Is the destruction and annihilation of culture in the US inevitable?

[Mopsus]

No, because there's no such thing as a culture-less society. What you're describing is the destruction and annihilation of all cultures that aren't "eclectic SWPL-ism", and I verily doubt that that will ever happen.

[Mopsus]

First I thought BRTD was talking about the collapse of White "ethnic" culture into a general or regional (White) American identity, and I was like "okay that's a interesting discussion", then I found out he was talking about a general collapse of a collective American cultural identity and tradition, and my opinion changed to "that's the stupidest thing I have heard this month".

No BRTD the collective culture is not becoming annihilated, in fact the creation of mass media and standardised education have resulted in it becoming less heterogene. A author archetypes can through mass education become universal among a population, while mass media have allowed the spread of things like Black Friday or St. Patricks day.

That's kind of point. Mass media means people are no longer locked into a culture they are born into. They're free to select and associate with aspects of others they want to and simply choose whatever they like best. Your heritage becomes a non-factor.

To incorporate aspects of other cultures into your identity, you'll need more familiarity with them than reading a Wikipedia article can give you (otherwise, your incorporation will be half-whole at best, mere exoticization at worst). Getting the right familiarity is a challenge when you were neither raised in the tradition, nor have access to those communities where the tradition is practiced.

[Mopsus]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

[Mopsus]

You can never step into the same river twice. The universe is in a constant state of flux. People are born and die and birth is death and a circle is the same on the way up and the way down. Culture is always being annihilated and coming into being.

But is any of that actually consistent with reality?

For something to change it must become something it is not. All things are being. And to become something else it must be acted on by something other than being. The opposite of being is nonbeing, which doesn't exist. Therefore, change is impossible.

But change is possible. We can see it. Perhaps the culture is not being annihilated but merely changing, that is, retaining some aspects of its character while losing and gaining others? Perhaps the culture both exists as an entity in its current state whilst maintaining the potential to become something else later? The culture is always changing, yet there are also things that do not change.

The real question is not whether or not it will change but what it will change into. You can go out and design an anti-culture for whatever it is you believe the culture should not be like, and adopt it. But if you succeed it merely becomes your new culture. The initial adoption of a radical idea succeeds not when its proponents are on the forefront of social change but when its proponents have become conservative because they want to maintain the status quo. The reason why they want to maintain the status quo is because they have won. Change for its own sake without a vision is like getting in the car and driving wherever you feel without a destination in mind.

If, somehow, you did manage to create a world with no culture whatsoever you'd have created a bland army of clones, people like particles in a box, thermodynamically interchangeable. There is no such thing as a neutral idea of identity absent social influence. The only feasible way of removing man from his environment is to lock him in a new one, and without culture it would be a jail cell.

Is this a quote from somewhere?

The first half of it is Heraclitus and Parmenides, where there are links.

I'm familiar with their work. I just didn't expect to hear them mentioned on the Atlas Forum, which is why I asked