Invalidating White People involves an oft-propagated theme that Whites have no culture. Ironically, this fallacy is disseminated via White man’s technology by people of colour who’ve blown a lung to enter White countries. Demoralized Whites are expressing this narrative about themselves in ritual self-denunciation. A video of a young English lad we caught on X articulates the point. Shared among users of the TikTok platform, shows the lad expressing his disgust of fellow Whites to a black man—the channel’s owner—hustling testimonials from self-loathing Whites.
The lad—best described as a “yob”— addresses the camera and declares, “British people do not have culture. They are uncultured. They just stole from the entire globe (sic). They are essentially racist people because we stole from the entire planet. Our national dish is chicken tikka masala, what the f*** is that about? We have about as much culture as a bit of pavement painted over with horse shit.”
The lad has failed to examine the validity of the proposition he treasonously offers the delighted West African interviewer he wants to impress. For the most part, he says “they” and not “we,” as if divorcing himself from his people. The fact that the black has no culture either—and that neither understands what the other means by culture—makes the testimony all the more infuriating. Behaving like a dancing monkey for this racist interloper adds to his contemptibility.
For starters, chicken tikka masala is English. Sure, its cooks and spices came from India, but they created the dishes for the English palate. They are English. But the lad’s statement, apart from not understanding foreign dishes—such as Western Chinese cuisine—also presumes to speak on behalf of all White Britons. Seemingly, he excludes the tastes of the black man to whom he is genuflecting, who, along with others of his dusky race, likely prefers fried chicken.
So, who is the “we” he finally speaks of? His fellow yobs from the council estate? His knowledge is limited so it follows that his life experience outside of his borough is too. To be fair, he is hardly alone in trying to crack the nut of culture, and what it means. And that’s because he lives in a period removed from when such culture was more recognisable.
He easily looks at primitive peoples—those few who still exist in Africa, who inhabit the Amazon, New Guinea, and the Aborigines who cling to their customs in Australia—and sees “culture.” That’s because those he covets are hermetically sealed in the era of hunting and gathering which they never evolved from. It is so radically different to the modern world that the first reaction of these ‘cultureless’ so-and-sos is to identify it as legitimate “culture.” And in this competition for an identity, they have no colourful feathers or repetitive chanting ceremonies equal to the task. There is a good reason for this—they have moved on from hunting and gathering.
One might understand culture as relative to the different phases in the development of civilised man. Yet, each shares a commonality of origins despite disparate shades. Who could dispute the magnificence of the bronze and iron age Celts and Saxons? Archaeology gifted us with such rich offerings from the past as the relics of the Neolithic settlement at Skara Brae in the Orkney Islands of Scotland. Within those diggings was evidence of people with culture—with style. Adornments and instruments—their proud stone possessions—were in place from the time of their abandonment at around 3000 BC to when a raging storm uncovered them in 1850.
How about Stonehenge? Celtic treasures? Which lacks magnificence? The Witham Shield? The Pony Armour? The Cultwagon of Strettweg? The Rune Stones? The Sutton Hoo treasures of a distant East Anglian king, Raedwald, including his ceremonial helmet? The Book of Kells? The Bayeux Tapestry? Do we dismiss Shakespeare as a hack? Chaucer? Are Turner’s paintings primitive scribblings? Perhaps Coleridge’s verse? Charles Dickens’s works? Oscar Wilde’s plays? Heroes that survive to this day—Sherlock Holmes to James Bond—are these not reflections of a strong ‘culture’?
History provides too many relics of the ancestors of those from the British Isles—including Scotland and Ireland—to allow such ignorance to go unchecked. What other race is so willing to sacrifice itself and its countries to aliens who hate them? How can they decry ‘colonialism’ without realising those strange races judging them are the new colonists? The wave of human molasses that’s rolling over England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales is not enough to awaken them.
Nevertheless, none of this adds to understanding how culture came, or comes about. Culture requires shared language, customs, myths, religion, and folklore. However, the factors governing culture are more pertinent to how we live and work. Those are ever-changing. If we feel as if we have lost a national ‘culture,’ this is because those aged in their 40s and under have never known the like. At least, not as “culture” is explained to them. It’s not a racial failing as it affects everyone. To comprehend the present void, we must recognise how the world has changed since the time of Raedwald and Shakespeare.
Overlooking the hunting and gathering stage of our evolution, which many primitive peoples are so admired for clinging to, the agrarian age of kings determined early English “culture.” The kingdoms, before and after unification, decided how the Angles, Saxons, Picts, Scots and Britons lived. It is noteworthy too, that when the people united under one monarch, England gave the world its first nation-state. That was an accomplishment of ‘culture’ if ever there was one.
In those boroughs, the family worked the land, shared chores, and prayed together. Life concentrated on the farm, and the most extraordinary excursion was to the village. In times of leisure the family—more so than the village—engaged in folk songs, and story-telling, while eating and drinking the products of their labour. The knitting and carpentry that clothed the family and furnished its home were products of its culture—its industry. Their world was the land they farmed and the village they often spent days travelling to where they bought and sold goods. Any imagination beyond those parameters was God’s business. The culture of the agrarian family, and the clans who fished the coastal regions, therefore, differed from that of the King, and those noblemen of his court. They diverged from the learned monks who were the custodians of knowledge. What then was English culture? It was a diversity of cultures, but each English. The industrial revolution changed that.
A self-reliant family unit migrated from farms to towns and thence cities. The home and workplace ceased to be the same. Thereafter, the mining pit and factory replaced the farm and the family changed how it was organized. Children were once incorporated into the family enterprise. With industrialisation, they joined the industrial organisation. This new social organization split the family. Their lives, once governed by the rising of the sun and the turn of the seasons, were measured by the clock. Where once they were born, lived, and worked in the family unit, they now travelled to find work. The family shrank; the workforce grew. The factory chimney substituted for the cottage’s hearth.
That revolution in how society organized altered the family unit and therefore the community. The culture reoriented to the new routine, the revised structure of the family, and how the family interrelated with the community. The family was smaller, the community bigger, and the nation spread from its shores. Where once the family consumed what it produced, its members now worked individually to earn so that it could buy that which it consumed. Where once the family cultivated and grew to sustain its existence, farming became an industry unto itself, and its produce a commodity. The sun had set on the agricultural era aggregating the once-dispersed lives of the islanders. National economic organization absorbed the self-sustaining family unit and it separated from the land. Industrialism led to imperialism and national conquests changed the culture.
The machine age arrived and with it, the mechanization of the people. Efficiency supplanted pace. The Englander expanded beyond his island shores with the power to conquer less organized societies many leagues from his place of berth. One might venture this was cultural strength.
Here we find that the advancements altered the English culture in other ways, yet all down to the power of invention. Able to project himself across the seas, his ability to trade and plunder wrote a new cultural code: a seafaring tradition for one, but also the trades that attended the building of ships. What the sailor discovered and brought back to his island home became as British as the men who trafficked it. A mercantile class used the lower classes to occupy lands wealthy in resources.
Aside from a few keen business-minded scoundrels, the lower classes were never the beneficiary of any looting. They were as much slaves of the imperial systems as those Indians, Chinese and others under the thrall of the Union Jack. The men of the military might have been kidnapped off the streets, and forced into service.
Nevertheless, tea, imported from India, was so important to English life its cultural significance attained relevance in the pleasing ritual of ‘afternoon tea.’ Just because the tea originated elsewhere did not nullify its assimilation and rebirth as property of ‘English’ culture. The same could be said about the sugar that sweetened the tea. Likewise, curry and its defining spices are not without ‘Englishness’ despite syllogistic arguments contrariwise. Chicken Chow Mein is no more Chinese than Yorkshire Pudding. The ability to source these cultural enrichments engendered a culture unto itself. The idea that ‘culture’ owes purely from the point of origin of its ingredients is a dull argument.
Industrialism synchronised the family, the nation and its culture. In this new national machine of industry, the working life dictated a new cultural mode. Communities in the towns and cities surrounding the new employers established the culture of their industrialized lives. Families interacted differently. Entertainment, religious observance, and the gathering of provisions, all became aspects of a centralized culture. Story-telling by the fireside moved to the theatre and vaudeville. The tavern was a community beacon. Where once the womenfolk sewed the garments, the family outfitted itself from merchants, and, if money permitted, the tailor. Whatever uniformity arose from the massification of the people constituted a cultural shift.
In much of this essay, we have adopted the vantage point of the poorer classes where ‘low culture,’ resided. We have overlooked the higher culture, but that’s because the lower classes and their culture—while less glamorous—yields stronger accessibility to the recognition of nationality as the majority of us identify with their experience. However, we gravitate to the cultural distinctiveness of the British aristocracy, to royalty, especially in its historical guise, being most prominent in art and literature. After all, England was stratified by class. The top tier is more emblematic, tantalising our aspirations.
But if technological advancement shook both cultural levels, it altered the cultural fabric of the nation. In doing so, the gap dividing the classes decreased, if for the time being only in an informational sense. Trains connected the provinces with the city centre, the steamship with distant shores, and the telephone reduced the distance of communication, formerly traversed by the dedicated mail system that took months, to a matter of seconds. Whereas the higher caste was less enamoured of the new inventions the lower classes seized on them instantly.
The cinema, disdained as lowbrow by the ruling class, appealed to their subordinates. This easier attraction to the less atavistic modes of society mounted the worker in the driver’s seat of the new technologies, advancing them into a higher economic placement, and empowering them with their mastering. By this we mean, they became the mechanics, the installers of the telephone, and artisans of the appurtenances of the shift that augured in novel cultural revolutions. Those modernizations instituted rapid changes that shifted with the advancement of the technologies that brought them. The British family once gathered around the wireless after their evening meal. It was a shared experience. The workplace, social and economic organisation, and technological advancement—all converged to determine British culture. Two world wars levelled the class pitch. Britain lost world dominance. Its empire broke apart.
Nevertheless, the thoroughfare of advancement did not cease. The War advanced technology faster. Television arrived, altering the family unit and its interactions. But the family was losing relevance with the march towards individuality and personal freedom. If the family followed the ritual of gathering around the wireless; to watch the television together; video and cable TV broke that apart. But the changes in work culture also became manifest as “mass production” was replaced by new manufacturing practises commensurate with the changed consumeristic and industrial patterns where the nine-to-five workday ceased to be the norm.
Industry and labour determined the culture: factory workers developed a culture to satisfy their needs. Perhaps it was the after-whistle drinks, or meeting at the football ground for the weekend match, culture followed the form of the social organisation which operated on high. The wireless, the television, and the bingo hall were all cultures regardless of how we rate their quality. But as the industrial age faded, we confront the challenges of the digital age that the lad we began the essay with is so confused by. Work time is no longer standardized, and neither is society.
The information age has supplanted all that the preceding phases of humanity took for granted. While we may have shifted from ‘mass marketing,’ everything is in the mass. The mass dictates in de-massified channels but it achieves its ends nonetheless. However, powerful forces with economic clout are pressuring social change. They are altering the fabric of the nation-state and attacking cultural identity. But more than that—they attack biological identity.
Simple definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are up for grabs, new technologies are ubiquitous, and distinctive culture is quaint. The mental association we have with nationalities are patent; they do not reflect their globalist losses. The world is what we connect to online.
Our culture is corporate branding, even in those nations that are still permitted the dignity of being recognised as possessing culture. The lad so confused by ‘culture’ has entertained an online culture that indicted him by a culture of ‘replacement.’ He has culture swirling around his head but he can’t identify it because it doesn’t have primitive motifs and isn’t pretty. But it’s a culture in its raw, mainline feel. He engages in it without realising it is both his and his black idol’s culture.
England has a police culture. It has a culture of hierarchical victimhood, and curiously, police are statistically counted as a large percentage of victims; having reported themselves thus. England has engendered a culture of self-abasement among its indigenous population that this foolish lad expresses. England’s culture is self-erasure; historic and cultural revisions that promote those non-indigenous to the island. The black man is told he has culture yet he doesn’t demonstrate anything higher than what the rest of England engages in.
England’s culture in its mainstream, lower-class form is shared online in pidgin English imported from West Africans and Pakistanis. It is a raunch culture derived from nihilism; fast food, alcohol, cocaine and designer drugs. The lad’s culture is music without melody but pulsating with aggressive bass and drums—a negrofied lyricist pounding rhymes that our lad imagines are irrefutable proof of black culture.
Indeed, that’s probably his sole determiner of culture. Even there he is conned. Is rhyming even black? Our self-despising White lad might be shocked to discover that rap is among a list of non-black inventions—it has historically White antecedents. Rapping originated in English literature and is found in Beowulf and Shakespeare.
‘Flyting’ was a form of rhyming insult where two gents exchanged barbs much along the lines of today’s ‘rap battles.’ These were often competitions at court between two courtiers seeking to enhance their profiles. Colourful verse laden with insult was good-naturedly traded back and forth. Whether an argument over ‘invention’ might teeter and totter according to one’s bias, the fact is that it was done before.
Similarly, the black man never invented the guitar—that was a German, Christian Frederick Maritn—but he made good music with it. Are we going to accuse him of ‘cultural appropriation,’ an expression favoured by radicalised blacks? Rather, they accuse ‘White’ people of stealing it from blacks. While Chuck Berry devised the raunch of the 4/4 rhythm early folk singers already played that musical phraseology, only minus the conspicuous libido.
Finally, while the English undoubtedly ‘plundered’ resources their presence industrialised the hitherto stagnant societies of the East, allowing them to grow to their present economic strength. The gripe against ‘imperialism’ occludes the benefits imparted—such as elevating them to equal terms. No ‘debt’ moral or otherwise exists to the coloured peoples of the Mid and Far-East and yet self-loathing is enculturated in Whites like this lad. But he will hardly receive an education that instructs him otherwise.
Culture, as we have seen, is determined by the economic realities of social organisation. Traditional culture is those quaint gifts from the past that we must preserve as they provide the time key to our identity. Little wonder then that this key has been deliberately hidden. However, it is still there, and the lad could find it any time he cared.
His culture is alive in folk songs, and in villages that still observe traditional practices. He needs only to switch off his computer and walk to a library, assuming it is not hosting a ‘drag queen’ story hour. There he will find his history, unadulterated by the globalists. ■