Race or Culture, what is more important to a people?
Many will answer ‘culture’ because race is about biology. Unlike animals that are entirely defined by biology, mankind is more than his biological content. A boy raised by wolves or apes in the wild without connection to human culture may appear even lower than an animal. He seems incomplete, whereas animals are complete in their biological composition. A wolf possesses wholeness as a predatory pack mammal. A chimpanzee is complete as a wild ape making funny sounds and humping anything that moves.
In contrast, man is incomplete with biology alone, as the film THE WILD CHILD(by Francois Truffaut) well illustrates. Hugh Hudson’s arty version of GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN also shows the deficiencies of the man of savagery without culture, albeit with the Romanticist twist that man of nature is, in some ways, truer than the man of civilization with his inhibitions, deceptions, and hypocrisies. (If Tarzan begins as a white boy raised in the jungle by apes in the proximity of savage black tribes, it seems modern Britain is committed to importing Jungle to Civilization in the hope that sunshiny fat-lipped black soul will kiss and thaw & liberate the frigid English sensibility.)
Culture is so important to mankind that even savages aren’t really savage in the cartoonish sense(though certain Negro behavior patterns indicate otherwise, ironically in the civilized setting, but then the modern cult of individual freedom has unmoored entire peoples not only from old repressions but simple obligations, a condition that has affected the black community especially negatively as blacks are more prone to act ‘crazy’).
Even among savage tribes in the Amazonian forests, Eskimos in the far north, American Indians hunting bison, and Congo jungle-dwellers, there was a complex culture of language, signs, symbols, stories, craft & expressions, and moral values(that, at the very least, applied to the members of the tribe). Savage folks don’t act like Caveman stereotypes in Hollywood movies where they grunt instead of talk and just shove live animals in their mouths. Even the Neanderthals had customs and rituals.
So, mankind, as we know it, simply isn’t conceivable without culture. Of course, culture has purpose only as an outgrowth of or an application onto life. While mankind, brutish and stupid, can exist without culture(albeit in an ugly way), culture cannot exist without mankind, the diversity of which has been manifested through the various races, or variant rivers of genetic flow.
Culture is always an addition to life, not life itself, though it has a profound impact on life and its future.
Also, culture is shaped by the nature of the organism. Different dog breeds can be taught the same lessons, but they learn and respond differently. Different races of mankind can be instructed with the same lessons, values, meanings, and modes, but they will process them differently in accordance to their racial natures. Teach Christianity to blacks, and it turns into a disco for Jesus. Democracy takes on different forms and characteristics among the various races, even ethnicities(though ethnic identity is largely molded by culture).
Naturally, a race with more stable emotions and higher intelligence tends to make more of democracy(or any other form of political organization) than the races with lower intelligence, especially if given to impulsiveness. Surveying the history of popular music, what blacks did with white music and what whites did with black music goes to show that, despite the cultural origin of the music, the racial processes alter the very character of the expression. A white person may act black but, instead of really becoming black, produces a synthesis of white nature and black style. And when blacks imitated white music, they couldn’t help jiggiting it up a little in tune with their own nature. This may account for white sensory fascination with blackness because blacks tend to add salt-and-pepper to white expression. And even though most blacks are loathe to admit any kind of indebtedness due to their Afrocentric megalomania and/or insecure touchiness(which are two sides of the same coin), the more honest among them do appreciate and admire the greater sophistication, complexity, and refinement that whites often added to black culture.
Anyway, instead of arguing race vs culture, the relevant question here is about Race and Which Culture. To put it simply, is it better to survive racially with the culture of another people than to vanish racially while the culture is preserved by another people. For example, would it be better for the Russian people to become Muslims speaking Arabic(while abandoning or forgetting about their Russian culture) OR for Russian culture, history, and language to be preserved by non-Russians(while real Russians fade into oblivion).
The question clarifies what is more important, race or culture. Now, we accept as given that mankind simply isn’t complete without culture, i.e. there is a need for culture, any culture, even not one’s own, in order for mankind to function as Man(contra the animal). So, even if a Russian knows nothing of Russian culture, history, and language, he can still function as a thinking, feeling, and imaginative being if imbued with some culture, any culture.
Indeed, there are countless examples of such phenomena in the US. Many, or even most, Americans know little or nothing of their cultural origins. Most Italian-Americans can’t speak Italian, have never been to the Old Country, and know little of Italian history and the arts. I’ve known Greek-Americans who know less about Greece, modern and ancient, than I do, and I’m no expert on the subject. So, to be functional as a rational and sociable person, a knowledge of one’s original culture isn’t necessary. When Europeans abandoned their indigenous pagan cultures in favor of Christianity that originated among the Semites, they still remained functional on most levels and even gained in certain areas of morality and spirituality. Over time, plenty of Slavs became citizens of non-Slavic lands and made perfectly fine Germans, Frenchmen, and even Englishmen.
So, it is agreed that there is a need for some culture, any culture, in order for man to be complete as a Man. The white boy abducted by some Amazonian forest tribe in John Boorman’s THE EMERALD FOREST(a kind of a twist on John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS) was also raised in a culture which provided him with meaning, purpose, and sense of place. Even at the primitive level, he was raised in a culture and cosmology.
The crucial question is what is more important, racial preservation or cultural longevity? Upon consideration, the preservation of the race seems of the utmost importance. For starters, whereas culture is something we made in a matter of decades or centuries — most ideas and expressions that have lasted for thousands of years were created within a rather short time frame — , we ourselves were made by the massive forces of nature — geography, geology, climate, fauna, flora — through the eons. In this sense, the difference between race and culture is the difference between a mountain and a man-made mound. While we can seek to understand the origins and meanings of culture, we still can’t wrap our minds around the processes that led to the evolution of mankind and the emergence of the various races through tens of thousands of years across the vastness of the Earth. Culture is what we create, but we are what nature created, and the latter is deeper in mystery and sheer awesomeness.
Whereas the oldest civilization is 6,000 yrs old, human races are at least 200,000 yrs old. European History is traced back to the Greeks around 2,500 yrs ago, but the European races have been around for at least 40,000 years. Of course, even prior to the rise of civilizations, the various primitive tribes had cultures(like the few remaining primitive folk do today), but the racial-biological development of man preceded culture. It is the egotism of the human intellect that tends to put ideology before biology, even at the expense of failing to secure the bio-ethnic survival and preservation of a people. So accustomed to prioritizing BELIEVING over BEING and to modern comforts & conveniences, it’s as if our survival and well-being are guaranteed by a set of values and systems of production; such an outlook totally overlooks the fact that NOTHING matters if a people failed to secure their own survival through reproduction and racial consciousness. So-called ‘reproductive rights’ are not about reproduction per se but about the right to end reproduction in favor of ideology and individual impulse, the promotion of which led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
With so much emphasis on creativity(a cultural matter), there’s hardly any discussion of the importance of procreativity(except as a matter of self-fulfillment, i.e. “career isn’t enough to satisfy me, so I need some kids too”). It has degenerated into Extinction Rights and has nothing to do with real reproduction rights. There’s a lack of understanding of Our History, the very map of ethno-story, i.e. that illustrates the connective links from point A to B to C to D to etc. Without a map, one has no sense of place and direction.
A sense of Our History maps the existence, past-present-future, of a people, and one of the key reasons for Jewish Power is a profound sense of Our History. Jewish Consciousness, religious and secular, have a sense of where the Jews began, how they became what they are, what journeys they underwent, where they met the greatest dangers and found the greatest treasures.
Pathetically, whites allowed their sense of Our History to slip into the control of Jews who interpreted White History as an Evil Narrative; besides, White History is just a myth because ‘whiteness’ is really a modern ‘racist’ idea, and therefore European-ness may be claimed by ANY race. Of course, Jews control the entertainment complex that now fill up any movie or TV show about past European History with Negroes in key roles. According to Jewish media, Russians are not European but recently arrived black Africans most definitely are, indeed so much so that they must be put upon the pedestal as idols and icons above white Europeans, the meaning of whose existence according to globalism is to serve Jews, homos, and Negroes.
Because whites no longer own their own Map of Time, they have no deeper or broader sense of self. They only care about the self or individuality. And if they do feel a need for something bigger than themselves, it’s about the historical sanctity of Jews and Negroes mostly, with homos thrown in for good measure. It goes to show that your people must learn to map their own history because, if left up to others, the map will be manipulated to highlight directions and destinies at odds with those of your people. It’s like the notion of the New World is Eurocentric, as if the natives of the Americas lacked a past and culture of their own before the arrival of the Conquistadors, whose explorations made the Americas known to the rest of the world.
Now, let’s consider why Poland and Japan(or any such ethnically distinct nation) may be useful as a model as to why race matters more than culture. Of course, ideally both the ethnos and the culture of the people should remain intact and survive. Poland should be the land of ethnic Poles with their Polish culture, language, and history, just like Japan should be the land of ethnic Japanese with their Japanese culture, language, and history.
But, let’s do a simple mind experiment whereby Poland can exist as a white nation with a non-Polish culture or a non-white nation with a Polish culture. Imagine a Twilight Zone scenario where the people of Poland remain ethno-racially what they are but take on a different culture. Suppose they all turn Muslim and speak Arabic or turn Hindu and speak Hindi and worship cows. Racially, these hypothetical Polacks are just like real Poles by blood, but they no longer remember Polish history, belong to the Catholic Church, speak the Polish language, have a stupid hatred for Russians, and defer to the book of Dumb Polack jokes(written mostly by Jews) as a cultural manual on thought and behavior. They remain ethno-Poles but minus the Polish culture.
In the other Twilight Zone scenario, Polish language, culture, and history remain, but the Poles have been wholly replaced by ethno-Nigerians. Or ethno-Mongols. Or ethno-Hindus or whatever. For some reason, these people regard themselves as Polish and speak Polish and eat kielbasa, sauerkraut, and pierogis and listen to polka music and third-rate imitation jazz. Poland remains culturally but is racially gone, vanished, or replaced. For the extreme culture-centrists, Poland still remains because Polish culture is still ‘alive’.
Of course, both scenarios are visions of hell for the Poles, but which is worse? Loss of Polish culture or loss of Polish ethno-race? If Poles had to choose between Poland turning into a land of ethno-Poles without Polish culture or a land of non-Poles with Polish culture, which one would they choose? Surely, Polucks(or Polish Cucks) will opt for a Poland with Polish culture but no Polish ethnos, but I’ll bet the majority of Poles would rather choose a Poland with ethno-Poles but no Polish culture. It’s Race before Culture because race is deeper and more real than any culture. Nature(or God for the religiously inclined) created man, whereas man created culture, and nature’s work over eons far outweighs whatever mankind has created in his midst. (Of course, the brown-nosing Polucks care neither for Polish ethnos nor for Polish culture, much like the current Anglucks or Anglo-Cucks have relinquished the right of both race and culture. Polucks and Anglucks don’t care if their lands are remade by other peoples and other cultures. Anglucks are resigned to entire British cities being taken over by immi-vaders who not only racially replace whites but don’t even care to preserve Anglo-British culture, and there are plenty of Polucks who don’t care if Poland is replaced both ethno-racially and histo-culturally. All they care about is being smiled upon by globalist elites whom they regard as their superiors.)
What would be closer to your true self? Suppose you are to be exterminated and you’re offered two choices of continuance after your death. One way is to make a genetic clone of you but without the memory of what YOU were and valued. The other is to embed all your beliefs & memory in the head of another person whose DNA is entirely different from yours. Suppose Baptism matters a lot to you, but your clone is raised to be a Mormon. In contrast, the other person is indoctrinated with your exact take on Baptism. Who is more a continuation of what YOU are? What would be more of a continuation of Tom Cruise? A clone who isn’t into Scientology or a Seth Rogan whose mind is programmed with Cruise-isms?
Now, consider Japan. Which would be more like the real Japan? The continuance of the race but the loss of the culture or the continuance of the culture but loss of the race? In a way, modernization has already answered that question at least halfway. Westernization/Modernization has drastically remade Japan, East Asia, and indeed all of the non-Western World. In terms of ideas, values, methodology, habits, and practices, today’s Japanese have more in common with modern Western folks than with bygone Japanese folks prior to the coming of Commodore Perry’s Black Ships.
Indeed, much of Japanese culture has either been erased or simply forgotten, barely existing as museum exhibits or empty festival rituals. Of course, there are many continuities in language, sense of history, and etc. Still, much of the original culture has been lost, probably forever. Still, Japan remains Japan because the people are ethno-Japanese. In the modernization period, there was even some talk of replacing the Japanese language with a European one, and had such been realized, Japan would still have remained Japan because of the ethno-racial factor. After all, Hindu elites in India are well-versed in English(and some of them even speak it better than Hindi and other Indian languages), but they are still Indian above all due to the blood factor.
Saving culture instead of race is doomed to fail even in its stated goal. In time, the people will come to feel that the culture they’re preserving and practicing isn’t really theirs. Imagine you’re a Nigerian as the New Pole but you look at Polish historical paintings, and the images are of another people. I suppose the Nigerian as New Pole can blacken all the faces in the paintings and pretend Poles were always black, but that’s just a big lie and degrades the culture — it’d be like pretending that black slaves in the American South were white or Hindu OR that Jews in ghettos were a bunch of Hawaiians.
Now, certain cultural ideas and practices can be universalized, but much of the meaning of a culture is closely associated with a particular people, like Shintoism and Japanese customs. Furthermore, even something as universalist as Christianity takes on particularist significance and meaning for different peoples of the Faith. What Catholicism means for Poles is different from what it means to the Spanish or the mestizos of South America. Many Poles regard Catholic Church as the stalwart defender of the nation and culture against foreign oppression. In contrast, many Spanish came to regard the Catholic Church as a tool of Franco’s tyranny. Christianity meant different things to Southern Segregationists and the black(and white) followers of MLK, the nasty lout with the big shout.
So, if Nigerians were to become the New Poles in the cultural domain, the shtick couldn’t last for long. In time, the Nigerians would come to reject the culture as not really their own; or they will change it drastically to render it more palatable to black sensibility, resulting in something that bears little resemblance to the original thing. They will surely make use of the culture but as something to exploit than to protect. It’s the difference between butchering an animal for food and taking care of it as a valued specimen.
Indeed, the problems are obvious with blacks in the US(and EU as well). For centuries, whites tried to acculturate blacks to Western standards. Blacks were forbidden to beat on drums and dance like savages. They were given Western names and had to answer to ‘Toby’ than ‘Kunta Kinte’. They were brought to the Christian Faith. But over time with greater freedom and choice, blacks began to feel, “Dis be some honky-ass shit.” Sure, blacks take advantage of white ideas and values — ‘slavery is an absolute evil’ is a Western moral development — , but they don’t embrace them as their own culture.
Besides, even when a people dutifully try to preserve or recreate the culture of another, the result is far from the real thing. Initially, the Germanic Barbarians sacked Rome but, in time, shouldered the burden of imperial legacy. But it was never the same thing. There really never was a Third Rome despite the ambitions of Charlemagne, the Russian Tsars, and Adolf Hitler.
And for sure, the attempt to Anglo-Americanize or Europeanize the Jews failed miserably. Jews make poor standard-bearers of Americanism because, for all their Zeligish exploitation of American freedoms and opportunities, their main loyalty is to Zion and the Tribe. Thus, when push comes to shove, if having to choose between the Tribe and what’s-good-for-America, Jews will choose the Tribe. Jews may argue that their globalism is in allegiance to a higher calling, namely choosing what is good for the whole world than what is only good for America(or ‘America First’), but Jewish ‘internationalism’ is really about the interests of World Jewry. Just ask the Palestinians and countless Arabs/Muslims destroyed by Zion. Just ask the Eastern Ukro-Russians in the Donbass.
Even if the culture is lost, the survival of the race offers the possibility of cultural recovery or renaissance. In some cases, the culture can be recovered and reunited with the race. Modern/Western Archaeology has had a most profound impact on how peoples around the world regard their own sense of selfhood, history, and heritage. Consider the rediscovery of much of Ancient Egyptian culture that had been forgotten or lost under Muslim rule. Their once forgotten past is now an integral part of Egyptian-ness. Cambodians lost the Angkor Wat to the jungles, but French archaeology rediscovered it, and today’s Cambodians cannot conceive of their heritage and history without it. Christian ‘cultural genocide’ nearly wiped out all vestiges of indigenous paganism of Northern Europe, but some of it survived(mostly in distant Iceland) and later came to serve as inspiration and source of deeper identity to the German Romantics and nationalists. At one time, Hebrew was essentially a museum language, ignored by most Jews. But as long as the Jewish ethnos survived, Hebrew could be revived as the official language of Israel, the Jewish nation-state.
Furthermore, even if the entire culture of a certain race or ethnos is irretrievable, lost and gone forever, the racial nature can nevertheless produce future expressions in ‘mythic’ tune with the lost culture. Consider the American blacks who were cut off from Sub-Saharan Africa and only knew the cotton-picking fields of the South. They knew nothing of African folklore, dances, and music. They didn’t know their ancestors were named ‘Wagabunga’ and had names like ‘George Smith’. Their idea of music was imitating white folks’ songs and dance. Despite all that, their racial culture subconsciously reproduced something imbued with the spirit of Black Africa, which was written into their DNA. When the massuh and overseers weren’t watching, they couldn’t help wiggle their butts, pumping their groins, and hollering like James Brown. Even with church music, their racial nature couldn’t help but junglize it and turn hymns into humping noises. Of course, it wasn’t exactly black African culture(as the jungle tribes didn’t have blues and jazz and the like), but it had a similar blackity oogity-boogitiness. It’s sort of a Jungian thing, the seeds of culture within the racial psyche, whereby even if the culture is wholly lost, something of the same spirit is created from the racial nature. If we erased white minds and put a whole bunch of whites on a hypothetical island to produce a culture from scratch, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to what we know of as ‘Western Civilization’. However, the arising culture will be animated by the same kind of spirit and mythos that fueled the Old Europeans. Likewise, if we were to erase black minds and put black folks on a hypothetical island, the result would likely be something along the lines of Black Africa(or Detroit).
As glorious as the achievements of the West are, if one had to choose between losing all the culture and maintaining the race and losing the race but maintaining the culture(for other races to preserve), the former is always preferable. Because, for all the genius and inspiration, culture is the outward manifestation of what lies deep within the nature of man.
Of course, if whites had to create a new culture out of whole cloth without memory of their past, the results will be different from the achievements of the Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. Nevertheless, so much of what is expressed will have been inspired and fueled by the same temperament, passion, and imagination.
Likewise, if blacks had to choose between preserving the race but forgetting all about blues, jazz, soul, & rap OR losing the race but having other races appreciate and practice black music, which would they choose? Even if they were to lose their current genres of music, they could create new ones grounded in the same soulfulness, and thus, the essence of blackness would be preserved. But if blacks are gone as a race while black culture is kept alive by other races, what the hell is that? Blacks made that shit but other races be enjoyin’ it while blacks be nowhere to be seen. (Granted, in purely civilizational terms, it might not be bad for the World if blackness vanished racially and lingered only culturally in a few musical genres. A Detroit with rap music but no black people would probably spring back to life as a thriving and mostly safe city.)
And what would Jews prefer? Keeping the race and losing the culture or losing the race and keeping the culture… alive in goy hands? Suppose some super-hitler had killed off every Jew in the world, BUT Jewish culture was still prized and preserved by various goyim. Would Jews prefer that over Jews surviving as a people but forgetting their culture? (Jews don’t seem too happy that goyim in the form of Christians and Muslims adopted much of Jewish culture in sacred text and cosmology.) In the end, cultocide is a lesser horror than genocide. If indeed culture means more than race, a super-Holocaust where all Jews are racially exterminated wouldn’t be so bad. It wouldn’t be the end of Jews because any bunch of goyim could culturally become Jews, and then, Jews are all around once again.
If a city faced the destruction of every building, museum, monument, garden, and institution but kept its population, it would be a great loss, but something similar could rise from the rubble. Paris is a city rich in arts and culture, and it would be an incalculable loss to witness their destruction. Still, as long as French people were around, French civilization could be rebuilt… much like German and Japanese cities were rebuilt after World War II. Same was true of Warsaw, of which 80% was destroyed in the war.
On the other hand, if all the arts and buildings remained intact but the population was replaced by another, it would be a wholly new civilization or a barbarism degenerating into savagery(if blacks were to take over). Warsaw suffered tremendous wreckage in World War II, but the Polish people still lived there, and it rose once again as a Polish city. But imagine if today’s nice and orderly Warsaw were kept intact brick by brick but taken over by the Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, or Africans. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs could make use of Polish buildings and infrastructures, but their societies wouldn’t be Polish, which would survive only as an empty shell for other peoples to use and exploit. If blacks took over Warsaw, they would turn it into another Detroit. They will dismantle the city brick by brick if left to their own devices. So, race always matters more than culture. Hiroshima was smashed to bits in World War II, but the surviving Japanese rebuilt it. But imagine if today’s Hiroshima were left intact but its native population replaced by blacks. That would be another Detroit.
No comments:
Post a Comment