Culture We Are NOT the Same!

DarthOne

☦️


Every society has a foundation. Its identity culture and heritage that defines its existence. When that foundation is eroded, the entire structure weakens.

Throughout history we have seen what happens when fundamentally different peoples are forced together; one culture inevitably
replaces the other. Yet despite this undeniable truth, we see leaders pushing policies that undermine the very core of their own
Nations.

Why?

I just watched Pale Rider, 1985, on the plane home from holiday and there's a line that really hit me. It resonates so much with what's happening
today. In the film the antagonist Kyer Hood realizes the power that faith and purpose can give people when he says "A man without spirit is whipped but a preacher he could give them faith. One ounce of Faith they'll be dug in deeper than a tick on a hound."

And that's exactly the point.

The reality is that the driving force behind mass migration isn't about the well-being of the people. It's about power control and economic
gain. Fragmentation creates dependency. When you strip a population of its cultural identity, you take away its spirit; its sense of belonging and
purpose. A divided people are easier to govern, easier to manipulate and easier to exploit.

Just like in Pale Rider, when people have faith- whether in themselves their culture or their future- they become unstoppable. But take that faith
away and they're left vulnerable. Existing without purpose, without unity and ultimately without resistance.

The native people of these lands, the English, the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh are being asked to sacrifice their cultural inheritance. Their connection to their ancestors and their sense of belonging for an ideal that serves no higher purpose, other than the enrichment of a select few. A culture
that has taken thousands of years to cultivate cannot simply be reshaped overnight without consequence.

And so we must ask 'if the people are not asking for this, who is? Who gains from the dilution of national identity, the loss of cultural heritage and the breakdown of our society?' Certainly not the ordinary citizens, who watch their communities change beyond recognition. Who feel increasingly disconnected from their own homelands and who are told that resistance to these changes is somehow wrong.

The answer is clear; those in power see diversity not as strength but as a tool a tool to break apart strong unified cultures and replace them with
something weaker, more malleable. Something easier to control. And yet history tells us that such experiments do not end well. The outcome is not coexistence but displacement. Not harmony but division. Not enrichment but loss. A people without identity, a people without a future. If we do not ask these questions now, if we do not challenge the forces at play, then we risk repeating the patterns that history has shown us time and time again. And when the dust settles who will remain to tell the story of those who were here before?
 
I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. Leave the internet. Seriously, for your own sake leave the internet.. Shut off your electronics, all of them. Find some place quiet find your own tribe and focus on your own little world. At this point I don't know what other advice I can give at this point, but at it's clear you've let the vastness of the sea overwhelm and consume you.
 

That being said, racial differences are real and genuine. Even if you somehow take away a national or tribal identity of the entire populace, they're biologically different from one another, depending on where they were born or how they were raised. An Asian is different from an indigenous person in the Western Hemisphere, and an African is different from a European. One could not change an ethnicity in an instant. The only thing that could save the entire human species is to understand and apply the principles of Race Realism. Forcing two or more mutually hostile ethnic groups into one area in a place that isn't build for multiculturalism like Europe is bound to end in disaster. Perhaps the words of Kevin MacDonald or Jared Taylor would be more appropriate in this case.

I would also suggest looking up the Kalergi Plan as well, though it has to be read with a larger detail since there are few defenders of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi.
 
Last edited:
My problem with race realism is simple.

Why should I, then, or anyone from any race, simply not murder the rest? Space is limited as resources, simply eliminating another race is optimal for survival.

Can you argue why it would be immoral to kill you, your family and everyone from a group under those premises? Honest question.
 
There isn't any morality involved. As far as I'm concerned, the same question can be applied if I was the one who was asking it.

My problem with race denialism is that the race denialists seek to deny the basic fundamental biological and racial differences that are clearly present. Why should I, a brown person, consider for example, you, a white person, as a so-called fellow human being when we're clearly different from one another.
 
The problem is intractable with a purely materialist/naturalist mindset. The only way to get a palatable answer is to involve religion. Specifically Christianity.
And the main problem with this solution is that Christianity didn't stop the lingering ethnic tensions that existed. Heck, I would even go as far as to say that universal brotherhood, which is preached in both Christianity and Freemasonry, is the ultimate problem. I mean, why should I treat certain racial opponents as so-called brothers in Christ when hating them is much better? In fact, Christianity had intensified the race denialist propaganda through the constant preaching to various tribes and other groups and trying to make brothers out of several mutually hostile groups. Moreover, religion in itself has so far proven to be compromised when it comes to confronting challenges posed by extreme ideologies on the left and on the right, Marxism being on top of that list.

The sooner universal brotherhood as a concept dies, the better it will be for the various races of the world.
 
My problem with race realism is simple.

Why should I, then, or anyone from any race, simply not murder the rest? Space is limited as resources, simply eliminating another race is optimal for survival.

Can you argue why it would be immoral to kill you, your family and everyone from a group under those premises? Honest question.
There isn't any morality involved. As far as I'm concerned, the same question can be applied if I was the one who was asking it.

My problem with race denialism is that the race denialists seek to deny the basic fundamental biological and racial differences that are clearly present. Why should I, a brown person, consider for example, you, a white person, as a so-called fellow human being when we're clearly different from one another.

3 words: Mutely Assured Destruction. A shared commonality even if it's as broad as "We're all human" invokes a sense of empathy which prevents genocide which prevents retaliation. Even if you take nukes out of it , if absolute genocide becomes accetable, (Which let's face it ALWAYS happens when you view your enemies as less than you) you introduce the use of all kinds of bio and chemical weapons that'd make Covid panic look like a picnic, and it'd only be a matter of time before someone would create somthing that will blow themselves up as well as thier enimies.


if I remember my history correctly, The bare bones of Nazism (egunicis and the like) actually started in England and was used as justification for why They were treating germany and austria the way they were, and hitler essentially took thier own philosphy and played an uno reverse car "You know your right...people should not be bowing down to thier lessers...so why are we bowing down to you guys again?"

In fact, if I also remember correctly essentially his ire was actually towards the English and French elite but since all the elites in europe was one giant (and messed up) extended family, he couldin't enact a final solution on either without angering the people who were funding his military. So he needed a scapegoat...hence jews. I could be wrong on this last part, it's been a while sense I studied WW2.

Edit: ignore that crossed out part as I can find nothing to back it up.
 
Last edited:
There is also the fact that very very few people are pure blooded. I just did an essay not too long ago on how every European and even most Black skinned Americans have the blood of the Northmen in them. Unless you're a first generation from the far east or your family has somehow managed to remain married within your own group, chances are if you live in America you got that North blood in you somewhere down either side of your family line.
 
Last edited:
YouTube Video Transcript said:
I just watched Pale Rider, 1985, on the plane home from holiday and there's a line that really hit me. It resonates so much with what's happening today. In the film the antagonist Kyer Hood realizes the power that faith and purpose can give people when he says "A man without spirit is whipped but a preacher he could give them faith. One ounce of Faith they'll be dug in deeper than a tick on a hound."

And that's exactly the point.

The reality is that the driving force behind mass migration isn't about the well-being of the people. It's about power control and economic gain. Fragmentation creates dependency. When you strip a population of its cultural identity, you take away its spirit; its sense of belonging and purpose. A divided people are easier to govern, easier to manipulate and easier to exploit. Just like in Pale Rider, when people have faith- whether in themselves their culture or their future- they become unstoppable. But take that faith away and they're left vulnerable. Existing without purpose, without unity and ultimately without resistance.

What an impressive leap of logic from watching The Pale Rider considering its major setting was a polyglot community of independent panhandling settlers from all across the country and immigrant communities "migrating" onto land that the local (monoculture) company run town repeatedly attempting to raid, pillage, intimidate and murder in order to drive away.

Somehow the obviously unifying theme of religious faith and small folk standing up for righteousness against evil greed, which was the theme of The Pale Rider has been transformed into "faith in being Scottish against mass migration of brown people?" :unsure:

If that's how diluted the themes have to be to make them work, it speaks more to the shallowness of the individual who took that as a theme as opposed to the possible depths of the films themes.

I love The Pale Rider actually. One of my favorite Westerns. And it's a beautiful film that extolls many "American" values as opposed to ones you'd see from Blood and Soil European style Ethnostate advocates.. It's so random to see it being brought up as a White Nationalist talking point.

Why should I, a brown person, consider for example, you, a white person, as a so-called fellow human being when we're clearly different from one another.

I'm just quoting this for posterity lol.
 
What an impressive leap of logic from watching The Pale Rider considering its major setting was a polyglot community of independent panhandling settlers from all across the country and immigrant communities "migrating" onto land that the local (monoculture) company run town repeatedly attempting to raid, pillage, intimidate and murder in order to drive away.

Somehow the obviously unifying theme of religious faith and small folk standing up for righteousness against evil greed, which was the theme of The Pale Rider has been transformed into "faith in being Scottish against mass migration of brown people?" :unsure:

If that's how diluted the themes have to be to make them work, it speaks more to the shallowness of the individual who took that as a theme as opposed to the possible depths of the films themes.

I love The Pale Rider actually. One of my favorite Westerns. It's so random to see it being brought up as a White Nationalist talking point.



I'm just quoting this for posterity lol.


He ended up walking back a lot of his implications when people pointed them out AND pointed out that by his own philosophy and logic he's not even English.

"I want to clear up a few things because I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. If people actually listen to what I'm saying instead of jumping to conclusions, they'll see this isn't about hate—it's about peace, survival, and the right for all people to thrive.

I don't think English culture—or any culture—is better than another. Every culture has its own value, history, and way of life. What I believe is that cultures should be allowed to thrive in their own lands. England should be primarily English, just like India should be primarily Indian, and so on. That doesn't mean no immigration whatsoever—it just means that a nation's core identity should be preserved.

I actually want all people to thrive—just separately. History has shown time and time again that forcing different groups together in the same space leads to conflict. This isn't just my opinion; it's a pattern that has played out for thousands of years. If we actually want peace, we need to learn from history, not ignore it.

This isn't about hatred. If white Europeans were flooding into Africa and changing African cultures, I'd be against that just as much as I'm against mass migration into Europe. This is about people being allowed to maintain their cultures, identities, and ways of life without being forced into an artificial melting pot that ultimately erases them.

DNA matters more than people want to admit. I keep seeing people say, "Oh, it's just a small percentage difference in DNA, so we're all the same." But even tiny genetic variations can have massive effects. Look at how small DNA differences separate different dog breeds in terms of size, intelligence, and temperament. Humans are no different—our small genetic differences have shaped our cultures, behaviors, and societies. That's just how biology works.

I do have spiritual and afterlife beliefs, but that's for another time. I almost went into it in this video, but it was already getting too long. If people want to hear my thoughts on that, I can talk about it in another video.

For those saying "we deserve this"—you're just as bad as the people who want to conquer the rest of the world. If you believe an entire nation should suffer because of the actions of a long-gone elite, you're not arguing for justice—you're arguing for revenge. That's no better than the mindset of those who once thought they had the right to dominate others. I want no part in that kind of thinking.

Let's keep this discussion constructive. If you're here just to throw insults and act childish, you're wasting everyone's time. I want this to be a space for proper conversation—like traditional English discussions, where people could speak as adults, challenge each other's ideas, and actually listen. If that's too much to ask, then this probably isn't the place for you."

Well maybe saying he walked them back is being generous. He seems to have wheezeld his way out of his logic so it could not be used against him.
 
He ended up walking back a lot of his implications when people pointed them out AND pointed out that by his own philosophy and logic he's not even English.

Well maybe saying he walked them back is being generous. He seems to have wheezeld his way out of his logic so it could not be used against him.

Yeah that goes without saying that there are cultural values and identities that should be maintained. I haven't watched the video, just read the transcript provided and now that he's flip flopped I'm less interested in watching the video.

But honestly Western movies like Pale Rider already showed pretty strong themes on what I feel are core 'American cultural values' and I even mentioned some in my original post.

Unfortunately "faith in being a particularly ethnic group when threatened by Globalist sponsored brown person mass migration" wasn't one of those themes.

Now the YouTuber in question can draw whatever "themes" he wants from the film. Everyone takes things differently. But it certainly speaks to the YouTuber in questions character and ideology and bias more then being a substantive commentary on the films themes.
 
Yeah that goes without saying that there are cultural values and identities that should be maintained. I haven't watched the video, just read the transcript provided and now that he's flip flopped I'm less interested in watching the video.

But honestly Western movies like Pale Rider already showed pretty strong themes on what I feel are core 'American cultural values' and I even mentioned some in my original post.

Unfortunately "faith in being a particularly ethnic group when threatened by Globalist sponsored brown person mass migration" wasn't one of those themes.

Now the YouTuber in question can draw whatever "themes" he wants from the film. Everyone takes things differently. But it certainly speaks to the YouTuber in questions character and ideology and bias more then being a substantive commentary on the films themes.
The thing is he admit that cultures intermixed all the time, yet he also says this is a bad thing but then goes as far as to say to change a culture is the equivalent of extinction...it's almost like his logic is all over the place.

Here is something harsh, culture's die, get revived, and evolve, that's just how history works. It's not good or bad it just IS now, people have a right to fight for their place in the world. But that's no guarantee you will have it OR keep it. Just that you have the right to fight for it.
 
Yup,we are hybrids,anybody knew that now.So what? race do not matter,only culture.
You want peace? give people with one culture one country,and let them rule there.
But not peoples with other cultures.
 
My conspiracy theory is that race was invented by left-leaning liberal elites as another means of divide and conquer. I'm sure if you did even some cursory research into Nazism and ethno-nationalism you'll find strands of western liberalism tying it all together
 
My conspiracy theory is that race was invented by left-leaning liberal elites as another means of divide and conquer. I'm sure if you did even some cursory research into Nazism and ethno-nationalism you'll find strands of western liberalism tying it all together

My guess, Racial War became the new Holy War Caisis Bali. When religion fell out of favor, Divine right turned into Natural/Genetic right. Sub-Humans became the new heathens. For better or worse, peace is never going to happen until the final resurrection. I think the sniper from TF2 actually summed it up pretty well.

"As long as there's (at least) two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead"
https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/?f=flair_name:"Meme"
 



@DarthOne , I am going to agree with @KilroywasNOTHere and @Sailor.X here. Seriously, disconnect from the internet for a while, go out there, and talk to other folks. I hate using the word "touch grass", but it's actually a good idea. This is the kind of slippery slope you do not want to go near.

I mean, going by this logic....is interracial marriage a BAD thing?? Cultures shouldn't interact at all? Good luck with that. Hell, maybe my German-American father shouldn't' have married my Korean mother in the first place, going by that logic.
 
My guess, Racial War became the new Holy War Caisis Bali. When religion fell out of favor, Divine right turned into Natural/Genetic right. Sub-Humans became the new heathens. For better or worse, peace is never going to happen until the final resurrection. I think the sniper from TF2 actually summed it up pretty well.

"As long as there's (at least) two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead"
https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/?f=flair_name:"Meme"
Mostly agree,with two differencies - people who belong to the same culture could live in peace in one country,and country with various cultures could made lasting peace,too.
Unless one side belive in Koran.

P.S It is Casus Belli,here:
But,i made mistakes too,i once though that it is Casius Belli !
 
My conspiracy theory is that race was invented by left-leaning liberal elites as another means of divide and conquer. I'm sure if you did even some cursory research into Nazism and ethno-nationalism you'll find strands of western liberalism tying it all together
"Left leaning" is probably to strong a term, since racial theory more or less evolved at the same time the modern left/right divide started and thus putting its origins into such terms doesn't exactly work.

Modern race theory goes back to the mid-19th century, and was heavily inspired by materialism and Darwinism. It saw widespread adoption by the Democratic Party of the time as justification for Jim Crow and the earlier status of slavery, and was backed by many elite academics. It was primarily opposed by what would become fundamentalist Christian religious groups in the early 20th century, and because of that opposition to it was swiftly marginalized in elite circles when the Modernist/Fundamentalist schism occurred in the American academy. This is also when and why eugenics became popular among elite circles and saw the founding of multiple explicitly eugenics organizations most famously Planned Parenthood. And yes, the adoption by the Democrats of the late 19th century up until WW2 was VERY much based on keeping their power. They wanted to keep the poor white and poor black votes separate in the South, and used racial hierarchy to do so by making it so that poor white southerners had somebody to "look down" on and see as lesser while also creating solidarity with the white Democrat elites of the south. This worked quite well until the Southern states began to economically recover from the Civil War and the resulting growth of the Middle Class, which was much less bought into this racial hierarchy and had enough money and opportunity to notice how the Democrat's policies harmed them and their interests and so were willing to vote for Republicans (for instance, Jim Crow actively harmed middle class storekeepers and it added pointless overhead for segregated areas, to say nothing of the more common tax and spend policies of the Dems).

It was not until WW2 and the atrocities that the Nazis and Japanese pursued out of their racial elitist attitudes that these views lost favor among the western elites. In fact, WW2 so traumatized the west in regards to race, that in many respects we OVER corrected, going from extreme race "realism" (to the point where race was considered more defining of a person's character than their own actions, hence the line in MLK's "I have a dream" speech) to extreme social constructionism that denied ANYTHING but superficial differences based on ethnicity.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top