Newt Gingrich's Culturist Error

In a recent debate Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich created a stir by calling the Palestinians “invented.”   In fact, no such type of Arab existed prior to the 1940s.  The term actually referred to Israeli Jews.  What Gingrich argued were undeniable facts. But his belief in the solidity of facts overlooks the culturist construction of reality.

After so many generations of people calling themselves Palestinians, the use of Palestinian flags, anthems, television, and politicians; the Palestinian people have been created. A nation is a shared set of ideas backed by emotion.  The reality of Palestinians has so much cache that people will die for it.  Nations and peoples are not eternally existing entities, they are creations.  But this does not make them any less real.

If fate threw all of the Palestinians into exile, say if all of them got sent to Saudi Arabia, would they persist as a people?  The Jews faced this very question in the 5^th century B.C.  Deprived of land and scattered, the Jews in exile compiled the Bible to consolidate their identity.  This common text allowed them to have something in common even when far apart. I suspect the Palestinian identity would only exist in academic / radical pockets after a few generations in exile. 

My unproven contention about time eroding the Palestinian identity in exile points to the importance of long standing shared traditions to a national identity.  The Palestinians flag and national anthem are recent creations.  They have no ancient traditional art forms particular to them. But in “The Invention of the Jewish People” Schlomo Sand argued that even the idea of Jews has been created in time. While this is obviously true, the duration of the Jews makes their identity more solid.    

What culturist lessons lie in this reality parsing? Well our starkest comparison to the Israeli situation comes from the strong concentration of people with Mexican loyalties in our Southwest.  This situation resembles that of the Palestinians because many Mexicans believe that America exists land that was stolen from them.  Herein lays the importance of Texas’ new culturist curricular laws.  To avoid Middle East style conflict our schools must teach our side of the Mexican-American War and the glory of American identity to all residents in our borders.

But many other culturist lessons emerge from my refutation of Newt’s statement. The “national existence without land” standard reminds us of the importance of shared language, flags, history, heroes, geography, ideals, etc..  Multiculturalism’s anti-colonial ideology must be replaced by culturism. We must emphasize our unity, not our differences. Our government should return to its traditional stance of considering national cohesion legitimate considerations. Borders and Nativity Scenes impact survival. But the most important lesson is that all nationalisms are fictions that must be reinforced to survive.

Buy Culturism for 99 Cents HERE! www.culturism.us has more information on culturism.

An Open Letter to Mr. Lawrence Auster

BUMPED TO THE TOP FOR NOW - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWER POSTS

Mr. Lawrence Auster publishes the blog View From the Right.  Recently, he stated his basic credo in an article entitled “Why the Truth About Black Dysfunction is So Important.”  As he has many followers, I think it important that I challenge his racist position with a culturist one.  While I applaud his dedication, his racist suppositions set back our shared desire to defeat multiculturalism.

Mr. Auster's writing focuses on the out of proportion level of violent crimes committed by Black people.  And, he documents the double standard in reporting such crimes well.  He argues that the Western belief in racial equality, leads us to conclude that all differences in attainment and violence must reflect white racism.  This guilt over inequality leads us to “denial of the truth of Black anti-White violence, denial of the tyrannical murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration” destroying our nation.

As a culturist I agree with many of his premises and goals.  Blaming all inequality on the West has caused our guilt and embrace of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism does cause us to ignore the perils of Islamic immigration and take the blame for the educational and economic achievement gaps between Whites and Asians and other minorities.  But Auster’s racist premise destroys his usefulness.

By replacing his racist view with a culturist view – by swapping out genetic determinism for a cultural explanation – he can actually help right our nation.  His views (on the racial aspect of criminal behavior) offend nearly everyone who reads them and exasperates social divides. 

Mr. Auster wonders why people chaffe at his “endlessly repeated stories” of “black criminality and failure.”  It is because the vast majority of Black people are wonderful law abiding and productive citizens.  I am certainly not alone in having many Black colleagues with fabulous work ethics whom I respect and Black friends who I love.  As such, his constant smear can only infuriate and alienate the majority of us who have such relationships.

The dysfunction in Black culture, that which leads to crime, is cultural.  It only occurs in certain pockets of the population.  The Black population was not as violent in the 1950s or before that.  In fact, the Black marriage rate was higher, than the current rate for Whites, in the 1950s.  Crime and divorce are not genetic.  These changes since the 1950s were not caused by genetic mutations.

As people cannot change their genetic make-up, Mr. Auster's racial lens cannot effect any good policy outcomes.  On the other hand, a culturist lens can allow us to have necessary discussions about the cultural roots of social maladies.  The problem now is that our society calls all judgmental distinctions between ethnic groups "racist."  Therefore, as Mr. Auster is, all who discuss such disparities are immediately and completely marginalized.

From a cultural vantage point, we can discuss the dangers of Islam.  With this vantage point we can work to strengthen both Black and White culture (the falling off of White culture is missed nearly all of Auster's analyses).  And, the overt cultural reference of the word culturist, can help distinguish this hopeful and helpful analysis from the futile and divisive racist one.  Furthermore, the ubiquity of the word multiculturalism can help its opposite, culturism, spread quickly.  I am culturist, not racist.  And, while I appreciate his goal of defeating multiculturalism, Mr. Auster's racist analysis undermines our progress.

 www.culturism.us

Dean Malik's American Exceptionalism and Charles Bloch's White Nationalism FAIL

This article dismantles both sides in the debate between Charles Bloch’s defense of White Nationalism and Dean Malik’s fight for American Exceptionalism.  Both these views vie for control of the political Right.  Neither will help recapture America from leftists, globalists, and multiculturalists.  To accomplish our goals we must embrace culturism and culturist thought instead.

Western Nationalists and American Exceptionalist both fail from a lack of vocabulary and imagination.  And politically, both destroy us.  If the Right accepts universal principles such as the American Exceptionalism that Malik argues for, we cannot discuss border control without being called racist. Advocating the importance of culture means the right can avoid the left-leaning contortions Malik wishes to engage us in.And, Bloch’s White Nationalism is racist.  In a multi-racial society like ours, such a view is not only a dead end politically and socially, it is dangerous.  

Protestant European culture (not skin color) made this nation great.  This was and should be the basis of our assimilation policies. Herein, this view of culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. We have a culture. 

Culturism explains our history better than either Malik or Bloch do.  The White Nationalists make the Founders retarded racists.  As Malik notes, this plays into Black and Mexican Nationalists' hands.  But, Malik's claim that the Founders were into universal principles leaves us with no argument against open borders.  The Founders and the authors of the 1924 Immigration Act (which banned Jews and Italians) understood culture's importance.  They did not exclude Jews and Italians and non-whites due to color.  They understood the importance of both culture and cultural unity.  They were culturists.  

Islam nor China like our western principles of rights, democracy, relative separation of church and state, and freedom of speech.  These are not universal values. Culturism recognizes that these are Western values and so wishes to protect them.  Bloch calls all who side with Western nations racists.  But, this is not an irrational love of the color white.  Such solidarity comes from the understanding that Western nations share our particular and fragile values. 

The terms culturism and culturist can spread.  They can do a lot to diffuse the monopoly that multiculturalists have on our campuses.  They explain the historical debates as to the nature of our national founding and history better than the terms racist or Exceptionalist.  They can allow us to put multiculturalists and open border globalists on the defense with their own rhetoric.  Certainly those on the left must admit that culture is real and important.  Then, as sure as culturism denotes culture, they cannot call all such considerations racist any longer.  

Globalists, Multiculturalists, and American Exceptionalists (like Malik) call all who note the importance of culture and diversity 'racist.'  This shows a lack of imagination and empirical grounding.  White Nationalists, seeing race as the only significant factor in the world, ignore the degeneration of our culture amongst whites. Worse yet, in a racially diverse society, they eschew the possibility of assimilation.  Thus they leave us with no viable options beyond mutterings of ethnic cleansing and seceding.  The Right cannot be the right and adopt either American Exceptionalist thought or racist thought.  We must challenge multiculturalism with the vision of unity that is culturism.  We must fight for immigration laws that are culturist.

John K. Press, Ph.D. is the author of Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future.  MOre recently he published the book Prison Wars.  You can learn about both at www.culturism.us.

The TSA's Multicultural Thanksgiving

Angela Merkel Rejects Multiculturalism Nearly Embraces Culturism

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has definitively announced the failure of multiculturalism in Europe.[1]   Thus she has come much closer to adopting the positive value system of multiculturalism’s opposite, culturism.   While her speech represented a great leap forward for culturism, the full impact of culturist realizations will not come until she understands the impact of history on culture.

Multiculturalism’s failure results from its total failure to acknowledge diversity and that nations have traditional majority cultures.  The mandate to ‘celebrate diversity’ requires that we ignore culture’s real impact.  Merkel’s denunciation of forced marriages recognized that other cultural patterns exist.   And indeed levels of crime and government dependency clearly are also higher amongst some immigrant groups than others. 

But the depth of harm does not lie in such statistics, but in basic cultural outlooks.  Germany has a culture that respects education and discussion.   Psychologist Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, spent time studying Muslims in youth prison.  He found that rather than handling conflict via dialogue, Muslim youth consider it proper to settle disputes via “physical revenge.”[2] 

The cultural tendency toward solving disagreements via violence has manifest in violent mob actions such as burning tens of thousands of cars in Paris, attacking German youth in schools, and worldwide violence over Danish cartoons portraying Muhammad. 

Sane immigration policy requires noting cultural differences.  It is culturist, not racist, to acknowledge that wherever many Chinese move, they excel in school and set up Chinese areas that become tourist attractions.  Wherever Muslims move they make the schools rougher and create no-go zones.

In noting that other cultures have honor killing, violent ways of settling disputes, and antipathy towards free speech, Merkel has come a long ways towards noting that Germany (and the West generally) has a traditional majority culture.  An implication of her acknowledging diversity is recognizing that the West alone stands for democracy, freedom of speech, the relative separation of Church and State and the sanctity of the individual.

Now that Merkel acknowledges that culture is important and has implicitly acknowledged that Germany has a majority culture, she must make one last step in achieving culturist awareness.  She must recognize that Islam has been aggressively trying to conquer the West for 1400 years.  History travels with cultures.  Even if Chinese immigrants had the same anti-social patterns as Muslim immigrants, their lack of historical animosity towards the West would render them less of a threat. 

Merkel has acknowledged that multiculturalism has failed.  As such she may now be willing to discuss cultural dynamics in general.  But only when she starts talking of the positive value of culturism, when she takes a western culturist stance, she can really make sound policy.  At that point she will know that she must stop Muslim immigration to the West and make sure her laws and schools openly protect and promote German heritage and western values.   

www.culturism.us

---

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures

[2] http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5905/pub_detail.asp

Brooklyn Tea Party Fights the Voorhies Mosque

Why is Culturist John Such a Jerk??

       Pamela Geller asked that people bring flags rather than political signs to her 9 - 11 protest against the Ground Zero mosque.  In fact, she originally said she'd confiscate anything other than flags.  Furthermore, she said terrible things about the August 22nd Anti-Mosque rally at Ground Zero.  And, I want to bring a sign that says, "Stopping Sharia in America is Culturist not Racist."  

       I respect Pamela.  She is a relentless anti-Jihadist and I have seen her at a million rallies.  But at none of those events were we in the audience told what to say.  I have a gut reaction against all who would stifle the voice of the public.  But respecting Pamela, I assume there must be some good served by not letting the people vent their spleen as they see fit.

       If I get it, Pamela argues that it is more sensitive to 9 - 11 families to bring flags.  I think crowds battling the enemy head-on with signs that say "No Sharia Here" will do more to lift 9 - 11 families' feelings than indulging in vague patriotic platitudes.  To me, identifying the enemy and saying "never again" respects the victims.  I know at least some 9 - 11 families feel the same way.

       So when Pamela's people ask me to put away my sign, should I?  Is there something I am missing?  Am I being a jerk?  I think this rally should represent the same defiance of Sharia than all the others.  Perhaps that defiance will come from the speakers.  Perhaps there is strategic point I am missing.  I plan on bringing my sign.  Should I?  Would my bringing a sign prove that I am a big jerk?

Muslim Wants Culturist Discrimination Against Muslims in the U.S. Military

Through a wave of conflicting and ironic multicultural platitudes, Private First Class Nasser Abdo has made the case for, at very least, discriminating against Muslims in the military.  Abdo joined the military in April of 2009.  Since then, he has filed for conscientious objector status because, he says, one cannot be true to their Muslim faith and fight for the U.S. in Afghanistan.  He is right.  Private Abdo’s case perfectly illustrates why the military must drop multiculturalism and employ discrimination.[i]

Abdo’s multicultural hypocrisy is common when he claims that he was irrationally discriminated against while simultaneously asking for special treatment because his cultural differences are so significant that we should pay attention to them. When facing any discrimination, after calling you racist, multiculturalists claim that culture provides no rational basis for discrimination.  Multiculturalists, you see, do not really take culture seriously.  But, they then turn around and tell you that culture is very important when they want special treatment.[ii] 

Either we should take culture seriously or we should not take culture seriously.  Aldo makes a powerful case for discrimination when he tells the media that fighting in the US military runs counter to his “maintaining his Islamic faith.”[iii]

Of course, I do not hold out much faith that we’ll learn Abdo’s lesson.  Even after US Army Majory Nidal Hassan killed 13 people on a military base in the name of Islam, the military continues to enroll Muslim into its ranks. That is because politically correct multicultural thinking forbids all historical and logical thought that question its precepts by calling such thought intolerant, racist, and discriminatory.[iv]

Abdo showed just how completely multiculturalism has destroyed our ability to think when no one laughed at the obvious falsehood of his statement that, “Islam does not allow me to operate in any kind of warfare.”[v] In no forum has he been asked about the concept of Jihad.  Even Fox News blithely avoided editorial commentary on his quote that “"Islam is a peaceful religion, it's not a religion of warfare." And so, multicultural logic dictates that 1400 years of Islamic military expansion from Spain to India to 9 – 11 must be ignored to further the idea that all cultures adhere to the same values.[vi]

If we have any hope for learning about cultural diversity, it will have to come from Islamic media.  All non-Western nations assume a culturist, rather than a multiculturalist, perspective. They routinely take their culture’s side in textbooks, international diplomacy and, even, television.  While Aldo claimed that universal culture-neutral precepts embodied in Islam prevented him from being violent in our media, he told Al-Jazeera he wanted out of the US military because Islam told him he was, “forbidden to kill Muslims.”  The implication, of course, is that he could kill non-Muslims. [vii]

Wanting it both ways, again, multiculturalists often take the globalist tact of invoking the “world community.”  Abdo advocated stopping war in the Middle East by “coming together as a community and portraying Islam as the peaceful religion that it is.”  In this explanation he calls the Islamic community his community.  But immediately after he claimed we need “a spiritual approach, the community approach, the diplomatic approach” for peace in the Middle East.  Herein the world community has no sides.  Again, with multiculturalists and their globalist brethren, in one sentence culture exists and the next minute it melts away.  

Notwithstanding Abdo’s historical and cultural ignorance, the military must assume that the very fact of War negates the ideal of the “world community.”  The military, by its very nature, cannot entertain such multicultural pap.[viii]

When Private Abdo told his people via Al-Jazeera television, “I Don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims” he provided a slew of valuable culturist lessons. Cultural identity is important and conflict between civilizations persists.  This statement also gives lie to multiculturalists’ universal “global community” sentiment.  And, since the West’s wars will likely be against Muslims for the foreseeable future, Aldo’s honest and truthful estimation of the influence of culture on the individual provides adequate justification for keeping Muslims out of our military.[ix]  

For good measure, Abdo complained that in the military, “There were racial slurs.”  Well the obvious fact of the matter is that there were no racial slurs.  Abdo is white.  If there were slurs they were about his religion.  And religions are not races.  We can clear up this dangerous conflation by using the word “culturist.”  The slurs referred to his culture, not his race.  We should thank Abdo because he has not only shown us the irony in multiculturalists not wanting to consider culture unless they want special treatment, he has shown us how spurious their charges of racism are.

As a culturist, I concur with Private Aldo.  He and the Islamic Fort Hood massacre demonstrate that Muslims should not be in our military.  But to make this a policy, the military must drop multiculturalism’s blindness to culture in favor of culturism.  As its very reason is fighting conflicts between civilizations, the U.S. military cannot safely entertain the multicultural platitudes that have crippled civilian discussion and reasoning.  The military must separate irrational racism from rational culturism. Private Aldo declared that he could not, “Serve both the US Army and his God simultaneously.”  We must listen to Private Aldo.[x]  

John K. Press, Ph.D. is the author of the Book, “Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future.”  www.culturism.us has more information about culturism.

---

[i] Free Nassar Abdo Website,  http://www.freenasserabdo.org/

[ii] The Atlantic Journal, History Repeats in Anti-Islamic Mood, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/history-repeats-in-anti-605758.html

[iii] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

[iv] Wikipedia, Fort Hood Shooting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

[v] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

[vi] Fox News, U.S. Soldier, Citing His Muslim Religion, Seeks Conscientious Objector Status, Joshua Rhettt Miller, Sept, 02, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/02/muslim-soldier-refuses-deploy-afghanistan/

[vii] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/2594.htm

[viii] Interview with KPFA’s Aimee Allison, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/09/interview-with-kpfas-aimee-allison.html

[ix] The Middle East Media Research Institute, August 21, 2010, http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/2594.htm

[x] CNN Interview, http://www.freenasserabdo.org/2010/08/cnn-interview.html

Culturist Coney Island Mermaid Parade and Culturism in the Daily News

This is a very appropriate post to go after Iran banning dogs. What you see here is not what you'd find in Islamic nations,

China, Africa, Latin America or elsewhere. We should not take it for granted.

By the way, I got an article on CULTURISM on one of New York City's big papers, the Daily News. You can see that here -

http://culturismnews.blogspot.com/2010/06/culturism-in-new-yorks-daily-news.html

www.culturism.us

Culturist History Lessons for Racist Historians

Was Manifest Destiny good? Manifest Destiny was the 19th century belief that the then Eastern bound United States was destined to expand to the west coast. Coined in 1836, the phrase and idea of Manifest Destiny was used to justify the annexation of the nation of Texas and the Mexican - American War from which Mexico ceded much of the US’s current southwestern land. This expansionist point of view’s merit rests on the assumption that the spread of American values meant the betterment of humanity.

Today historians many denounce Manifest Destiny as a racist forerunner of imperialism. These historian's racist interpretation lays on a failure to understand how importantly our forerunners took culture. Conflating culture and race causes today’s historians to misunderstand their subjects and seriously distorts America’s sense of self. Racist historians should consider the culturist historical perspective.

Manifest Destiny rested on assumptions that race-obsessed academia finds completely taboo. For example, believers in manifest destiny assumed that our republican form of government, in which people governed themselves, individually and collectively, was very special. People of the time contrasted our way with monarchy in which others governed you.

Less PC yet, it was held that this expansion of republicanism under the banner of Manifest Destiny had to have, in the parlance of the time, Anglo-Saxon roots. Those who formulated Manifest Destiny thought republican government required a culture of rational machismo, a love of work and self-government, an active stance towards taking one’s destiny into their own hands, only found in the cultural descendants of the Germanic tribes who conquered England. Therefore, the Anglo – Americans, and not the Mexicans, had to populate the remaining continental territory for republicanism to spread.

Up until and during the time of Manifest Destiny nearly all of the world, and indeed Mexico, had been impoverished and despotic. Had there not been America inventing electricity, fomenting industry, and developing the idea of democracy, Mexico would undoubtedly still be medieval. And, had Mexico controlled and populated Texas and the Southwest of America, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these areas would be different than the rest of Mexico. In other words, the spread of Anglo – American culture from sea to shining sea did enlarge the area of the world that was wealthy, democratic, rights recognizing, religiously free, and with free speech.

Culturist Policies are Needed to Keep England Alive and Well

Today the British Department of Health announced that it would loosen hygiene rules for Muslim and Sikh doctors and nurses. From now on Muslim female staff will not need to wash their hands before procedures as it compromises their modesty. Instead they will have the admittedly less sanitary option of wearing disposable plastic over-sleeves.

Acknowledging the danger of microbes and death, a Department of Health spokesman said, "The guidance is intended to . . . balance infection control measures with cultural beliefs." But, believe it or not, from a culturist perspective, the death of some patients is not the main cause for concern that this policy elicits.

The most dangerous problem is that this policy encodes multiculturalism not culturism. Whereas culturism acknowledges that England has a majority culture to protect and promote, this multiculturalist policy implicitly says that England has no core culture. It says that the nation can be whatever pressure groups decide it is. It, therefore, officially ends the dominance of English culture in England. This is very dangerous.

If you think this hyperbole, consider its potential impact on schools. If we are going to implement policies that recognize and give legal standing to balkanize our culture, we must think it through. This legal precedent may require us to set up schools in which Islamic teachings are taught. If that seems extreme, keep in mind that multiculturalism has currently made it nearly a firing offense to criticize Islam in our schools.

When we encode multiculturalist school policy, we have a recursive loop of disaster. When we cannot criticize Islam, we cannot teach that much of western history has been about fighting Islam. We must erase the concept that our defending Europe against Islamic invasion was a boon for the West that led the way to the Enlightenment and, ultimately, our political freedoms. And when our school children are taught not to value our western culture, they will not feel any sense of pride, have reasons for the civic virtues that make England strong, or a desire to protect their homeland.

Islam has been at war with the West nearly continuously since its inception. Wherever it takes over it imposes a ruthless theocracy that smothers the freedoms we hold dear. We cannot protect the West with policies that say Islam is just as great and English as Christianity and rights. Culture is not metaphysical. It exists in space and people. Everywhere Islam has legal standing and is practiced is a space where English culture does not exist and is not practiced. It means the territory defending western values has shrunk and that believing in Islamic values has grown. The hospitals are now becoming Islamic.

Multiculturalists are wrong; England has a traditional core culture. To survive England must set up culturist policy that affirms that this is English land with western practices. We must tell people that our schools will teach the glories of the European defense against Islam and the contribution philosophers such as John Locke made to creating the western concept of rights. Our streets must not become areas where women must conform to Muslim customs. Just as Saudi Arabia has an Islamic culture and protects it, England has a culture and a right to protect it. To survive, England must enact culturist policies, not multiculturalist policies.

www.culturism.us

Conservatism is the New Progressivism

The first chapter of Mr. Ted Honderich’s 2005 book Conservatism: Burke, Nozick, Bush, Blair?floats several meanings of the term ‘conservatism.’ He proposes each tentatively and then shoots them down. Charmingly conveying his argument in the form of an honest inquiry, Honderich problematizes the concept of conservatism in order that we might become surer of its meaning. This article will use the same method to clarify culturism’s position within the conservative world. And, in doing so it will show that Honderich fails to note convervatism’s being oriented towards the future.

In his very thoughtful inquiry Honderich questions what the mission to conserve traditions implied in the word conservatism entails. One problem concerns how far back the proposed time period conservation seeks to maintain lays. Does conservativism require we reinstall the West’s old distinction between nobles and commoners? Then again, after how long does a feature become a tradition? Fifty years after the implementation of Obama’s health care legislation will it become a tradition conservatives will seek to preserve? Honderich casts about for a method of distinguishing the nature of values beyond their age.

Honderich’s inquiry reviews Edmund Burke’s foundational book Reflections on the Revolution in France. Written while the French revolution was underway, Burke contrasted change and reform. In the age of Obama, it was refreshing to remember Burke’s attack on change. The agenda of change, in Burke’s usage, sweeps away too much of the past in the name of the new, whereas reform conserves much of the past as it improves society. As Burke predicted the French Revolution became a nightmare because it tore up all of the relationships that helped stabilize society.

But the author then honestly interrogates Burke’s concept of reform. He asks if some self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives’ efforts to get rid of government programs constitute change? Casting out programs such as welfare would mean a radical disjunction with present policies. Both Reagan and Thatcher brought on great changes. And, if this, again, constitutes a return to the 1900s, do we want to deny that some progress and innovations have happened that deserve adoption? Thus Honderich finds the facile definition of conservative as one who wants to conserve traditions to be inadequate. The culturist answer to his problem would come from noting the future orientation of our past.

The West, ironically, has a long- standing, even ancient, tradition of being progressive. That is our past has traditionally aimed at creating a better tomorrow. Our very history shows a struggle towards ever more progressive values. We have struggled against the odds to reignite Athens’s view that men can self-govern. The West has vindicated the right of men to dissent. We have embraced the goal of women’s rights and the separation of church and state. To support our civilization, to guard it by conserving its cultural and economic foundations, is to protect progressivism in the world. It is to conserve the past in the name of passing “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Being appreciative and protective of our progressive culture requires that we once again adopt the traditional Western civilization narrative wherein America stands as a light unto nations. We must look back with pride upon our progressive history. Conservatives have not fought the textbook wars in order to bring us back to a repressive golden age. They have done so to sustain the only progressive civilization on earth. In a world full of Jihadis, preserving America means preserving progressive values such as the separation of church and state. In a world where China is ascendant, protecting America means allowing freedom in a non-racist state that believes in freedom of speech and individual rights to survive.

Those who recognize that liberty is always under attack know that conservatism is the new progressivism. Multiculturalists look upon the Old World and tradition worshipping cultures with rose-colored glasses. They dream of a world where tradition locks men into their station within a stagnant community. But, worshipping the past blindly, looking with favor on nations that are not increasingly exulting the capacities of individuals, falls outside of our traditions. Western culturists affirm western culture. And they seek to distinguish liberty from license as the Greeks, Romans, Puritans, and Founding Fathers did. But that celebration of the heroic duty-bound past gets embraced with a view to securing our liberties. The West likes the new and improved. We locate our hopes in the future.

www.culturism.us

Empedocles, rights talk and culturism

The following are thoughts from an important debate I am having with Empedocles. He runs the "a pox on both your houses" blog. Please read and respond to our crucial discussion.

Empedocles,

I very much agree with your anti-metaphysical stance on rights. I also agree with your statement "I do not think that right claims need to be acquiesced to if they are harmful to a people." And the switch from negative rights (what the government can't do) to positive rights (the constant government intrusion in the name of equality and fairness you mention) is very significant.

My favorite book on rights is Mary Glendon's short "Rights Talk". It would answer your question about limits to rights by saying that under current situations, where positive rights are asserted on metaphysical basis of justice, there are no limits to them and they are not negotiable. Group rights, economic rights etc. cannot be challenged. She would ask us to accept that rights are a construct gained by power and not eternal truths, so that we can have discussions like the ones we are having about the limits and use of rights.

If we accept the Neitzschiean premise, and take rights to be situational, does that weaken them in any sense? I say no. We can then adopt pure pragmatism. So I can say rights here in America are valid and we will verbally push for them as being international, but we will not legally recognize international rights such as the right to build mosques here. We use that language against others while protecting ourselves from others use of them against us. This would be a pragmatic approach to rights.

Accepting pragmatism, the only question left is then, pragmatically, which is the best strategy. Thanks to our discussions I am leaning towards the above strategy. And if people say it is hypocritical that you want to push rights as an idea internationally via sanctions etc, but do not recognize international rights that hurt your sovereignty, I would respond by explaining the pragmatic, real politik view of rights. This is the strongest position to come from.

The problem is that, in the current world debate, whenever you use the phrase "human rights" people hear "weak sovereignty" and use your own language against you. And yet, if we do not go with human rights language we cannot vocally back the Iranian dissenters. The sword of "human rights" language cuts both ways. The second best idea is to say we back "Western rights" as an international idea. But this will not make a satisfactory substitute for human rights language because explaining the distinction is too difficult. Furthermore, Iranians will likely not rally for anything designated as 'western rights.'

Finally, my first impulse is to just say screw the international scene and assume rights only apply in the West. However, if we could weaken Iran and make them more amenable to rationality, it would greatly enhance our security. I have never believed in that possibility before, but now I have some hope. The potential of a moderate Iran is a hard carrot to give up. If that is an impossible carrot, then I would adopt my original stance of saying screw the international scene, rights are purely western. So again, unknown variables determine what is the best strategy.

Culturism, Iran, Iraq, and Foreign Policy

Culturist Perspective: Islam Day

The resolution to make September 24th, ‘Islam Day’ in Hawaii is culturist blashphemy. The Senate is multiculturalist. That means they do not believe the West has a core traditional culture to promote. They think our land is a blank slate without history where random cultures meet. And, for the sake of equal representation, we must celebrate Islam for a day. Herein is the irony. Multiculturalists do not believe that cultural diversity exists. They think it is all about food, fashion and festivals. They have never heard of Jihad.

Shockingly, Hawaii’s Senate has no basic historical knowledge. The West and Islam have been at war for the vast majority of our 1400 year co-existence. After Islam was born it spread like an imperialist plague. It took a larger chunk of the world in 100 years than Rome did in eight hundred. Why did we have the Crusades? Islam had taken over the Middle East and what is now Israel. We had to fight to re-establish access to the Holy City. That is basic knowledge. Islam nearly toppled the West via the Eastern Europe. We only repelled them in the 1683, September 11th, battle of Vienna. Muslim’s who know basic history know significance of that date. But the Hawaiian Senate doesn’t know any history. If they did, they would not sing the praises of those who nearly destroyed our civilization.

Culturism knows about history and diversity. It knows that history has not ended and that struggles for survival are going on. Islam is expanding. The world is not getting more diverse. The West is getting more diverse. Not China. Not the Middle East. The West: European based nations. Culturism says we must choose immigrants based on what they bring the West and be aware that some cultures are odious to our customs and others are hostile to our survival. Multiculturalism does not want to look at real practice or history. Polygamy and honor killings exist. Acknowledging the importance of culture is not racist, it is culturist. Not all cultures celebrate ‘human rights.’ There is not global community. We have no right to move to Saudi Arabia or China. Only the West supports the idea of western rights. We must protect the West. Celebrating those who oppose our very values does not help.

We have to reassert that we have a specific culture to protect. Since we are a western nation with western values, we should only officially support western holidays. That sends a message concerning values. It tells the world that we have a specific culture. We believe in free speech, the relative separation of church and state, individual rights, female rights, and democracy.. China and Iran do not accept these values. Diversity exists. We have a past to celebrate. We have a triumph over the forces of darkness in our past. And, if we do not stand for this we will fall for anything. To celebrate Islam is to mock those who have died to protect us. It makes a mockery of both September 11ths. It belittles our freedoms to say that other cultures are just as free. We should commemorate 9-11 with a holiday. We should have a holiday for the original Martin Luther. We should have Pope day. But we should not celebrate things outside of our tradition. We should not have Islam Day.

www.culturism.us

BNP Culturist or Racist?

Is the BNP racist or culturist? As a western culturist, I have long wondered about the BNP. But, as a culturist, I also know that it is hard to understand a movement unless you are a part of the culture that it lives in. So, though I see stuff on line, I cannot tell who the average BNP member is or what they really believe in.

I do know that the BNP followers I have come across largely understand the threat that Islam presents to western civilization. They are culturists. They reject multiculturalism because it tells them that Britain – and the West – do not have core cultures to protect, guide and promote; they are culturist. And, as they don’t buy multiculturalism, and culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism, they are culturists.

From what little of the BNP I know of, I have given them the benefit of the doubt and considered them culturist allies who, unfortunately, do not yet use the word. I INSTINCTIVELY do not believe the multiculturalists when they slander someone as racist. Here in the US it is used against anyone who would talk about immigration reform. But immigration concerns aren't about race, they are about culture. If multiculturalists call you racist, it is just because you’re pointing out that diversity is real and it is important.

Why am I hung up on the difference? Because racism is stupid and dangerous, whereas culturism is rational and productive. Racism also provides no good policy objectives. People cannot change their skin color. The idea of a purge is ridiculous and would lead to civil war and destabilize a western nation. It would undermine, not protect our rights. Racist thought leads nowhere.

Culturists have solutions based on the idea that Britain or whatever western nation we’re discussing, has a core culture and a right to protect it. For example, in sticking up for the West, you can stop the building of mosques by foreign governments and that can change attitudes. Sharia courts can be disbanned in Britain because they are not British. Culturism highlights why British schools should not spend their time teaching of the glory of hostile cultures. Also culturism can use the reality of cultural diversity to have police monitor those who go to radical mosques. This is not racial profiling it is culturist profiling. Again, racism is stupid and dangerous. But Culturism provides for intelligent policy based on the importance of culture.

I agree with the BNP on one crucial issue. We must stop Islamic immigration. Of course, the liberal multicultualists say this is racist. It is not, it is culturist. As a culturist I believe that Hindus make better western citizens than Muslims. That is obviously not racist, it is culturist. Were the BNP advocating it for racists reasons, again, the platform of excluding Islamic immigration would carry lots of other terrible implications along with it. I would not support a racist platform or party. But I do and would support a culturist platform and party.

So the question is, again, is the BNP racist or culturist?