The word culture derives from the word cultivate, and the term itself represents a collective of humans which distinctively peruse a method of existence. Some would like to infer culture is the effect of social conditioning and not innate functioning. But I feel obliged to ask, what creates society and ritual? Is it not the instinctive habits embedded within a species which seeks to attain its fufillment by the creation of society? In order to comprehend culture I feel it is more essential to identify what human existence is to begin with, seeing as that’s the fundamental premise of all philosophy, and science.

Existence is a manifestation of a lengthily and progressive sequence of cause’s and effects. Although to comprehend this man has had to yield the intellect, which is itself an instrument of human existence, to evaluate its prior state and being. If one assesses the origin of existence, one will find the philosophical investigation to be most rewarding and enthralling but nonetheless distracting to our main objective, which is to define culture. So to simply deduce I will state this, being creates essence, essence bequeaths substance, substance manifests form, form contrives space, space bestows time, physics endow law, order, cause and effect, effect produces existence, existence evolves and becomes life, and finally life entails human existence.  Existence is this ratification and presence of this process.

Now that we have questioned what existence is, we are now ready to initiate the next inquisition… is culture a phenomenon of its own, or is it a liable attribute of race, much the same as how the intellect is an attribute of the human soul, or mind. Modern liberal anthropologists infer that man evolved equally, thus all physical and mental aspects of the human is the same as every other human. This is absurd, the only correlation any human has with one another is the fact that they derived from the same sequence of universal causes and effects. To accept the notion that all of man has evolved equally is defiant towards the very theory these anthropologists claim to be upholding, evolution. One must recognize that indeed humans are a species and collective of similar beings, but nonetheless there is no objectivity or consistency uniting all of them culturally. Why one might ponder because the human reacts to its externals and environments differently, why because the natural process of a cultures development is not as fast as another’s.

If we accept the notion that there is a global evolution determined by fate, and that there is an objective progression of consciousness, which is attained by human understanding and adaptation to the changes of the earth, which ultimately produce a united human soul, then the anthropologists are wrong to claim that evolution is occurs with all cultures equally. Simply look upon poor and putrid underdeveloped countries that’s GDP ceases to contribute anything to the global economy, so it seems they failed the first step of evolution, adaptation. Nonetheless one must assess the differences between political economy i.e. agricultural vs. technological. One must discern the contrast between intellectual feats i.e. philosophical reason, and dogmas vs. boisterous irrational rituals, which are inconsistent and obstructive to the natural development of human intellect. If we are attributes of human fate, and our existence is an evolving thing, which inclines, then the ancient Greeks have already exceeded the majority of African countries, technologically, economically, ritualistically, philosophically, and socially. This very fact alone proves that existence is not dictated by one equal path to produce and evolve it fluctuates and changes, furthermore even if we do accept the fact that we are evolving this way that means other “cultures” have already exceeded current cultures in this age. And this clearly proves that the human has not equally evolved, if so the world would have concurred with the Greek democratic system. Even though it was seen and praised as revolutionary and most beneficial to its citizens, it was still rejected, why… well one could say because people were not “evolved” enough to accept it.

Now if we do reconcile that the human is not dictated by one progressive evolutionary path, and is itself and individual thing, working tedious and in no consolidated direction, this proves that the supremacy or culture a society produces is based on the individual will to power, not the collectives, which implies that there is no equality. If we do accept the notion that humans derive from the same premise existence, and that they are all equal, but liberated to choose what direction they so seek from the premise of physical and mental equality, then how does one excuse the fact the human brain in some species of human is diminutive underdeveloped? Furthermore what is a retard if humans as all physically the same? How is it that the physical strength of a human exceeds that of another situated in another part of the world? An anthropologist would assert that they were once all equal but now they have began a new process and sequence of causes and effects unique to there established culture.

Reconciling this to be so, is like accepting the fact because we were all once particles of matter we are all the same. But this makes no sense because the definition of whom “we” are is uniquely attributed to abstract thought, and this is what defines us. If one accepts existence scientifically then one can safely deduce the neo-cortex in certain humans has and still is evolved and superior to that of other humans. Abstract thought generates the concept of who we are, and the human physically speaking is a by-product of mental and cognitive evolution. Those situated in environments and climates, which liberate man from the limbic and reptilian method of cognitive functioning, are thus superior in a mental and abstract sense.

And so culture itself is nothing more then a social signification of what is physically and racially existent, which is the premise of existence.