A Theory of Culturalism

Politics is downstream from culture, and therefore culture is everything. At least, culture is everything if you happen to have a culture which worships physical dominance hierarchies — as practically every culture on earth does at the moment.

But where does culture spring from? Why are there so many disparate and even antithetical cultures scattered around the globe? Various scientists and philosophers have examined maps of the world’s cultures and religions and remarked that the distribution of activities from one place to another is in no way an accurate representation of how the truth should actually spread.

If a culture hits on a practice or tradition which is morally or scientifically true, then all things being equal, we should expect that practice to facilitate first the economic success, then the population expansion of that culture, followed perhaps by the adoption of that practice by other cultures.

There are a few moral truths which the West hit upon in centuries past which have made it the most successful culture in the history of the world.

  1. Do not initiate the use of violence (N.A.P.)
  2. Keep your word (contract law)
  3. We could add the free market, although it is simply the logical economic conclusion of numbers 1 & 2

So to answer an earlier question, culture springs from the minds of human beings. But that’s just the spring board from which it emanates. To really establish itself and become the primary dominant narrative in a given geographical area, the springs must first be loaded over successive generations. So much so in fact, that the majority of the adherents to said collection of primary cultural behaviors will sometimes no longer consciously know why they engage in those behaviors.

Male infant genital mutilation is a perfect example of this. The vast majority of parents in the West who perform this barbaric ritual on their little boys haven’t the slightest clue why it’s done.

Parenting must therefore be viewed as both the spade that plants the seed, and the watering can that galvanizes the growth of all human culture. A child’s familial culture, applied on a wide enough scale, is the ultimate destiny for the society in which he lives.

So why are there so many disparate cultures around the world?

The answer is parenting.

Parenting styles are different everywhere. But even that begs the question. Why are parenting styles different everywhere? The answer stems from climate/geography and availability of food/shelter. Another question begs. What is it about different climates which produces different parenting styles?

If you really think about it, you can probably figure this out on your own.

What is the most malleable and adaptable organ in the human body? Which organ in the human body would have selection pressures exerted upon it most readily and to the most widespread effect?

The answer is the human brain.

Different parenting styles exist in essence because people around the world have fundamentally different brains from culture to culture.

More specifically, different parenting styles exist in essence because people around the world differ in their capacity for human intelligence.

Different brains — meaning drastically different environmental pressures between cultures, equates to different physical practices and obligations which confer survival, equates to the evolution of varied intellectual needs, equates to the pursuit of varied intellectual endeavors which confer survival, equates to varied cranial capacity, equates to varied intellectual capacity, equates to drastically varied IQ from culture to culture.

It’s important to note that lower intelligence is not necessarily a negative. To say that it is would be to say that all lower intelligence humans are violent or untrustworthy, which is obviously untrue. Instead, IQ and intellectual capacities are merely genetic adaptations to prolonged local environmental circumstances.

Approximately 80% of IQ is genetically determined.

But human intelligence is a fundamental determinant of economic success in a 1st world technological culture. You can’t take parents out of Equatorial Guinea and expect them to adapt to parenting or economic norms in Pittsburgh, PA. It simply doesn’t work, and, in reality, those parents from Equatorial Guinea — on a genetic level — were never meant to even leave their immediate geographical area, as were the parents from Pittsburgh — although we’ve invented transcontinental flight.

But the fact that humans experience such a large diversity in IQ is precisely why we need the free market, especially in more technologically advanced societies.

Individuals who happen to be lower on the IQ distribution – by virtue of being less able to navigate and understand social/economic cues – require the feedback immediacy of the free market in order to be able to make progressively better decisions.

Absent this, and in the presence of welfare programs — which we’ll discuss later — individuals on the lowest wrung of the IQ distribution will never attain anything resembling economic or social success.

But, in actuality, it’s worse than that. Not only will social and economic success wane in lower IQ individuals in the presence of free resources/welfare, psychological well-being is all but guaranteed to be deemed absent as well.

When you suppress reality in the form of indefinite welfare handouts, you crush not only the biological imperative – of men in particular – to compete and better themselves in the pursuit and acquisition of scarce resources, but you also deny the individual the opportunity to ever develop their faculties beyond a base level of existence.

Thus, you destroy their mecosystem. Rather, you eliminate the possibility of their mecosystem ever developing into something sustainable or worth saving.

So what is Culturalism? A Culturalist is;

A) Somebody who understands that the complexity of human biodiversity necessitates disparate or antithetical cultures never be FORCED to live in the same geographical area together.

B) Somebody who recognizes the fact that, although high IQ does not necessarily denote ‘good’ at the individual level, that the outcomes manifested by higher order abstract thinking societies may indeed produce cultural practices which not only scale more closely with empirical reality, thus improving the moral and economic character of a ‘people’, but may also be considered to be superior cultures for that same reason.

Examples of this would be;

  1. White Western Christians ending the practice of slavery worldwide/ throughout the British Empire.
  2. The first amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.
  3. The separation of Church from State
  4. The non initiation of force, or the principle of non aggression (N.A.P.)
  5. Vast improvements in maternal and post-natal health.
  6. Vast improvements in the treatment of young children. Ie: negotiation, positive attention, curiosity.

C) The corollary to ‘B’ is somebody who recognizes the fact that although low IQ does not necessarily denote ‘bad’ at the individual level, that the outcomes manifested by a near complete lack of higher order abstract thinking may indeed produce cultures or cultural practices which confer, at best, intellectual stagnation, and at worst, violent or barbaric environments which induce suffering upon the individuals who happen to be a part of that culture.

Examples of this would be;

  1. The practice of ‘Honor Killing’ in Central and South Asia, as well as the Middle East and North Africa.
  2. Witch hunts in Papua New Guinea, Gambia, India, and Saudi Arabia
  3. The practice of Sati by Hindus, whereby the wife of a deceased husband is compelled to throw herself on the pyre.
  4. Execution preceded by public torture (stoning) — usually of women — in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Iran, Nigeria.
  5. Infanticide in China as well as the Mesoamerican and South American cultures.
  6. Genital Mutilation of girls in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Genital mutilation of boys in Africa, the Middle East, U.S.A., Europe, Canada, and Australia.
  7. General and consistent abuse of children/keeping children ignorant.

D) Culturalists understand that parenting is the fundamental progenitor of human culture. Parental involvement or neglect in the life of the child is what creates the primary “mecosystem” within the mind of the child. The “mecosystem” constitutes the competing behaviors and ideologies which make up the personality of the child. As the new brain grows, it is constantly scanning the immediate environment for behavioral patterns and norms.

Those behaviors, words, sounds, emotions, facial expressions, movements, intonations, and eventually thoughts, beliefs, habits, systems, and routines, formulate what will become the child’s mecosystem and eventual family culture.

  • The degree to which the infant or child culture is homogeneous in terms of its composition/exposure of like/similar cues in the positive direction — see B) above — is the degree to which the mecosystem is synchronous with the environment and scales with objective reality, and intellectual growth can occur.
  • The degree to which the infant or child culture is heterogeneous in terms of its composition/exposure of unlike/dissimilar cues in the positive & negative direction — see B) & C) above — is the degree to which the mecosystem is asynchronous and in disharmony with the environment, and personal and intellectual growth stagnates as feelings of confusion or anger likely dominate the child’s mecosystem.
  • The degree to which the infant or child culture is heterogeneous in terms of its composition/exposure of unlike/dissimilar cues in the negative direction only — see C) above — is the degree to which the mecosystem may become irreparably damaged and can be considered to be in complete chaos with the environment, as personal and intellectual growth not only asymptotes near zero, but threatens the very existence/continuation of the primary parent culture.


Potential Areas of Conflict in Culturalism

Though I’ve laid out the proposition that certain cultures are in fact superior to others, this in no way presupposes physical dominance of one culture over another. Proponents of ethnic cleansing will not find any kind of support here, although I must clarify that there is nothing in principle wrong with the concept — or implementation — of an ethno-State.

If a primary culture in a given geographic area decides that a voluntary (or involuntary) experiment with immigration or multiculturalism has failed in terms of;

a) crime rates,

b) social trust,

c) or economic decay,

then they are either morally permitted, or morally obliged to begin removing said migrants from their geographical area in order to re-establish social norms, cohesion, and trust.

Ethno-States have been the norm throughout most of human history, only, ‘ethno-tribe’ is a more accurate terminology. We see the dramatic negative effects of heterogeneous culture in present day Sweden (2017). Though the Nordic countries were not without their problems prior to mass welfare migration, they were widely regarded as being among the most peaceful in the world and were certainly not bastions of rape and sexual assault.

Were it not for the Atlantic slave trade throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and the Immigration Act of 1965, America would also likely be a quasi ethno-State with a largely homogeneous population of Christian European inhabitants.

To be sure, we’re witnessing first hand the long term challenge and complexity of integrating a largely African population into a Western culture, as nearly 55% of the violent crime committed in America is perpetrated by 13% of the population – while the overwhelming majority of that 55% are at minimum, second or third generation American.

That being said, I will propose that although ethno-States are morally permissible, and in some cases morally desirable, they are not desirable in general. And, I say this knowing full well that heterogeneous multiculturalism will likely not only prove to be the nail in the coffin for the 20th century democratic welfare nation state, it is also currently threatening the existence of the Western world as we know it.

Ethno-States are not desirable in general due to the simple fact that cultural biodiversity scales the entire spectrum of human intelligence. Just as Srinivasa Ramanujan should have been fully accepted in British culture peri-WW1 — along with his wife — so too should thousands of other genius genetic anomalies that spring from the various corners of the globe.

Specifically, what I’m suggesting here is that the ‘tribe’ not merely be cosmetic. Some may also accuse Culturalism of being a reversion to paleo-tribalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As omnipresent technology/software continues to gain strength and eventually consume our systems of State and Law, ‘tribe’ will have next to nothing to do with cosmetics, and practically everything to do with character/mecosystem.

If you bring a mecosystem of positivity, productivity, intelligence, ingenuity, and morality to the table, you will literally have your choice of thousands if not millions of micro-States/city-States. This is where the concept of the ethno-State will likely dissolve, as individuals who seek to fly the perch of their lower order abstract thinking cultures are accepted wherever they demonstrate they can produce value, regardless of color.

Collections of individuals who happen to be permanently wedded to the idea of the ethno-State will thus suffer the absence of many thousands of individuals who do not share their cosmetics, but in many ways do share their mecosystem.

The Future of Culturalism

The theory of Culturalism is nowhere near complete. Here I will speak specifically of the West. Technology will generate entirely new ways of thinking about how we organize society, and it will reawaken many others temporarily lost to the savagery of relativism and ravages of time.

In general however, certain hidden moral revolutions will need to be applied in the coming decades if human culture is to attain it’s biological peak.

In the list above — see D) — we learned that the decisions of parents will circumscribe the limits of what a child may or may not achieve within his particular primary cultural framework.

Children are currently the only members of society in the West for whom it is not only legal, but morally permissible by the primary culture, to initiate the use of violence against. UNICEF has remarked that in parts of the 3rd world, child abuse in schools against boys approaches 100%, this same figure is approximately 20% for girls. In North America, despite the recommendations of child psychologists, some 70–90% of parents still slap or hit their children.

Thus, children do not legally carry the concept of ‘personhood’. In the West, infant male circumcision is easily added to the list of gross moral violations still perpetrated against young boys. It has become a truism among moral philosophers in the West that the primary culture has been usurped in some fundamental ways, by Marxists. Some six pillars of the Communist manifesto have already been established in the Western world.

The corollary to the previous point is that the unborn child, who’s heart beats and who’s brain fires, is also not legally recognized as a person.

As the aforementioned Marxists have undermined the common law of Western culture, the nihilism of the West predicted by Friedrich Nietzsche in the mid 19th century has in many ways come full circle.

That being said, if proponents of Western culture wish to improve upon the current (2017) primary culture and push back against the nihilism of Marxism, several adjustments will need to occur.

  • Full legal personhood must be granted to the fetal body. Voluntary abortion after the 5th week of conception must be recognized as child homicide. As the law will have to be amended to initiate this course of action, we could perhaps call the voluntary abortion of the fetus after the 5th week of conception, ‘2nd degree child homicide’. Societal wide conversations on the punishment of such an action should duly take place while we bear in mind that child homicide is treated as capital crime, punishable by death.
  • The law — or lack thereof — concerning the act of male genital mutilation (M.G.M.) must be amended and characterized as the indictable offence, ‘aggravated assault’ — the exact same as F.G.M. — the punishment for which has already been determined to be up to 14 years in prison.
  • The law — or lack thereof — concerning the spanking, hitting, or neglect of children must be amended and characterized in the same way as the law concerning elder abuse. See criminal code (s. 718.2(a)(i)) — in Canada. Although no specific crime of elder abuse currently exists, we will necessarily create one specific for children under the age of 12. Physical assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, neglect, unlawful confinement, failing to provide the necessaries of life, and theft, shall all be considered to be separate but serious offences of abuse wherever a child is found to be the victim. Each of those crimes will be treated with a heightened manner of severity as compared to those same crimes being applied to elder abuse.
  • Pertaining to ‘theft from children’ in #3. Since it is not immediately clear what this could mean given that children under the age of 12 do not in general own any kind of property, I will clarify that this be applicable to the entering of contracts while the contractee is legally, physically, or intellectually unable to voluntarily sign an agreement. This applies to deficit spending for infrastructure, social programs, and war, initiated by governments on behalf of adults who do not immediately have their taxes raised to pay for such endeavors. This automatically in-debts a generation of individuals not of age to legally enter into a contract. This is a heinous violation of property rights akin to looting a coma victim ten minutes after the car accident. Call it whatever you like, it’s fraud, extortion, or theft. Punishment for this crime will have to be determined at a later date, but only in such a circumstance as the culture refuses to separate the State from Economics.

Separation of State & Economics

Ever since the advent of the Federal Reserve in America in 1913, the welfare expansionist policies of FDR after WW2, and the decoupling of the dollar from gold in 1971, the State has repeatedly usurped and exerted greater amounts of control over the economy in the West.

We’ve now reached a point in America and Canada, where north of 50% of the people who seek employment must obtain a license/permission from the government in order to work, meaning of course that one must seek permission in order to feed oneself, or one’s family. Bear in mind that no politician would ever need a license to start wars, or tax a nation into slavery.

No, licenses are reserved for hairstylists.

Nowhere is this more dangerous than in the realm of finance. Government control over currency printing and interest rates – via the central bank – is not only a key part of the Communist platform, but it’s also the sole reason for the seemingly relentless ability of governments to wage perpetual war around the globe.

Government control over finance – and ultimately economics – is the sole way in which the State engages in inter-generational theft from children. To be clear, the government is not stealing things currently possessed by children, they’re stealing both purchasing power in the form of inflation — which devalues each dollar in existence — and taxable labor in the form of multi-trillion dollar deficits — which equates to indentured servitude — before the children are even born.

Marxists will claim they despise child labor, will they condemn fetal labor as well? What about sperm labor?

Clearly, this is a moral crime so egregious that it’s almost impossible to impose a penalty. To make someone a slave before they even exist is so unthinkable that we might wish to be made ignorant of this reality out of a genuine fear that the abyss of evil might peer too deeply into our soul.

Unfortunately, that is no longer an option. We must stand tall enough for the cause of separating the State from Economics, and make enough examples of politicians who refuse to acquiesce, that no one ever considers committing such an egregious act of inter-generational theft ever again.

Whether it’s life in prison, or the guillotine, the law must be amended so that no child is ever again born to the barbarity of unfunded debt servitude.


Marxist Eugenics

Cultural Marxism is the poison chalice the West has repeatedly failed to push away. It is perhaps more accurate to describe the cultural neutron bomb of Marxism as, ‘dysgenics’.

“Dysgenics is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species.”

What are the factors which produce dysgenics in Western culture?

In no particular order, they are:

  1. Public education
  2. Welfare
  3. Single motherhood/Feminism

Each of these will exert a variety of negative selection pressures on individuals at different points in their lives. Public education in the West is based on precursors to the Nazi Germany model, as all which was needed at that time were factory workers to operate machines.

This model has not changed in approximately 150 years.

It is thus useless in a first world economy, and more children than ever are finishing 14–16 years of government education with, at best, zero marketable skills, and at worst, manifest illiteracy.

Dysgenics may enter the picture when students fail to achieve any of the 3 factors which contribute to reaching the middle class, ie: finishing high school, not having children before marriage, and keeping your first job for at least 1 year.

As public education continues to crumble under the weight of bureaucratic and administrative largess, the quality of school and teacher diminishes year after year, with concomitant cost increases. The result is an extremely high rate of illiteracy among high school grads and drop-outs alike, and an inability to either generate productive economic/business ideas for oneself, or produce any kind of tangible value for any potential employer as well.

The end result of this is often poverty, depression, poor decision making, and financial insecurity, culminating in either the identification of an improper mate and the dysgenic reproduction of children to be raised in a dangerous or unsupported environment, thus repeating the entire cycle, or no mate at all.

To extend this point, the vast majority of individuals who attend institutions of ‘higher learning’ will now graduate less qualified for a job in the marketplace than when they first went in, the only difference being that they now carry $100,000 of debt. If you have graduated from a North American college or university with a degree in the arts, there is a very high probability that you are nothing other than a massive liability to any employer who actually builds value for the society in which he operates.

The same dysgenic process outlined above is arguably more true and more dangerous when applied to individuals in college or university. $100,000 of debt will compound any amount of stress, anxiety, or desperation — in comparison to a high school drop-out — to such a degree that decision making will likely be drastically worse off, and the individual in question will practically beg to be made a slave in order to eliminate the aforementioned debt load. In the event of any kind of economic dislocation, such fragile individuals would be wiped out — both financially and morally — thus severely affecting their ability to reproduce at all.

Welfare is another Marxist dysgenic program which affects millions of people in the West.

The effects of welfare are perhaps most visible in the blue state ghettos of NYC, Chicago, Detroit, & Baltimore.

It’s hard to imagine a program better designed to destroy a human beings’ genetics than welfare.

All living organisms have evolved physiological adaptations to resource scarcity. It is for this reason that the pets of obese people will generally become obese. It is also for this reason that a great number of lottery winners end up either dead or broke within a year or two of having won tens of million of dollars.

The vast majority of us are not genetically or psychologically equipped to handle abundance.

In evolution, the only individuals who achieved abundance were those who either earned it through hard work, or killed rivals and stole it. Since the welfare state is the antithesis of ‘earning’, and welfare recipients are not directly killing anybody to obtain their wealth, the question becomes; ‘what are the individual and societal effects of doling out resources to those to lazy to lift a finger to help themselves?’

In other words, what would happen if you took the laziest, shiftiest, most unproductive person in your tribe of fifty individuals, and you decided to rain resources upon them in an act of prostration and worship?

Well, they would become tyrannical, that’s what would happen. Furthermore, they would become completely and utterly dependent on handouts, forever.

This is how you create a permanent Marxist underclass. As large collections of individuals become abjectly economically dependent, the divide between rich and poor grows. And the more welfare, the larger the wedge. Eventually, the laziest among us begin to procreate with each other because free resources level up their sexual market value.

When generally unproductive individuals begin to procreate on a large enough scale, you give rise to generations of children who generally are;

A) The progeny of less intelligent people (IQ is 80% genetic)

B) The progeny of unproductive people who are comfortable with extortion (the moral equivalency of welfare)

C) Part of a permanent underclass which will not only seek to keep them ignorant, but dissuade or intimidate them from calling into question, or escaping their reality.

This assessment is nowhere near outside the realm of reality, and thus continues the cycle of Marxist welfare eugenics.

It is therefore imperative that we begin the process of divesting from welfare programs in the Western world, and instead rely on private charity to care for the radically small percentage of genuine deserving poor.

Feminism has metastasized part in parcel with the welfare state and single motherhood. Although the first wave of feminist ideology can be regarded as being a necessary step forward in the moral quality of Western culture, its orthogonal offspring — 2nd and 3rd wave feminism —should be treated with the same formulation of disgust we might reserve for homewreckers or abusive husbands.

The 1970’s saw the widespread implementation of ‘no fault divorce’. Prior to this, a spouse had to prove abuse or infidelity in order to be granted the right to exit a marriage. As second wave feminism continued to gain power throughout the 1970’s, women everywhere felt empowered to leave their husbands for no reason other than ‘dissatisfaction’, and go it alone thinking they were competent enough to manage a household, work, and raise children all at the same time. Hint: Dissatisfaction is a euphemism for, ‘blow up my family for no reason’.

The unfortunate biological and psychological reality of growing up without a father — especially for boys — is disastrous beyond comprehension. The research has repeatedly shown that between 60–80% of male murderers and rapists, are raised by a single mother.

This is a catastrophic statistic for any culture, movement, or ideology to have to contend with. It also explodes the ubiquitous ‘single mothers are heroes’ myth which pervades Western culture.

Boys raised without a father are not only more likely to exhibit antisocial disorders, but they’re also susceptible to anger, sleep deprivation, and lowered testosterone levels which can seriously harm medium or long term health outcomes. They’re also more likely to do poorly in school, use drugs, and be incarcerated or commit suicide.

As the human species is mammalian and K-selected – meaning high investment in offspring, (think wolves not rabbits) – we’re born wired with certain expectations and needs, the absence of which may function to seriously degrade our neurochemistry.

For girls, the absence of a father signals r-selection — meaning early menses, promiscuity, and a heightened risk for sexually transmitted disease.

This can be described as being the root of what people need to understand regarding the broad societal affects of Marxist doctrines. When you implement these ideas en masse —(welfare, single motherhood, public education) — you literally change human biochemistry for the worse. You can think of Marxist doctrine as broad spectrum psychopharmacology disseminated through the water supply. It will literally corrupt, and then destroy, everything and every person you have ever loved.

These are just some of the challenges the West will be forced to confront in the coming years.

It is my hope that young adults in the United States and Canada still possess the freedom of thought, depth of introspection, and courage of action which will be required if we’re to turn the mirror of culture on our elders, so that they might be made to face their unreflected vampirism. Yes, that’s correct, I said Baby Boomers are vampires.

Few generations have more to atone for than Baby Boomers in the West. When you’re handed freedom and prosperity, you have a moral duty to steward that freedom into the future, but the Boomer generation was never forced to fight for its survival. It is said that bad times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create bad times.

Unfortunately, the millennial generation are the brood of constitutionally weak men and women. If the saying is true — and it certainly appears to be — bad times lie ahead.

Let us resolve to not wait any longer. We must work to build the strength required to overcome such perilous circumstances. In doing so, we stamp the letters to posterity which promised we did absolutely everything in our power to pass down a culture of freedom, honor, and morality.


This theory of Culturalism is a case of parallel thinking with Mr. Florian Znaniecki, who penned the thesis “Cultural Reality” (1919). Any similarities are purely a matter of coincidence.