Obama’s Dangerously Multicultural Muslim Advisor: Dalia Mogahed.

Dalia Mogahed is Obama’s new representative to Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This advisory council should not exist. The previous person appointed to such a post for Obama was his Muslim Outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi. He resigned after being tied to funding terrorist-friendly groups and a radical mosque in Chicago. So Obama must have been under pressure to find a Muslim without terrorist ties. Mogahed is a personable and skillful apologist for Islam. In her book, Who Speaks for Islam? co-authored by John Esposito, she purports to scientifically use polling to tell us Islam is moderate. As such, she preaches the multicultural line that, ironically, argues that cultures are fundamentally equal. Yet, the prior resignation and even her data show alarming cultural data about Islam. But even if she were not an apologist for Islam, the very presence of this council should be cause for concern. Asking for culturism to replace multiculturalism, will help us stop this trend.

Moghahed’s book, Who Speaks for Islam? uses worldwide polling to discover the average Muslim’s thoughts. In a May 8th, 2008 interview concerning the book last year, Mogahed made the point that most Muslims have the same concerns as “people around the world.” She mentioned Jobs, food, education, etc. She preaches the multicultural line that little cultural diversity actually exists. On April 2nd of this year she compared terrorism to other violent crimes. She discounted the connection between Islam and terrorism saying, saying “Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of American’s general acceptance of murder.” Besides willfully ignoring worldwide celebrations of terrorism, this mixed metaphor normalizes terrorism. In the Los Angeles Times she wrote that the West's ignorance of Islam and Muslims has been the fatal flaw” in the war on terror. Eerily, She called this “dangerous” and blamed “right – wing call – in radio.” Apparently she speaks for all muslims and all reasonable people everywhere.

Magahed’s twists her own polling conclusions to press her point. She explains that Muslims do not view the West as monolithic. Muslims “view the United States as very differently than a country like France or Germany.” She goes on to explain that they love France but are “much more negative” about the United States and Britain. Since different perceptions exist within one religion, she reasons, it is not culture or religion that drives peoples’ sentiment. Rather “their perception of country’s policies” drive their disapproval of the US and Britain. Obviously her point is that terrorism and hatred for America do not stem from Islam, but from our foreign policy. First of all, her research does not remove the tie between Islam and hatred of significant portions of the West. The reason the dislike is so high is because it is an Islamic poll. Furthermore, most of the over 13,000 suicide bombers since 9-11 have said they are acting in the name of Islam. But she then goes on to explain that it is actually the more educated and affluent Muslims who hate American and Britain the most. It is very interesting that she fits into this category. We are tempted to ask Ms Magahed where her sentiments lie. But, regardless of her personal opinion, the implication of her spin on her poll is that awareness of, not ignorance of the United States, fuels hatred for it.

Frighteningly, even Magahed's study showed seven percent of Muslims worldwide are “politically radicalized.” This group answered five on a five-scale question when asked if they agree with the statement, “9-11 was completely justified.” This is seven percent of over a billion people. Herein we must literally wonder, because neither she nor her book answer the question, whether a four indicated the attacks were “largely” justified. And, this study included the area where the Muslims have the most favorable view of the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a place that supplies us very few immigrants to the US. Ominously, she reports the Muslims' percentage of 9-11 approval “France, . . . Germany and Saudi Arabia.”reaches into “double-digits in the low teens.” Thus her own figures should give us chills. For whatever reasons, a very large number of Muslims in the West wish to see it physically attacked! Herein we see complete refutation of the multicultural position that cultural diversity is only harmless fun. Magahed, as a multiculturalist, wants to keep us unaware of the significance of her own figures.

The premise of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is that we are all able to get along and solve conflicts via discussion. This position undermines our ability to equally confront nations that are firmly for violence against the West and her allies. Obama’s last Muslim advisor was found to have been against our nation. As Ann Coulter argued in Treason about McCarthyism, this is perilously close to having USSR advisors during the Cold War. Obama’s new advisor is dedicated to the multicultural position, despite her own evidence, that cultural diversity is relatively benign. Continuing this Council post would validate the view that all Presidents should have advisors telling them cultural diversity does not matter? Once accepted, this position means all mention of cultural diversity becomes irrational racism or Islamophobia. This means any culturist or President who notices cultural diversity cannot partake in political discussions. Furthermore, the existence of this Presidential council affirms the multicultural vision that we have no core culture. We are not, in fact, a Muslim nation. We are a western nation. We need to have laws that recognize our cultural and historical position in the world rather than the sentiments of the Islamic world. Being western, we have not previously had to have Islamic advisors to Presidents telling them to ignore diversity. As actual armed struggle between Islamic nations and ourselves exists, by affirming multiculturalism’s diminished understanding of cultural diversity and of our heritage, this Council jeopardizes our identity and our safety.

Culturism must replace multiculturalism. We need to know that cultural diversity is real and wide. Diversity even includes propensities towards terrorism. Being deadly, culture is a factor that must be acknowledged. To combat her appointment and all it stands for, we must start asking multiculturalists about the importance of diversity and if they really think it is real and important. We must combat their naïve position by popularizing the words “culturism” and “culturist.” Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. When people mention multiculturalism and appointments like this we must ask if the “culturist” position will also be aired or if there is to be no diversity of opinion. If they reply that pointing out cultural diversity is racist, we have to help them to see that race and culture are different. The overt reference to culture by the word ‘culturist’ will help clarify this distinction concisely. We must tell Islamic apologists and multiculturalists that though racism is dangerous and ignorant, we are not discussing race. Furthermore, since cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational and necessary. Thus, infusing these words will change the terms of the debate. And we are losing this public debate. People like Magahed are currently controlling the basis of discussion and have the ear of the President. Multiculturalists have silenced people with the fear of being called a ‘racist.’ We need to use the words “culturism” and “culturist” to defeat the multiculturalist propaganda of people like Ms. Magahed and her Council and reignite meaningful discussions about diversity.

www.culturism.us

Culturist Reactions to Somali Pirates

The Diversity Lottery must be stopped to combat multiculturalism and internationalism. This immigration mechanism provides visas to nations with low levels of immigration to the United States. This program’s multicultural logic ignores that we have a culture to protect and thereby flaunts our sovereignty. Somali immigration exemplifies the cultural and physical dangers of such a policy. It invite a foreign and hostile cultures onto our shores. We should, at very least, stop Somali immigration until their piracy of our ships stop. Such culturist immigration policies would remind us that we have a culture as well as a duty and right to protect it.

Multiculturalism is an unthinking philosophy. It blocks thought by asking us to celebrate all cultures. President Obama’s formulation says we must “respect” all cultures. This means that we have no judgment towards them. This limits the use of our reason. It means that considering values, in fact, becomes a thought crime as it might invoke choosing some and not others. Our immigration decisions should consider mores, language, and the cultural ability to honor our Founding Fathers and the principles for which they fought.

Our asylum laws allow people into our nation based upon the concept of international rights. These ignore our sovereignty. But no international right to be in America exists. I have no international right to immigrate to China or be Chinese. Muslim nations restrict the inflow of non-Muslims. We are a western nation. We too have the culturist right to define, guide and protect our national identity. Since these nations refuse entry to all who don’t blend with their cultures, supposedly international rights only violate our sovereignty. Culturist immigration laws would reassert our ability to make decisions based on our needs, safety and culture.

We should ban all Somali immigration until the piracy stops. Then we should make a review of Somali culture, its compatibility with western culture and the progress towards assimilation of Somalis currently in the U.S. This would protect us and punish the Somali pirates. The multicultural idea of not noticing the Somali tendency towards piracy, attacks on U.S. interests and affinity for Jihadi warlords is dangerous. Not recognizing their polygamy, treatment of women, and female genital mutilation lends credence to the multicultural vision of diversity not being important. Not recognizing the enormous financial costs of caring for such a culture reifies the ignoring of economic realities in the name of “international rights.”

Banning Somali immigration would codify culturism. That is, it would legally acknowledge and privilege our western cultural identity. Symbolically it would restore the values and cultural touchstones of honor we have sought to emulate and protect. It would affirm a cultural base into which immigrants could strive to assimilate. It would also discourage their Somali’s brazen refusal to assimilate. It would end our multicultural confusion about our being an international entity on the order of the United Nations. Even if the immediate impact were not great, symbolically, culturist immigration policy would realign our relationship with the world, our immigrants and ourselves in a very healthy way.

www.culturism.us

The Sting of replacing Hail to the Chief is no laughing matter

There has been a lot of chuckling about Obama’s replacing Hail to the Chief with a rotation of songs that includes Sting’s “Desert Rose.” The laughing has come from people that consider it ironic that we move towards a song with Arabic content during the War on Terror. But this is no laughing matter. It is a matter of life and death. We do not see this because of the illusion of progress.

History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.

Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.

The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.

Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.

The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.

During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.

Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.

www.culturism.us