In every town and city across Canada there are cultural associations dedicated to preserving, defending and promoting individual cultures and their language, food, music, dance, art, ceremonies and history. While many of these are European, the newly emerging associations are from countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Unfortunately, these groups have never analyzed the source of their culture and would be shocked to discover it was biological rather than environmental. Probably, so would you.
Let’s look at how a culture originates and develops. We start with the fact that for most of recorded history, most people never travelled far from home. They were born, married and died within a day’s journey, 20 miles. This lack of mobility meant there was a lot of intermarriage between first and second cousins only gradually extending to marriage between extended families and then arranged marriage between the powerful and the beautiful.
This lack of diversity meant that each breeding pair was more alike than it was different. Couple that with high infant mortality, great environmental challenges and endemic warfare and what developed was the ruthless elimination of biological weaknesses on a Darwinian scale. In effect, human society was line breeding for health, power, beauty and intelligence in isolated pockets constrained by mountains, seas, and rivers.
Here I must touch on some theory, namely, regression to the mean, a statistical fact discovered by Sir Francis Galton during the late 19th century. Briefly, this states that “the difference between a child and its parents for some characteristic is proportional to its parents’ deviation from typical people in the population.” To put that simply, it means that any population will become more homogeneous over time within its breeding parameters.
If we combine these two factors — line breeding and regression — we see they reinforce each other. The good characteristics become more uniform while the bad (those not leading to reproduction) are reduced or eliminated.
Because of the need for understanding between individuals, language follows the same trajectory as biology. There is no advantage to using words the listener doesn’t understand, so people try to find common ways of talking and listening. Thus, within the bounds of a given people’s movements, language tends to become more uniform rather than the reverse.
Both processes are very gradual, but they are also dynamic. Thus, when the Vikings invaded England they brought with them Norse words and Norse genes. Likewise, the Angles and Saxons, German words and genes. And the French, French. Gradually, and inexorably, both the English people and the English language reverted to a mean; not the old mean, but a new one incorporating the new genes and new words of the new members of the social and genetic pool. The point I’m making is that the language developed in the same way as the people who used it. As the one became more uniform, so did the other.
This brings me to discuss the meaning of the word “nation.” It comes along a winding path from the Middle English nacioun, from Anglo-French naciun, from the Latin nasci, “to be born.” So, a nation refers to a society which is related by birth. Really, it’s just another way of referring to the societies I mentioned earlier. These societies, constrained by mountains, seas and rivers, became nations because the people were all related to each other.
As with genetics and language, so too with food, customs, clothing and everything else that distinguishes a culture. We have a word that combines these factors: “ethnicity,” defined by Wikipedia as “An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, society, culture or nation.”
By now you have a good grasp of what came first, obviously “ancestry,” then society, language, culture and nation. Viewed in this way, the cultural associations I mentioned earlier are ethnic associations celebrating the cultural attributes of their ethnicity. Or to put that more plainly, they are sub-racial groups celebrating their differences. This should immediately put a thought in your head: there is clearly more in common between the French and Norwegians than between Germans and Japanese; more in common between Greeks and Spaniards than between Greeks and Indians. In short, we Europeans have a lot in common racially, linguistically and culturally and should celebrate that fact.
Curiously, we don’t. We go on, endlessly, about how different we are instead of looking with amazement in the mirror at how similar we are. We Europeans are White Caucasians and we need to recognize that fact. We need to defend our inheritance and promote our genetic patrimony. Clearly, as we look around us, other races and ethnicities are busy promoting their inheritance and their place in the world. We should do the same.
And the place to start doing it is with our cultural associations. It’s time we got them to face up to the fact that the sequence is this: people create a race; the race creates a culture and the culture reinforces itself with law. It’s a simple equation: race > culture > law. Cultural associations are in the middle of this process. Let them look to their own heritage if they want to preserve it, us and the future for all Europeans.
They, and we, are the White race; we should be proud of that fact.
Author
