At CPAC three positions on Islam were apparent. One was represented by Pamela Geller’s “Freedom Defense Initiative” conference. The second came from the Ron Paul followers. And the third appeared in the conference’s otherwise deafening silence on Islam. Culturism has a lot to say about all three positions.
Ron Paul’s followers believe that Islamic terrorist attacks result from our overbearing presence in the Middle East. Therefore, they recommend pulling our troops out of that region. As a culturist, I agree that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a culturist I believe the project of turning these nations into progressive democracies with respect for individual rights will fail because their cultures will not support such changes. And I agree with Ron Paul’s argument for disengagement based on our inability to afford these nation-building enterprises. Western culturists know that if the West is not solvent our values will die globally.
But none of Paul’s followers could explain why the Jihad in Thailand and India exist. Neither nation has military bases outside of their own borders. As multiculturalists do, the followers of Paul fail to appreciate that diversity is real and important. Diversity is not just about food, festivals, and fashion. Some cultures drop out of school early and think teen pregnancy is not so bad. Other cultures think our way of life is a blasphemous affront to God. Diversity is real and important. Overlooking the cultural aspects of Jihad will not safeguard us.
Geller’s event explained domestic Jihad initiatives. Whereas Paul could not believe that an aggressive Islam for Islam’s sake exists, Geller’s speakers clearly showed that it can and does exist. As a culturist, I agreed with their domestic solution. We need culturist profiling at airports. We need to limit Islamic immigration. That is not, by the way, racist - it is culturist. And, we need to recognize that western cultural practices and laws are the norm and standard in western nations. We should not recognize Sharia courts or allow, for example, veils in photo Identification. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists recognize that the West has a culture to protect and promote. Domestically Geller’s group was very culturist.
Culturism and Geller diverge on foreign policy. Culturism believes in national cultural sovereignty. Allen West said we should seek to defeat Islam, not Muslims. I am unclear how the two are to be separated. Quoting Ronald Reagan, he said victory means “we win, they lose.” That statement holds too little nuance for me. We all agree on bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and being aggressive in regions of Afghanistan that harbor terrorist. But culturists do not believe we will convert Islamic nations by the sword. If we want the sovereignty to pursue culturist policies domestically, we must also grant that right to other nations. We are not the world. We are the West. The idea that we will convert Islam nations by the sword is, as Ron Paul says, a dangerous proposition we cannot afford.
At CPAC the third position on Islam, and the largest, was overwhelming silence. Outside of Ron Paul’s “Why real conservatives don’t support the war on terror” meeting and Geller’s event, few deemed Islam worth discussing. Ron Paul at least wants to debate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Geller schooled the conference on domestic threats. We conservatives, as Americans and as Westerners, need to accept culturist position that our culture is not that of the world. Diversity exists internationally. Furthermore, we must shake off the multicultural position that the West has no core culture to protect. Geller and Paul have done us a great service in making conservatives think about the West’s relationship to Islam.
www.culturism.us
25 comments:
"Allen West said we should seek to defeat Islam, not Muslims. I am unclear how the two are to be separated"
We win when the conscience of the individual incited to revolting acts by a supposedly uncreated document, SUPERSEDES that document.
At the moment individuals with such consciences are ascendant this war begins to end.
We converted Japan by sword.
They converted africa, much of asia, and the indonesian archipelago, southeastern europe, by sword.
Latin America is largely catholic, and not by nice guy missions
We are not working by sword.
If we were, places like Qandahar would be 'pacified' via roman peace. Whether or not our methods work is an open question.
But being part of a democracy means it must ALWAYS be a near run thing.
Thank you Culturist John. I haven't been paying close attention and now understand your viewpoint, your nom de plume. And I, have had these beliefs all along, that we are a superior culture and should not compromise our ideals. I have understood the fallacies of multi-culturalism, but did not know that "culturalism" was the counter term, or antidote, if you will. I will look into the web page you have posted there more closely. My only concern is, that there are human rights violations going on. There are millions and millions of women being tortured, honor killed, genitally mutilated, denied basic human rights, etc.. Women are the ones who are suffering and being particularly subjegated in Islamic totalitarian and theocratic regimes. I know we cannot afford to liberate all people, but it seems so sexist to me that we would fight fascism in Europe, but do not see these millions and million of women worth fighting for? I'm as dumbfounded by the way the world turns their backs on the suffering of these women as you and I both are at the lack of discussion of Islam at CPAC. I mean, at the very least there should be discussion, sanctions, boycotting, outrage! But there is none? Women do not matter! BO goes to Cairo, that butcher shop of female genital mutilation where some 96% of women, based on a WHO study have had their genitals cut off and can never experience sexual pleasure, though their population is exploding, so some one is experiencing sexual pleasure, ... and he tells them, they are a great culture??? It's surreal.
96% of Egyptian women were genitally-mutilated?
This I did not know.
By the way MLAR, Culturist John believes we are a better culture, but he doesn not believe we ought to be doing anything about the problem, if I am not mistaken.
He can clarify his position if I have mis-stated it.
Epaminondas,
I was typing while you were posting. Latin America, despite its Catholic heritage is very vulnerable. Islamacists are there and they are pushing everywhere, especially in Brazil and the some of the poorer countries. Did you read the story on the hospital in Bolivia that had been built with Iranian money? The nurses there on the opening of the hospital were forced to wear Islamic headscarves, prompting much outcry. But, if they are cunning, which they are, they will play and probably are playing on Uncle Sam antipathy in Latin America. Read the Islamic wiki pages for Latin America, ex: Islam in Puerto Rico, Islam in Argentina, Islam in Ecuador, etc., and you will see that Islamacists are all over these wiki web pages with sweet, duplicitous talk. It's scary stuff. These people are stealing what they can while we continue to swallow multiculturalim like a slap on the hand and allow ourselves to be marginalized. Once they get a stronghold, then the real strongarm will begin.
When I bring this up with anyone, anywhere, I am accused of being hysterical and aggressive?
Pasto,
The statistics vary, but none are below the 90 percentile. Actually, I was wrong, the WHO study I referred to says 97%, p. 151.
http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/somalia/fgh-who.pdf
The Egyptians have been the biggest perpetrators of this horror. It was finally outlawed, supposedly, in 2006??, under political pressure, but we all know how long it takes for custom to catch up with the law. They're disgusting. And to hear the women there defend it, is, again, surreal. We are talking millions and millions of little girls undergoing this torture and physical annihilation on a annual basis. And the world is silent?
*****HORROR******
Mighty, my effort was to emphasize that John's point (and we have been around this before) that the sword cannot convert a civilization is factually incorrect.
Every civilization in Latin America was converted by the Spaniards and Portuguese by sword.
Thinking that Iraq cannot be converted by sword is understandable since we don't really use it.
But imagining that the sword does not work to change the course of civilizations is to believe that politics are not the result of the decisions on the battlefield.
As far as warring on a civilization because of persecution of women.... on one side of the line are Paulistas ..we are an example at best, on the other side is a slippery slope of rightness ending with a justification to make the world America whenever it isn't.
But if it was going to be easy, trained dogs could do it.
EPA and MLAR,
Glad I checked back to see if there were any comments yet. Thanks to both of you.
EPA,
Yes, we have had this conversation before. I think that culture matters. Getting a nominally christian Germany to renounce NAZIism and Shinto Buddhists to accept some form of individualism and democracy is much easier than Islamic nations. And, I doubt you are willing to use the level of ruthless extermination of culture the Spaniards used on Latin America across all of the Middle East.
But, I think we fundamentally disagree on the use of the sword for making Middle Eastern countries more pro-western and progressive. I respectfully agree to disagree.
MLAR,
To your horror, I am sure, EPA only got my position half right. He was correct in that I do not advocate our doing anything about FGM in Egypt. But, my position on our superiority is much more relative. You will not like it.
I believe in international diversity is real. To us, FGM is a horror. It violates our ethics. We should not have it in western nations. But, I have seen surveys wherein Egyptian women say that FC (female circumcision) is proper and honorable. I do not assume that deep down all hold western values. Unlike globalists and multiculturalists, culturists think diversity is real.
At any rate, the bottom line is that our main goal should be protecting our values in our lands. It is not sexist that we fought fascism in Germany and do not care about women in Egypt (though there may be some truth to the claim), is that we are culturist. We care about our lands more. And we should!
Ultimately, if we wish to spread our ideas, we must be solvent at home. The human rights model you use, weakens our sovereignty, draws our money overseas, and justifies immigrant asylum laws in our western nations.
Our being solvent begins with our favoring our nation over a globalist perspective. It begins with us being culturist. It begins with culturist immigration laws and saying no to Sharia in the West. It also requires that we don't spend too much money over seas.
So, to clarify, the culturist position is that nations have a right to protect, promote, and guide their own cultures. Other nations do and have always done this by default. Remember, the world is not diversifying, the West is. On this count, the real question is "Will the West be culturist like other nations or legitimize internationalism and be porous.
Thanks, John
Epa wrote: John's point (and we have been around this before) that the sword cannot convert a civilization is factually incorrect.
I say: Yep.
CJ,
One would wonder what you'd think if you grew up in a culture where it was considered virtuous for Drs. to cut your dick off.
starting a new group-ISTER*-
MLR and all here can be charter members--
I cannot tell you the number in incidences of 'eye rolls' when I tell people about -all of the above'---
Geeeeeez - has it been 26 years since my 'about face'?!!
Yup-lots of eye rolls....
*STER= I've Seen The Eye Rolls!
C-CS
Jeppo,
I agree that we can not rid the world of Islam or change its basic tenets. If not for you, I would be outvoted by Epa and Pastorius. Thanks !
I also agree that separation is the most logical of strategies and that immigration laws are key.
Muslims cannot be singled out because we call that racist. In fact, it is culturist. It has nothing to do with race. I think spreading the words culturist and culturism will help clarify the difference.
We must trap multiculturalists by getting them to agree that diversity is really real. If so, laws that take culture into account make sense.
In the US history chapter of culturism, I talk about our immigration laws. They have traditionally been culturist. As you said, our determination to not discriminate on any basis is stupid and dangerous. Again, this comes as we don't study our history and conflate race and culture.
I agree with your deportation of non-citizens idea. I think the paying of citizens to leave is interesting. I think folks can be moderate, but worry about their offspring.
One other line I have is that we should welcome business investment from around the world, but not culturist imperialism money. Just as we do not have the right to build churches there, Saudi Arabia has no right to build mosques all over our nation.
Pastorius,
Putting aside that such a civilization could not reproduce and survive . . . were I raised in a country that thought cutting off Mr. Smith was virtuous, I would likely also think that cutting of Mr. Smith was virtuous.
It is like MIGHTY LIKE A ROSE noted, over 90 % of all in those countries do FMG/FC. The law is against it and still they continue. Why? They think it virtuous. No?
Well John, I adhere STRICTLY to that exemplar of excellence in foreign affairs ... who said the following - from which you should gain that were I to command that war begin, the menace to others would be limited only by our ability to deliver weapons on target.
1) All attempts to make war easy and safe will end in disaster and humiliation
2) This war differs from other wars in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor feel the hard hand of war.
3) War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over
4) my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.
Following these rules will COMPEL the end of one civilization and its replacement BY THOSE WILLING AND ABLE to adopt to the new situation.
DARWIN
But we are not at that point.
Some may think these steps cruel, but once it is recognized there IS a war, I believe the suffering would be minimized, and the killing shortened.
The key decision is not HOW to conduct a war, but WHETHER to do so.
Epa,
Did Darwin say that? When he said "This war" what did he refer to? Regardless, I agree with the sentiments. Our fear of hurting innocents is literally pathological.
There is also the question of with whom? You cannot fight the entire Muslim world at once. I would apply the 4 precepts to Afghanistan first. The problem is that ramping up war against a nation for something their inhabitants did 9 years ago doesn't go down well.
In terms of Iran, their weapons facilities must be destroyed. But, applying the 4 principles to the population as a whole to get rid of the nukes will raise as much dust as it settles. Our objective must be strategic. And, I do not think all out war with them will bring a pro-western consciousness.
Finally, when the next hit comes, lets hope that the commander in chief does use the 4 principles in regards to the country that trained the fellas or their country of origin.
The silence from many on the right truly is disheartening.
I have this belief that Obama is cut from the Muslim Brotherhood cloth.
This Progressive mantra is just a ruse, IMHO.
Only an Islamist can hide himself unnoticed among Progressives for they both hate the same things.
He's given signs of what he truly is. Yet many on the right ignore it. What amazes me is Rush Limbaugh dropped a hint and NOBODY on the right or the left, as far as I can tell, caught on to it!
When Obama was trashing Vegas again. Rush said and I quote "The Koran forbids gambling, just sayin'." He said it twice and nary a word from the left or right.
You know, I'll wager many suspect it but dare not speak it!
God bless Beck for all that he's done but it has to come across his mind and research who Obama really is.
When will the mask finally come off? That kind of hate he's holding can't be held for too long eventually it will come out and Ft. Hood nearly exposed him wholesale.
When it does it will be horrifying to many and the silver lining is the progressive left will go down. For good.
But the right better start talking Islam again.
I've seen this myopic viewpoint from Libertarians such as Paul for 40 years and still can't figure out why they think nobody else in the world initiates force except us. Therefore they will continue blaming Jihadist aggression on our "foreign policy". To put the kindest face on it, maybe they think that no one not clinically insane (assuming they accept that term) would act on a set of ideas as irrational as Islam -- and to recognize the truth would raise to many uncomfortable and inconvenient questions.
If those responsible for the security of this country fully understood the reality of Jihad we would not have to concern ourselves with stealth jihad at home because it would be exposed and vigorously resisted by all legal means. And we wouldn't be engaged in nation-building nonsense in the ME because all points of origin of jihadist violence would be leveled and the rest could either stew in their own juices or get a clue and the hell out of the 7th century.
We "converted" Japan away from Shinto/Bushido after having won their unconditional surrender in a war. (And private religious practice of Shinto was not forbidden.) We de-Nazified Germany for the same reason. If push comes to shove once again, political Islam will have to go. Anybody who wants to keep polishing the floor with their foreheads 5 times a day in the hopes of reclining on brocade cushions whilst the houris peel their grapes, as it were, in the hereafter can continue in their personal folly if they really insist on being that effing stupid.
Btw, someone the other day refered to Mark Twain's castigation of the entire Muslim world in his book "The Innocents Abroad", which I just happen to be reading. I'm just getting to the Muslim parts and it should be no surprise to anyone familiar with Mark Twain that he is bracingly outspoken back in 1865 about the same things the Leftards and Islamapologists are trying to ignore today. He just finished raking the Ottoman Empire and the Arabs in general over the coals and is now headed for Jerusalem. More later.
Revere Rides Again,
I think that part of the problem is naivety. A lot of leftists and libertarians, and even many conservatives, and others, are just naive. Good people sometimes make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks like them. I think that might be part of the problem.
CJohn ..It's WT SHERMAN
Darwin is that only those left would be willing to adopt to the new situation, otherwise we're not done and rules 1-3 apply until they are and will.
Hey all,
Thanks for the lively conversation. It has clarified, for me, that domestic education about Jihad is THE key to safeguarding our freedoms. Revere is eloquent in his expression about how knowing our own culture will solve our caving in.
Again, I guess I'd like to clarify my overall take. I agree with Jeppo. Separation is the way for us to survive.
I would accuse those who seek to convert Muslims like we did the Germans and Japanese, of being unaware of the depth of cultural conviction they hold and the coherence of Islam. In that sense you are, (dare I say it?) like the multiculturalists who think differences are not permanent or deep.
I would be very interested to hear more about how you plan to keep Islam and get rid of those who, as Revere said, "want to polish the floor with their heads." I don't believe in it, but might if I understood the details.
Does it mean that we make the governments secular via outlawing Islam like in Turkey? Does that count as an adequate example of de-Islamification? If so, would you say Turkey should join the EU? Have they gotten rid of political Islam? Would you have people be Muslims and just black out the violent passages? How will you separate Islam from political Islam or the violent parts? Please tell me what this vision looks like?
Thanks for the conversation, Culturist John
Perhaps, and here is a suggestion --- one of you could start a whole new post that details how we are to de-Islamify Islam or convert Islam or "separate political islam and Islam" or whatever term you'd like to use.
I would like to see the argument fully explained. Also, in doing so those of you who believe in this vision may be able to better work out said details amongst yourself.
Culturist John,
A big part of the problem is the West's dependency on oil. If much of the world's oil wasn't located beneath the sands of Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic states, most of them would be dirt poor. They get most of there money from oil wealth, including a large portion of the money used to fund the Jihad.
Here's something on the GDP of Saudi Arabia.
Economy of Saudi Arabia
A very large part of the problem is that most of the world's oil reserves happen to be on land controlled by the most fundamentalist Islamic state out there. I'm not saying there wouldn't be Muslim Jihadists in a world where we did not need oil, but at the very least, the Jihadist war against us would most likely be severely retarded, if no one bought oil from them. Keep in mind that Islamists are using their oil wealth to buy off politicians, as well build Mosques, train their "hate preachers" and fund terrorist attacks. Also even if all the oil ended under the soil of a more moderate Muslim state instead, like Turkey, I'm not sure things would be as bad as they are now. That said, I'm not about argue that Turkey should be allowed to join the EU, right now, I'm just pointing out a few important things.
Rose -- The 96% you quote would be culled, I take it, from women who have lived that way since their clits were cut as little girls and know/remember no differently.
They can't choose any differently if they've never experienced any differently.
I wonder how that statistic would change if you asked girls about to be or just recently mutilated. Especially those who have experienced sexual pleasure and now are about to be devoid of it.
Midnight Rider,
That's an excellent point, I heard somewhere that the slaves in the antebellum south that were the most likely to try to escape or flee, were the ones who had once lived in Africa as freemen, but had than been captured and brought out of their homeland in bondage. The slaves least likely to to resist were the ones who had been born into slavery. In other words the ones who at one point in life had tasted freedom were the ones least content to be someone else's property. Now maybe the people living in Africa at that time weren't very free by modern American standards, but still African tribesmen knew more freedom in Africa, than they did after they were captured and brought back to the new world as someone's slave.
Damien,
I agree about the oil dependency being bad. It would be great if we could reduce our dependency on oil and Middle Eastern oil.
Interesting, so you, like Epaminondas, only think a few bad eggs make Islam bad. You think eventually Turkey could be a good EU partner.
In your favor, the majority of Muslims in the world live peaceful lives. I am not sure if that is due to not agreeing with terrorism or cowardice.
I suspect the latter.
I also think that Muhammed's being a violent warlord makes the Koran wants peace idea difficult. But better you are right than me.
Midnight Rider,
I wonder if you polled girls in the West who had just been or were about to go to the dentist if it was a good thing, what the numbers would be! But as adults we know dentistry is a good thing.
Amazingly, women do this practice to other women. They do not do it at gun point. They think it is virtuous. We hate it and must because it conflicts with our values. But, diversity is real.
DAMIEN,
You provide a great challenge to me. If I am going to say that morals are relative to the time, will I say that slavery was right when it thrived in the US? After all, that was just their belief!
It was wrong in our world. Why? Well, as we realized, it conflicted with our deep moral teachings from Jerusalem and Athens. We could not live with it and still maintain our western conscience.
And, personally, as a Westerner I cannot conceive of it as right under any circumstances. But, I do understand that loads of unequal work relationships have existed around the world. Was it wrong for Greece to have slaves? If you asked the Helots it was unjust. Does the majority get to make up right and wrong?
Perhaps if the treatment is abhorrent, there are some universals. But, FGM isn't, in my opinion one of them. It is accepted by 90% plus of Egypt. And, even if it were a universal wrong, we do not have the money to convert that culture.
So many here go for a black and white morality where what we call evil is evil. I see evil. I recognize it is very much colored by my western tradition. And, am much more reticent to declare a universal bad than nearly all here. That said, was killing helots for practice okay in Sparta? Not from the long view of Athens and Jerusalem. But I could envision a Helot creed that said to die at the hands of the Spartan was noble.
Interesting!
Culturist John,
You do not entirely understand what I'm saying. I do think the problem is endemic to the Islamic world. Its just not as extreme as it is in some part than it is in other parts. Its just that it makes it even worse that so much of that wealth is located in the most fundamentalist region of the Islamic world. Now perhaps we would of had any of the problems that we are having now, if the only Muslim country that had oil was Turkey. I don't know. But I think at least part of the problem is that much of the oil is locate in the most extreme, totalitarian hate filled regions of the Islamic world.
However, you have one problem with the response that at the time of slavery in America, deep down inside we had a problem with slavery because it conflicted with our core beliefs. But could your argue that at one time, in western history, slavery would not have conflicted with our core beliefs at all? During the medieval period, much of what we call western values was practically destroyed. Did we place a high value on freedom and individuality throughout the Dark Ages and medieval period? You could argue that in many ways in the late medieval period and the Renaissance, many of the classical Greek values were slowly reintroduced to western society. That seems like an instance when at some point, at least some of our core beliefs actually did change. If we can find any historical instance of a culture's core beliefs themselves actually changing, and confirm it, even if it actually took a very long period of time, it might kind of pose a problem for your thinking.
Post a Comment