Relying on the past as cultural parasites

Or as vultures? What would be a better metaphor?

The trailer for the movie Hugo by Martin Scorcese reminded me of older movies and  dramas about WW2 Britain.

(Apple)

It is similar to Harry Potter in that sense, which depends upon memories of the glory days of British schools -- many stories recall the joys of the past while rejecting and subverting the remnants of tradition. (I won't go so far as to say that tradition was solely responsible for the apogee of material culture; it was the destruction of traditional life that made it possible. But what civilized life there was depended in the adhesion of the people upon traditional morals.)  It turns out that the movie, based on a children's book, is actually set in 1900 Paris - the language of the movie threw me off... still, for some, it was the heyday of European civilization before the Great Calamity.

At one extreme there are the leftists, who seek to subvert traditional Western culture through multiculturalism and other programs. At the other extreme there are those who identify culture solely with race. For example, this comment at Alternative Right is a manifestation of a kind of crude materialism:

Asians can not assimilate to Native Born White American culture because they are of a different racial kind...Nations are race-based-blood and guts entities...everyone understands this obvious point..by the way..even if every Appalchian White was replaced by a Sihk..and if the Sihks spoke with southern accents and played and composed Appalchian Celtic based fiddle music, it would be an Appalachia withput White Appalachian people...and there is no reason why Appalachian Whites should be in favor in this..for it is obvious genocide..now let's be honest the probability of Sihk Appalachia being 100 percent culturally and socially Appalachian White is exactly 0....Punjabi society would be the dominant culture in Appalachia.

Even if they wanted to, could Sihks (or Indians in general) become Appalachians? The thought experiment is misleading because it is rather impossible to achieve. The disappearance or replacement could not be instantaneous.What if some Sihks moved in, adopted the native culture (and gave up their religion), and married whites? Would the children of such marriages be Appalachians? Or would they forever be outsiders?

What constitutes a people is also determined by questions of lineage and marriage and how the group choses to identify itself. Are there lines of descent to the first ancestors? (And how far should one take this, since Christians usually believe that Adam and Eve are the first parents.) Are white nationalists therefore making an idol out of races and their origin, whatever the causes of the differentiation may be? Is the (epi-)genetic "distinctiveness" that separates one race from another so significant that it must be preserved above all else through miscegenation laws and what have you?

Related:
VDare: Farah On Immigration And The Bible: Love Our Neighbor—Not Give Him Our Country
(I should find a copy of Fr. Bascio's book.)

Steve Sailer, Your ancestors more likely to be pioneers than stay-at-homes
Was the American pioneering spirit a contributor to its downfall?