The different human populations of the world have much in common. We all breathe, eat, and sleep; we like to smile, laugh, and have fun; we enjoy the company of friends; we want to provide stability and security for ourselves and our loved ones.
          Yet, we are also different in many ways. Our cultures, ways of life, and nuances of interacting with other people can be quite different. What is regarded as standard interaction in some cultures may be seen as rude in one culture, and may be downright dangerous in another.


Biology and culture

          Our cultures are shaped by many factors: by natural environment, history, technology, the efforts of individuals, and by our biology.
          Studies of the different races show different common mental abilities between the races, from different levels of intelligence, to different types of intelligence.
          It therefore makes sense that a people with a high proportion of individuals with high intelligence will produce quite a different culture to that of a people with a high proportion of individuals with low intelligence.
          A people with a commonly higher aggressive and violent temperament will produce a different culture to that of a people with a commonly lower aggressive and violent temperament.
          A people with a commonly higher level of technical abilities will produce a different culture to that of a people with a commonly higher level of rhythmical musical abilities.
          Such differences help shape the intellectual and cultural output of a people. The type of people who make up a society make a big difference to what type of society is created. This is all part of the reason why significantly different races produce significantly different cultures.[1]

          As Louis R. Browning explains it:

          a particular population develops specific gene frequencies based on the selective pressure of the natural environment.  This specific genotype bestows upon this population particular abilities and preferences (extended phenotype) that cause the population to structure its environment in specific ways.  The preferences of the population and the actions it takes to modulate its environment are no more or no less than the entirety of that population's culture.  In other words, culture can be defined as the desire, and the attempt, to canalize an environment to suit the needs of a particular population's genetic structure.  Once the environment has been modified, it then exerts further selective pressure on the population, possibly increasing the frequency of particular genes that influence the extended phenotype of the population.  This, in turn, prompts the population to make further modifications to their environment (cultural expansion), which in turn feeds back once again, via selection, to the population's genes and the resultant extended phenotype.[2]

          Richard M. Restak, in his review of Promethean Fire: Reflections on the Origin of Mind by Charles J. Lumsden and Edward O. Wilson, says:

          On the one hand, ''the human genes affect the way the mind is formed - which stimuli are perceived and which are missed, how information is processed, the kinds of memories most easily recalled, the emotions they are most likely to evoke, and so forth.'' On the other hand, culture exerts an effect on the developing genes. As the mind develops along certain pathways, individuals ''adopt cultural choices that enable them to survive and reproduce more successfully.'' Over many generations the genes that contribute to those survival-favoring choices tend to increase in the population; ''hence culture affects genetic evolution, just as the genes affect cultural evolution.''[3]

          Another important factor in the type of society we create or achieve is that of social cohesiveness. Studies have confirmed that higher levels of homogeneity create higher levels of trust with societies.[4] A homogeneous nation, consisting of people from similar stock and culture, is far more likely to become a stable, friendly, and mutually helpful society compared to a polyglot nation comprised of different and conflicting ethnic groups.
          Just as family is an extension of the individual, so nation and people are an extension of family. This is why individuals feel more of a "community connection" in homogeneous societies. Innately connected to the biological impulse to reproduce - to continue the biological existence of one's self, family, and people - is the desire to "look after one's own", to prefer one's own people over that of "outsiders".[5]
          It is therefore quite natural for humans to want to congregate with, mate with, and live with people of their own kind.

          As Professor Andrew Fraser has stated:

          ...national unity demands a common vision of the kind of community citizens of that society want. This implies a relatively high degree of ethno-cultural homogeneity. It also means that there must be frank and open discussion of the extent to which any given group of potential migrants will contribute towards or threaten the maintenance of a cohesive social order.
          The natural tendency of people to prefer interaction with others like themselves fosters the creation of ethnic ghettoes and the practice of ethnic nepotism. Both are inimical to a sense of community with members of the host society. This requires consideration of the costs versus the benefits that can be expected from the migration into Australia of people from racial, ethnic, or religious groups likely to resist assimilation into the host society.[6]

          There is nothing wrong with individual people from foreign or "outsider" ethnicities and cultures - they can be just as good and nice as those from within a homogeneous culture. However, no matter how nice "outsider" individuals are as neighbours, workmates, or friends, they are not "us". When inhabitants of a country begin to feel like strangers in their own land, begin to feel like their nation is being overrun or swamped by outsiders, or begin to feel like second-class citizens in their own country, then problems will begin; when a people feels that their nation and culture are under threat, they will act to protect their national identity, for the sake of themselves, their future offspring, and their people. Once large numbers of outsiders begin to grow and congregate within a host nation, then conflicts will inevitably arise.
          Ethnic minorities, once they reach a certain size, or "critical mass", will become emboldened by their larger numbers and corresponding growth of power, and will thus seek to heighten their influence, and will demand changes to the host society. The host population will react adversely to having their culture changed or destroyed in favour of outsider or foreign influences.

          Multiculturalist strategists have realised that changes may be effectively brought about upon a host population by a methodology of gradualism, with changes being made slowly, using "thin edge of the wedge" policies, so that most people in society are generally not aware that their culture is being destroyed. These changes may be further enabled by ideological propaganda in the media and schools that pushes "the advantages of diversity" and promotes a guilt complex in the host population by concentrating on perceived "wrongs" in that society, whether present or past, thus destroying pride in their own culture and history - and therefore inducing, in many of the host population, a "death wish" for national suicide and their own demographic genocide, especially amongst impressionable youth.[7]
          Whilst all societies and cultures are bound to change over time, such natural slowly evolving changes are quite different to change by conquest, whether by war or immigration. Demographic colonisation of a nation by outsider populations entail quite a different set of changes as compared to general cultural development.
          Large-scale immigration of racially and culturally different population groups will inevitably lead to changes in a nation's culture, even if some of these changes are considered to be unwanted by the general population. If such changes are imposed upon the host population by the policies and actions of a governing "elite" who have an agenda and outlook that is different to that of the ordinary people, then the host population will truly have become a "dispossessed majority".

          As Perry Lorenz has quite rightly stated:

          I am standing on higher moral ground when I argue that every race, every nation, and every ethnic group has the right to survive. Every ethnic group that considers itself a nation of people has the right to self-determination, on their own land, with secure borders. … the vast majority of people all over the world oppose the racial transformation of their societies. … the contrary view is held by only a small group of multiculturalist dissenters. But they are powerful, they dominate the media and they don't like to debate this issue.[8]

          The only way for the European nations to survive is to implement policies to protect their unique peoples and cultures, and to stop immigration from Third World countries. As Professor Geoffrey Blainey has said:

          I think all peoples are worthy and all peoples are equal. But I don't take the next step of saying that we should therefore take in peoples from all over the world. Intelligent discrimination is almost the essence of civilisation ... Discrimination is a normal thing as long as it is done courteously and sensibly.[9]