The Impact Of Mainstream Cultural Markers Is Colossal

The Mainstream Cultural Markers

I was reading an Amren article and it really solidified the fact of something I’ve been thinking heavily about recently. In the article, they found:

U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%

Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013. The current figure marks a new high in Gallup’s trend, which spans more than six decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.

The latest figure is from a Gallup poll conducted July 6-21. Shifts in the 63-year-old trend represent one of the largest transformations in public opinion in Gallup’s history — beginning at a time when interracial marriage was nearly universally opposed and continuing to its nearly universal approval today.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage nationwide in the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. A year after that decision, Gallup found support for the practice increasing, but still only a small minority of 20% approved.

Approval of interracial marriage continued to grow in the U.S. in periodic readings Gallup took over the following decades, finally reaching majority level in 1997, when support jumped from 48% to 64%. Support has increased in subsequent measures, surpassing 70% in 2003, 80% in 2011 and 90% in the current reading.

Even though polls like these are likely heavily biased, improperly sampled, and not an accurate representation, I am certain that the trend-lines are at least correct (majority opposition to majority approval). You can see this by just walking outside and chatting with people. It’s not a hard fact to stumble upon.

But miscegenation itself is not the topic of this article. The cultural markers (institutions) are.

A common mistake on the Right that I see is people thinking of the culture solely as the genetic expression of the people. As just a compilation of all of the people of the nation. But that is a mistake. Culture is the purest expression of the soul of a people. It is the demonstration of their everything.

Which means there is certainly a genetic component, yes. But like most things in life, it is not settled solely by genetics, but also by environment. For this reason, culture is a mixture of the genetics and the environment of the people. Not just genetic as the Right prefers to argue, nor as just environmental, as the left prefers to argue. It’s both.

Which is why great cultures and civilizations had healthy genetics around healthy environments.

A big factor in determining this environment is the institutions.

The cultural markers control it in two ways: 1) by aiding in the alteration of the genetic population (immigration, birth rates, etc) thereby throwing off the first component and 2) by manipulating and influencing the environment to their preferred environment, encouraging a transition from the original.

Some people resist, but over time the institutions are too powerful. Some won’t be swayed by the institutions, but most will (to varying extents). The Marxists were not right about much, but the cultural Marxists nailed this observation on the dot. It’s why they are winning. It’s why the culture is moving in that direction while we can barely create an opposition. They own the institutions because we didn’t value them. We thought it was only genetic.

The cultural markers are incredibly powerful in altering the cultural positions of the inter-nation population. Mostly those of the grey masses, but those are important for societal cohesion nonetheless.

If the majority (the masses) dislike something and then just sixty-ish years later almost everyone universally likes something, it is not a genetic change. Our population did not change genetically from 94% to 4% in that timeframe. But our environment, built by the institutions, did.

What this article is showing at its root is far more impactful than just the opinions on miscegenation. Instead, it is showing how the cultural markers (owned by the cultural Marxists) have completely forced a cultural revolution on a historically-resistant genetic population by solely altering their environment. They changed the people themselves. Thereby altering their spiritual expression.

That is the level of power they have. Which is why they can’t be allowed to have that power if we are seeking a sustainable alternative for a new government.

Either you control those institutions or they do. Right now, they do. Facing this reality is sad but it is a reality nonetheless.

The cultural institutions are more powerful over the long-term than nearly anything else in a society (political, intellectual, or financial), because they can change the very expression, beliefs, behaviors, traditions, and heritage of the population they seek to overwhelm.

Out of the four centralizer groups, I fear them the most. Because while the others can conquer and dominate us, the only one that can truly destroy the very soul of our nation is the SCM.

Read Next:

The Reason For Enclavism

The Big Three Economic Systems

Video: Cultural Decentralization Versus Cultural Control

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!