The news provides us with nightly death counts in the Gaza - Israeli conflict. Since the past is not news and Hamas’ rockets killed very few people, we only hear about Israelis killing Palestinians. And so the calls to end this humanitarian crisis mount. Regardless of the body count, the supposition of this logic undermines the West.
The problem with this reporting is that it seeks to be neutral. It presents us with two anonymous groups far away and then counts casualties. This neutrality of language is built into the commonly used phrase “humanitarian crisis.” This phrase may not, unfortunately, have caused you pause in the first paragraph. But it dangerously implies we are neutral observers of this conflict. There is no such thing as a neutral observer.
Everyone is always, already on a side. That is true even if you do not know it. There is no freedom of the press in Islamic nations. The press, by definition, should be on the side that appreciates freedom of the press. The scary thing is that the other side is completely aware that they have a side. Whether or not we consider Israel to be an extension of the West, Islamic nations do. Objectivity and neutral reporting are only our conceits.
We need to be culturist. That is, we need to know that we have a side and stick up for it. The conflict in the Middle East is not just between two unaffiliated states with whom we have no connections. Gaza is an extension of the Islamic world. Israel is an extension of the western world. From Israel to Mumbai to Sudan to London, Madrid and New York, we have a side. In all of these conflicts Muslims attacked western allies. Neutrality was not an option.
To drive this point home we must oppose the term ‘multiculturalism. ‘ That word asserts that the West has no particular culture and thus no side to protect. It thereby weakens and blinds us. We must challenge this word with its opposite, ‘culturism.’ Culturism affirms that we have a core culture and need to protect it. The Islamic side is already culturist. To survive we must be culturist too.
Adopting a culturist perspective would cause great discomfort. It would require our media to report that pro-Hamas rallies are anti-western rallies. It would cause them to affirm our unpleasant conflict with Islam. Our media would have to rethink its impartiality on conflicts such as that in the Middle East. Disrupting the veneer of neutrality would force politicians to stand up for the West. Because these changes are uncomfortable, our media will not change until things get worse. But we can accelerate the transition by spreading awareness of culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism as they do.
www.culturism.us
10 comments:
John,
Is this your first post here at IBA?
Great post.
AOW,
Yes it is my inaugural post!! Quite auspicious. Thanks for noticing.
Andre, thanks!!!
I'm on board with your logic.
What is the Culturist pov on the recent Prince Harry brouhaha over the use of the terms "raghead" and Paki?
Pastorius,
Well, amongst citizens it is not stabilizing to foment cleavage. Yet I am totally against censoring speech. I imagine he just got really popular among some of the non-media elite. And, such tension is natural when you import foreign cultures into your nation. We will import them and you can't say boo??? And more systematically . . .
Ragheads (if they are Hindu) are easier to assimilate and more likely to be against Jihad than "Pakis." If they are Sikh, I am less sure of that. Pakistanis are very difficult to assimilate. But, after stopping Muslim immigration, Britain needs to stop foreign funding of mosques and deport the haters. After all this, they must start a conscious process of assimilation. At that point, name calling and division will not serve Britain well.
That is a long haul. But it is what the science of culturism would dictate. I see no other workable road for Europe. But they must act before no such thing can be voted in. They must become culturist before non-muslims become a minority. And though we have more time than they, we must start in this direction soon!
I think dehumanizing the enemy is a good thing. I applaud Harry for taking that brave step.
:)
Thing is, as you point out, it's very difficult when our governments (elected by us) have invited millions of our enemies into our home.
And, let's face it, there are many Muslims who are decent and productive members of our society, which makes us not want to make use of the perjorative "ragheads"
You may notice, I don't use such terms.
That being said, it seems appropriate that members of our military would use such terms.
But, what do I know? I'm not a military type.
It seems to me we have over-nuanced who is and is not our enemy. I would estimate that, were we to have a healthy definition of who our enemy is in Iraq, it would equal a very sizable percentage of the population. And yet, we are taking millions of enemies and treating them as if they were friends.
We are so generous.
at a certain point, I believe, events will force us to drop the nuance and pick up the big gun.
Andre,
What's a "sprout"?
I haven't heard that one before.
Pastorius,
Well I agree that we have yet to name the enemy. And were it done, we would have to end muslim immigration immediately. Were it done, the EEU wouldn't even be thinking about letting Turkey in.
There is a curious step, I've found, that happens between the geo-political and the personal. And herein, things get emotionally messy. If I am against the cumulative impact of muslim immigration, it does NOT mean that I'm personally against any particular individual person.
I have a personal nominally muslim friend. My stance has strained our relationship. I try to reassure her that I don't want her rights stripped away; I am only protecting the West. But then again, when push comes to shove, as culturism would predict, she takes the Palestinian side.
But nearly all hours of the day she is a normal hard-working good citizen. And demonizing her creates bitterness towards America. Multiply that by millions and you have a case for respecting the rights and dignity of those who are not bad folk. The problem, again, is in the potential.
I think this blog does not deal with it, but Mexican immigration is an interesting variation on this theme. Here you have less inherent hostility towards America (apart from Atzlan and the Alamo memes). You want to discourage unsupportable 3rd world behaviors, but avoid demonizing aggravating divisions. It is a balancing act.
Cool chat!! John
Culturist John,
You said: I have a personal nominally muslim friend. ... when push comes to shove, as culturism would predict, she takes the Palestinian side.
I say: There's the rub. This is why we must end Muslim immigration, in my opinion. Because, it does not matter how good and decent many of the individuals are, when they, as an aggregate, hold onto such anti-Western ideals that they would support a fascist state like Gaza over a human-rights respecting state like Israel.
When you pull back from the emotions of our political day to day, and just think about it in the abstract, it is stunning that we have citizens in our country who do support Gaza. It's stunning.
Additionally, of course, we have citizens who support Iran. That is stunning. I'm not talking about moonbats, who will support anything that is anti-American. The worldview of such people is pure chaos and anger. I'm talking about the average, every day, educated person who takes the side of a country like Iran or Gaza because of their actual formed worldview.
The more Muslims we allow into our country, the more our country's worldview will be effected by the Islamic worldview.
We should be promoting a less Islamic worldview, not a more Islamic worldview.
It would be one thing if we could point to any Islamic successes, but we can't. There are no Muslim political organizations, academic institutions, media outlets, or governments, of any substantial size, anywhere in the world, which are moderate.
Pastorius,
We of course agree on immigration policy. But I do not point to their 'success' or lack thereof. That is measured on our terms. They are successful at creating theocracies. That is their yardstick.
When people try to debate the Israel / Palestinian conflict, I do not go there. I do not need to claim one side is right or the other wrong. It is natural that they take theirs and I take mine. Neither will convince the other.
The point is that they have taken the anti-Western side. They side with theocracies. More importantly and to the point, they side with the side that opposes western civilization. Right or wrong, they are against our side. That much both agree upon.
That is why, right or wrong, it is not safe to import large numbers. That and the fact that - right or wrong - their religion tells them to kill for God. Very dangerous, especially because they do believe it is right. They really do. And I cannot convince them otherwise.
Post a Comment