What Is Culture?

On the one hand, writing this article feels a little pointless, because the same people who like to shout that white people have no culture also like to shout about how they wuz kangz with flying pyramids, so laying out a dialectical argument is perhaps not going to be very effective.

However, I see plenty of whites who when screamed at about no culture don't seem to have any response. My intention here therefore isn't to provide a dialectic rebuttal to the other side's idiots, but to give our own people so framework from which to form their own rhetoric. Good luck!

I will be referring to 'white culture'. This is a phenomena that really only exists in the United States and perhaps Canada: Europeans are not culturally homogenous. Spain is not Sweden is not Hungary. But, for the purposes of this essay these cultures are close enough - especially when compared to non-European cultures - that I believe the term is acceptable.

For simplicity's sake, there are two types of 'culture' that any given society produces. The first, and most obvious, is what I call 'high culture'. This encompasses culture that is produced for consumption, and is comprised of literature, music, performance and fine art, architecture, sports, holidays, science, language, religion... you get the picture. Shakespeare is high culture. So is NASCAR.

For high culture, it is fairly easy to rebut enemy claims, which it is why it is usually only googles who make it. Most of the world plays soccer. White Culture. Baseball, American football, hockey, basketball... products of white culture. Disney films primarily based off of fairy tales: white culture based off of white culture. The Aircraft Carrier. White Culture. Sure, your Shaqwanda or Tyrone are going to deny this, and your problem glasses feminist or resident Echoberg will try and claim everything actually stems from some Aztec or Iroquois or Arab, but the fact is that the cultural output by whites in everything from throwing a ball to performing a play to landing on the moon is so blatant and overwhelming that there's no real danger of whites not being able to defend their own on this turf, unless they're determined to cuck in which case nothing I say matters anyway.

The only exception is music where whites tend to be happy to cuck even when they wouldn't otherwise, and accept black claims that all music is stolen from them to a greater or lesser degree. To which I'd ask how they can claim reasonably Jazz when they can't claim the saxophone or the piano. Or Music Theory. White musical tradition is as rich as relevant as any other part of our culture, and we should not let them get away with this, but again - it's not particularly difficult to make third parties realize that 'whites have no culture' is a bullshit claim, even for music.

But then there is what I'll term 'low culture', which isn't any less meaningful but is much more passive, less overt than its high culture counterpart, but in many ways is the most important.

Low culture is the often unspoken, unwritten rules that define how members of that culture interact. For instance, how does a culture respond to authority? Between civilian and warriors, police, bureaucrats? Juniors to Seniors? Sons to Fathers? Employees to Employers? When we talk, we understand that there is a cultural difference on this issue between say, Americans and Japanese. Even though there's no tangible culture in the same way we see a cultural difference between anime and western cartoons.

That's hardly the only one. The role of family, both nuclear and extended. How are morals and ethics valued? High versus Low Trust societies. Public versus Private space. Concept of Adulthood. Expectations of Motherhood. For every group from Anglo to Aborigine, we could research each of these topics and we would discover 1. An overwhelming general trend within a group and 2. Significant difference between groups.

Here is the challenge. If some dindu comes up and starts going on and on about no culture, it doesn't sound very convincing to rebut with well actually, we do have a culture, and it's centered around a high-trust homogenous society with a historical streak of egalitarian libertarianism that is acknowledged but kept in check by a traditionally strong church and...

Which is unfortunate, because that's the part of the culture these people immigrated to our countries for. They didn't come because we invent great sports or have funny musicals or figured out how to make airplanes; they came because culturally we have formed a very safe, very trusting society that is open to outsiders coming in and becoming not only wealthy, but actually benefitting from - again, culturally constructed - welfare programs built on a national sense of 'help your neighbor'.

It is therefore very important that other whites be made to see that this is what is going on. Once our wealth and safety are viewed as a direct consequence of a white culture, the outsider will naturally be viewed as a hostile cuckoo, not a friendly-but-unfortunate neighbor. Likewise, people might begin to realize that this safety is not guaranteed: as whites become a minority our culture will be replaced by their cultures: which generally range from persecuting outsiders, to tolerating the useful ones with the occasional purge thrown in, to full out rape-and-murder.

I urge you, the next time a 'no culture' claim is made, to not only score the rhetorical points on the obvious contributions of whites in high culture, but to point out that the very threads of the society they live in are the result of white people codifying their interactions with one another over centuries. You won't make any headway against those people in particular, but you may make an important point to bystanders - and when you're arguing with googles, it's the bystanders you're really reaching out to anyway.