When I first started blogging, I thought the threat to European survival was Islam. And I thought the problem was that Muslims didn't accept our values. It's clear that many people whose views have been shaped by the Counterjihad (or Counterjewhad) movement still subscribe to this view.
Psychologically, it's clearly easier for people to shift to this position from an establishment-approved mode of thinking because it requires a shift of only one gradation. You accept racism and antisemitism are bad; you accept that our peoplehood can be reduced to a set of values and an administrative status called citizenship; you just say Islam doesn't fit in with all of this. Undoubtedly, you will encounter some flak for your opposition to Islam, but you can comfort yourself with the thought that you're basically a good person who thinks all the right things; your accusers just don't know enough about Islam, and, if they did, they would be on your side.
Over the years, I've come to have a deeper appreciation of the manifold threats we face, their origins and their nature. And one of the things I've come to understand is that the identity of a people cannot be reduced to a set of abstract values or indeed "a culture". Culture, as understood by our rulers, is something like a hat that anyone can pick up and put on. In this view, culture and genes are completely unconnected. I have come to understand, on the contrary, that every people is a unique ethno-cultural construct. Our culture rests upon a genetic substrate. A culture that could flourish with one set of genetic characteristics in the population would be unviable with another. Culture shapes our DNA and the genetic changes it sets in motion make certain cultural strategies feasible or not feasible.
Since this is a bit abstract, I want to walk through some examples of how the interaction between culture and genes operates.
First, let's define some terms I'll use. "Reproductive success" means the number of surviving offspring a person leaves behind. "Eugenically favoured" means genetically coded characteristics that lead to above-average reproductive success. Since children inherit their characteristics from their parents, and reproductively successful people - by definition - have more surviving children than average, it follows that those characteristics will become slightly more widespread in each generation. "Eugenically disfavoured" means the opposite of this: the characteristics will become slightly less widespread in each generation.
The Equality Cult dogma - that any substantial group of people has the same genetic potential as any other substantial group of people - requires that reproductive success be random, since no other condition could produce that result. But reproductive success is not random. Sociological studies, even today, clearly establish that people with certain characteristics leave more surviving offspring than people with other characteristics. Various such patterns exist. As an aside, one interesting pattern is that people with strong magical belief systems (faith) tend to leave behind more children than others.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will highlight only one pattern however: that males with high social status enjoy greater reproductive success than lower status males. There are various ways this pattern could come to exist. Wealth and status often go together. Men could seek to marry off their daughters to other wealthy or high-status men. Women could genuinely be more attracted to them. I don't intend to explore this issue here because, for our purposes, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the association between high social status and reproductive success exists, at least for men.
But what determines social status? What determines social status is culturally dependent. One culture might value sword-fighting ability. Another might value religious scholarship. In each case, males with the genetically-coded characteristics that lead to success in the culturally-approved activity will find mates more readily than other males; they will therefore produce more offspring; and they will be able to take better care of their offspring with the power and wealth their status gives them. It follows then that their genetic characteristics - the same characteristics that led them to achieve high social status - will become slightly more widespread in each generation.
The process described here - the differential assignment of social status through culture and the systematic association of status with reproductive success - is the basic mechanism through which one people comes to diverge genetically from another. Whatever the people values comes to be embodied in its DNA. Our genetic makeup is, in effect, a shrine to the culture of our ancestors. For this reason, immigration-driven genetic change in the population on the scale Europe is experiencing it currently would always be a form of genocide, even if the immigrants kept their heads down, paid their taxes on time and didn't try to blow us up. Something intangible and irreplaceable - the indefinable essence of our ancestors - would be lost nonetheless.
All large populations probably exhibit the full range of human characteristics. But the balance of those characteristics has been altered by adaptation to the circumstances of the physical environment as well eugenic stimuli from the man-made environment of culture.
Let's say one people with a culture that valued sword-fighting ability were called the Romans. Men with high sword-fighting abilities would be the "cool guys" that other men admired and wanted to emulate; and that women wanted to marry. Sword-fighting genes would be eugenically favoured. In each generation there would be a slightly higher proportion of good sword fighters than in the previous generation. Let's the global average of "good sword fighter" genes in any population is 1%. Assume that after a few centuries of practising their culture, the Romans had raised the proportion of good sword fighters in their population to 2% or 3%. Then they get into a war with another tribe. When a tribe with 3% good sword fighters meets a tribe with only 1% good sword fighters there is only likely to be one winner. The Romans get some new territory and see that war and conquest can be a productive cultural strategy for them. So they continue it.
Let's say some other tribe observed the success the Romans were having with their cultural strategy of conquest and decided they wanted to try it too. So they decide to attack their neighbours. But the attacking tribe hasn't had a martial culture valorising swordsmanship for centuries. Sword fighters have not been eugenically favoured so the proportion of really good sword fighters in their population is still only the global average of 1%. If they encounter another average tribe with 1% of really good sword fighters, it will be 50/50 whether they succeed or fail. Even if they get lucky the first time, their luck won't continue. Their genetic substrate cannot support the cultural strategy of conquest for very long. Only the Romans' can.
Culture shapes the genetic make-up of the population by altering the balance of characteristics present within it. In turn, these genetic changes then potentiate certain cultural choices and strategies that would otherwise have been unviable. So culture and genes continually interact and influence one another. The dogma of the Equality Cult - that culture and genes are disconnected - is false.