Culturist Solutions, Vlaams Belang, the BNP and the USA

Blogs and political parties focus on the spread of Islam. They have made us aware – if terrorism did not – of the danger Islam can pose to western civilization. But, what solutions can be had? Many worry that right – leaning political parties such as the BNP and Vlaams Belang will, for lack of positive options, move towards advocating ethnic cleansing. Such actions would completely undermine our values and cause major civil unrest. This policy could destroy the West. Culturism relies on history. American history provides lots of positive, legal solutions to the fear of Islamic law growing in western nations.

We have long taken culturist action based upon an appreciation for our culture and its fragility. Puritans, the two Great Awakenings, the Freeman's bureau and Beecher's spreading of women's schools, Abolition and Prohibition, our naturalization and immigration laws, progressivism, the FCC and the Americanization movement all illustrate that we have a culturist heritage. Culturist mass movements of concerned citizens provided the impetus for many of these culturist episodes and mechanisms. We must again come to see ourselves as a culturist nation.

Our culturist immigration laws provide an example of solutions from our history. The 1921 and 1924 immigration laws capped thirty years of culturist agitation. These excluded Southern and Eastern Europeans. The quotas were based on the 1890 census. Right or wrong, culturist immigration laws fall within the scope of our traditions. We also have many other immigration court cases to draw upon. The obvious application is having another culturist law aimed at restricting immigration from Islamic nations. This is not racist, it is culturist. If such laws cannot now pass legal muster, you'd get the same effect by outlawing immigration from terrorist nations. Certainly this is within the rights of our nation.

We also have the right to take our naturalization laws seriously. There is a language component. Besides this, there is a loyalty clause; becoming an American citizen means disavowing allegiance to foreign potentates. We have tossed out folks who advocated the overthrow of our government for violating the loyalty clause before. Another legal tool is ending of monetary remittance to the home country. This would stop American funding of Jihad. People who then stayed here would be clearer that they were working towards the betterment of this nation. We can also stand up for our legal system as a component of our culture. That means saying no to Islamic or Sharia law. That means no polygamy, etc. Taking these culturist stances in law would help

Without invoking legal changes we can insist that schools once again recognize their traditional culturist mission. These need to teach our historical western narrative as a progressive one. One also based on values of duty and responsibility. You teach this by teaching the culturist history mentioned above. The schools of all nations are culturist. They transmit the dominant culture. We should enlarge the scope of our national holidays. We should have thematic parades, etc. This does not mean that those who do not want to partake must, but we have a right to celebrate our majority culture. When it is a good culture, like ours, it is good to do so and serves important culturist purposes.

We must welcome foreign investment, but we cannot allow culturist imperialism in the form of Saudi Funded Whabbi Mosques. Obviously, because of the 1st Amendment, citizens may build whatever religious complexes they like. But, just as we have no international right to build churches in Saudi Arabia or China, there is no international right to build mosques in America. And, herein, demographics are important; we live in a democracy. That means, in part, the majority gets to direct the community via votes. That is self-government. If we wish to vote in such restrictions we may.

The ACLU needs to be counterbalanced by recognizing the legal standing of the majority culture. This is also a tradition. Read the first and second Supreme Court cases concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. The need for a community to perpetuate itself has traditionally had standing. And throughout most of our history the law has assumed the existence of culturist rights exist and balance out individual rights. The modern idea that one individual's sensitivities overrule the entire community's right to perpetuate traditions should be questioned. You do not have the right to build a porn shop next to an elementary school. Self-governance is our tradition.

We must also remember that culturist profiling is not racist profiling. And that while racist profiling would be bad, culturist profiling - because diversity is real - is rational and necessary. Splitting the two allows rational dialogue. This allows you to explain to Muslim citizens of America, that only strongly anti-American mosques and their members will be watched. You can get some in the Muslim community to acknowledge that this is necessary. And then we must scrupulously avoid keeping an eye on anyone for whom there is no probable cause. This way you can have legal, rational security, without violating the rights of Americans. If we violate the rights of people with no sensitivity, resentment will be justified. We have no need to, and should not, antagonize any good Muslim citizens.

Were the demographics frozen as they are now, were Muslims to get no adverse treatment, were radical mosques to stop spreading, were remittance and western cultural laws used to remove the incentive for radicals to move to America, the remaining Muslim population would likely become fairly content and moderate. Remember that rising populations and intimidation feed terrorism. If we praise our culture in our schools and in our discussions, if we provide fun holidays, most every citizen will more enjoy being an American. This is a positive program. It will reap more rewards than pure negativity and unjust discrimination.

We also need to change our international outlook. We must replace the globalist vision with a culturist vision. We have a side in international disputes. Despite what multiculturalists say, we have a core culture. We are the West. We are not the world. Since other nations do not accept refugees we need not. Other nations are culturist, we be so too. We should support Israel and other western nations because they are western. We should not send aid to Muslim countries. Muslim countries do not help us out. We should not be the only non-culturist civilization.

To initiate any of this, we need a shift in public discourse. Right now we would dismiss many of the above solutions as 'racist.' These culturst policies have nothing to do with race. We must recognize them as culturist. This will allow us to discuss such policies rationally on the basis of cultural diversity being real. And, we must embrace this fact. Multiculturalism needs to be counterbalanced. We will always have diversity. But we must stress our unity. We must avoid the extremes of both those who only wish to blindly celebrate diversity and those who preach hatred of Muslims, but provide no positive solutions. The West must acknowledge cultural diversity and start talking about legal and reasonable culturist solutions.

We can help foster culturist awareness and policies by using the terms culturism and culturist. When we use the word culturism we challenge multiculturalism. In every education school in America, students should demand culturst courses counterbalance the multiculturalist ones. When we use the word culturist we help silence those who abuse the word racism to stop conversations. When invoking the words, we stop being the only globalists on the planet and counterbalance the anti-social use of individual rights in the Courts. Finally, using the terms culturism and culturist help us remember our culturist traditions. Unlike multiculturalism, unlike the hysteria of racists, culturism and culturists point to many positive solutions.

www.culturism.us

Vlaams Belang: the last stop

Islam in Europe: Book Review: Undercover in Little Morocco
Esther, at the excellent Islam in Europe blog, reports on a book by journalist Hind Fraihi on the Moroccans of Belgium. The active support in this community for violent Jihad, killing Jews, and control of the local Muslims, especially women, according to Islamic fundamentalist dictates, may come as no surprise. In any case, it is a reminder of what the Flemings rightly fear in their midst. But what may surprise some readers is the support for the Vlaams Belang among the moderate Muslims:

She meets more people like Jamal, but she feels they're fighting a losing battle against the fundamentalists. She says that the moderate Muslims are walking a tightrope, between the Muslim fundamentalists and the right-wing (ie, nationalist) Flemish extremists. I had trouble understanding what she meant, but she later brings example of Muslims who vote for Vlaams Belang. I doubt most Muslims are in danger of becoming nationalist extremists, though. As Fraihi says, if they vote for Vlaams Belang, they do it out of protest, fear and disillusionment.

As one example she brings Fatima, a Moroccan immigrant in her 60s. She doesn't see herself as integrated and doesn't think she acts any different in Belgium then she did in Morocco. She came in 1968, got a hearty welcome, worked with Belgians and generally enjoyed herself. She followed up on her kids - went to PTA meetings and made sure she knew where they were going at all times. A friend of hers complains that her son lives off benefits, even though he could work. There is discrimination, she says, but the 2nd and 3rd generation don't want to work and just use it as an excuse. These youth are coddled by multicultural and integration organizations, all in the name of tolerance.

According to Fatima the problem-youth are problematic because they have become fully Flemish. She suffers from the extremist Muslims who demand that she wear a headscarf, soemthing that she'd never done in morocco. The moderate Muslims are the first victims of Muslim extremism, but nobody takes care of them. She supports the Vlaams Belang program: stopping immigration, reducing marriage immigration and cutting off the integration sectors. She sees Vlaams Belang as the only party which is upset at Muslim extremism, who wants to treat immigrants strictly but justly. Moderate Muslims are fed up and feel that they've been left on their own. Fatima wants to vote for a more moderate party, but only after the danger from Muslim extremism is dealt with.

She meets a worker at a youth center who tells her he blames the parents, imams and Belgian authorities for the Islamization of the youth. The parents blindly follow the Moroccan imams, who preach that almost everything is a crime, though many of them are former criminals themselves who have become 'born again' Muslims. Some have traveled to Afghanistan and are therefore barred from going back to Morocco, and yet the Belgian authorities don't seem to care. The parents were also not that religious when they were kids, but they expect much more from their children. Not only that, the parents had realized their dreams, but their children don't reach as far, don't get anywhere and are therefore easy prey for terrorist recruiters.

As she repeats in her interview, she feels the 'integration' sector has no reason to actually solve the problem, since that would take away their reason for being.

The Flemish nationalists may sometimes be heard preaching "white Europe", but it seems the implicit multiculturalist-Jihadi alliance is not a more appealing option for some Moroccan-Belgians. Perhaps for the infamous "moderate Muslim", the only hope lies in a Flemish nationalism that may one day acknowledge and support its Moroccan-Belgian allies. If the only hope for such people is the renewal of a responsible nationhood that makes real demands of youth, etc., maybe you have to start with the least bad option, the one closest to the mark (however problematic) and work from there. Or maybe it's just a great delusion. Maybe it's supporting those who will one day kick you out of the country, or worse. The thing is, no one can know in advance. It all depends on the exercise of human political freedom, and the learning process that only the interaction of strange bedfellows can bring. There is a point at which desperation and good faith meet, the point where all new religion starts...