller differences seem insignificant.

Could it be that an invasion by, say, a hostile alien intelligent species from the stars somewhere would similarly make our current feelings of racism based on such trivial things as skin color also seem insignificant? And so where would the biology be in our always wanting to find differences to fight over? It shows we didn't HAVE to discriminate based on skin color or ethnicity. If anything is perhaps hardwired, it's the need to find SOMETHING to judge entire peoples by.

And if what is really hardwired into us is this inclination to distinguish ourselves by something, which may or may not be race, then there is clearly nothing biologically hardwired into racism nor tribalism. Maybe if we really need to give vent to such supposedly innate feelings, we can focus on something less hateful and potentially destructive, like our favorite football teams instead?

I don't know if you have ever listened to Garrison Keeler. He had a radio show about a mythical place in rural Minnesota called Lake Wobegon. It was a wonderful radio show, based on his reminisces of growing up there. As you may know, there are a lot of farmers there from Germany and Sweden background- hardly different ethnic backgrounds. But the Germans tended to be Catholic, and the Swedes were mostly protestant. He recalls that in the German-predominant areas, they would say things like "Never trust those Swedes- they will always cheat you." And of course, on the other side of the river, the Swedes would teach their children never to trust the Germans, because they were all just a bunch of low class thieves. It seems pretty ridiculous, looking from the outside. But such petty tribalism doesn't have to be, if we are mindful of it- nothing a little education couldn't fix. But it just goes to show that even in the most ethnically homogenous places, people will find ways to express such tribalism.

Your thinking that if some place is ethnically/racially homogenous enough, it will be utopian and there will no longer be any racism/tribalism, is a chimera. People, as long as they have that mindset, will never have peace. That's why it's the mindset which has to go. That's what I mean when I say it's a dysfunctional mindset. And there is nothing biologically hardwired about it. It can go, as easily as any other dysfunctional cultural mindset or practice. That it's biologic is just an excuse.
 
Last edited:
Mostly the latter, though I am a mix of mostly Germanic and Anglo blood, with a little Ukrainian.


No they aren't. 'Visible other' is a relative position, it's the 'odd man out' who has little hope of assimilating because he sticks out like a sore thumb. Now, the Irish COULD be a 'visible other' to the English if the most exotic substantial minority in England were Irish people, but that isn't the the case right now. Toni Morrison had a really good interview with Charlie Rose wherein she discussed the concept and how it has affected American literature; I recommend it to anyone, but it is particularly elucidating on this particular question.



True, that's why ethnic solidarity is so important.

It's really not. You cannot really say Italians are that different ethnically. Yet in Renaissance Italy, there was a bloodbath between the various city states there- it made all the difference in the world if you were from Milan or Florence. If someone from one city was found in the other city, they would be "cleansed" quite quickly. We can look at that today and smile at how ridiculous that sounds. But maybe in the future our current distinctions based on skin color or ethnicity will be laughed off in the same way.
 
The right to associate includes the right to discriminate. The fact is you can't have the right to association without the right to not associate.

I knew you couldn't be far behind when the right to discriminate comes up. You also have a right not to associate. Go live in Alaska all alone. Don't come out of your house. The choice is yours.
 
Back
Top Bottom