Friday, March 17, 2017

AN ACADEMIC BOOK RECOMMENDS WAR IN EUROPE!


Peter Turchin’s, ‘Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth,’ necessarily implies that the West needs a popular war within or near its borders. He reluctantly confesses, “A reactionary catchphrase of the 1970s used to go, “what this generation needs is a war,” a deplorable sentiment but one that in terms of cultural evolution might sometimes have a germ of cold logic.”[i]

THE STORY OF MAN AND WAR

Turchin’s main project is to explain the existence of civilisations.  To this end, he tells the story of social cooperation’s rise and expansion.  Being an evolutionary anthropologist he starts by describing chimpanzees use of violence to maintain their group cohesion and hierarchy.

But, by the Pleistocene era, (2 million – 10,000 BC), evidence indicates that man, (homicide aside), was largely peaceful and egalitarian.  Why?  Stone weapons!  Upstart bullies could be pounded in the head with stones during their sleep.  So weapons enforced egalitarian cooperation.

At the end of the Pleistocene era, because the weather became stable, populations boomed. At this point, you get brutal unequal chiefdoms.  TAhe standard model says that agriculture created the archaic states.  Turchin convincingly argues that this is not true, war did.

For thousands of years, after agriculture became widespread, people continued to do hunting and gathering as well.  Those with these blended economies were free and equal. And these folks’ had much better diets than those who only did agriculture. So agriculture does not explain the rise of states.  

Using math, history and evolutionary logic, Turchin argues that one group switching to a centralised hierarchical state system could dominate and enslave the others.  Once one group had switched, others had to do so or be beaten. So hierarchical cooperation was born and brutally enforced. War made people do agricultural, not vice versa.  Societies’ roots are in war.

But, starting about 500 BC, Turchin explains, military horse use decisively tilted the military advantage to whoever could field the largest army. Large armies require big population bases. Hierarchical archaic states' control via violence limited their size and created internal disunity.

Universal monotheistic religions enabled larger societies.  Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Confucian taught rulers to treat their subjects with care.  In turn, these religions legitimised supporting the king. But these egalitarian ethics, again, were there to create larger populations in order to win wars.   

THE CULTURIST CRITIQUE

Turchin ends his book asking a huge culturist question, “How do we develop the science of cooperation?”[ii] His answers are all skewed because he ignores cultural diversity. 

In arguing that modern ethics all evolved to the same end, (making big populations for war), and so are the same, Turchin undermines Western pride. When nations are proud, (Imperial England), they spread; when ashamed, (the West under multicultural philosophy), they contract and crack. 

Yes, Mr. Turchin, war makes societies via cultural innovation.  But, that does not mean all cultures are the same.  

His failure to note cultural diversity also leads him to assume that military conflict is a thing of the past.  War deaths have been declining for five hundred years. So, going forward, he concludes, we’ll only have economic competition.  But, as he enthuses, global cooperation only arose in 1945.[iii] And, really, the 'ultrasociety' still does not exist.

No sane society would bet its life on Islam forever forgoing violence and adopting 'universal' values.

CULTURIST POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In showing how ethics facilitate empire, Turchin tells us that Spain could only keep its Middle Ages multi-ethnic empire together via fervently acknowledging its shared Christian Catholic identity. And, eventually, religious schism undermined the Spanish empire.[iv] This means multiculturalism destroys societies so the culturist policy of promoting assimilation is safer.

But, ultimately empires collapse because their wars happen on distant front lines.  When, in the empire’s capitol city, “ . . . survival is no longer at stake, selfish elites and other special interest groups capture the political agenda. The spirit that ‘we are all in the same boat’ disappears,” and inequality, disunity and social collapse follow.[v]

In reviewing the scientific literature, Turchin concludes, “The evolution of cooperation is driven by competition between groups.”[vi] Again, he assumes going forward competition will only be economic.  But, if not, the ‘cold logic’ of his formula wherein the absence of war undermines cooperation, means we need war and we need it close to home.  And, for the West, there is only one plausible enemy close to home: Islam.

CULTURIST CHOICES

As a culturist, I have long argued that Western governments must: a) Drop their guise of cultural neutrality, acknowledge Western culture and legally protect it; b) Stop Muslim immigration both for safety and to create an enemy; c) Deport any immigrant who advocates Sharia for lying during naturalization; d) Stop Saudi mosque funding on our soil.

I advocate these non-violent culturist policies because violence is unnecessary, would undermine our legal system, cause property damage and possibly end in defeat. But, Turchin’s thesis, war creates states, strongly suggests that we would best reach our culturist goals via violent confrontation with enemies on or near European soil.



[i] Turchin, Peter, Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth, (Chaplin: Beresta Books, 2016), 42.
[ii] Ibid. 230.
[iii] Ibid. 5.
[iv] Ibid. 203.
[v] Ibid. 42.
[vi] Ibid. 93.
-->


-->

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS of PROPAGANDA: THE CULTURIST REVIEW

by Brian Anse Patrick
Arktos Publishing

Reader please know that since this publishing of this article, Dr. Patrick has passed on.  This review is printed in honor of his memory.

 --   --   --   --   --   -- --  --  

I love the opening lines of Brian Anse Patrick’s book, The Ten Commandments of Propaganda. Published by Arktos, the book immediately tells the reader they’ve already been propagandized via the author evoking the Biblical Ten Commandments. Effective propaganda, Patrick explains, draws upon collective cultural memory.  His book is full of platitudes we really need to hear if we’re to be successful culturists and end multiculturalism.

STRENGTHS OF PATRICK'S BOOK !!


The Ten Commandment’s footnotes give the book an academic feel. But, this short book reads really well. Patrick says he moved academic points to the footnotes in order to make the book more user-friendly. And, his strategy of listing one propaganda commandment per chapter makes it easy to revisit the book, which increases its usability. Speaking of which, let’s move on to . . .

PATRICK’S TOP 5 TIPS FOR CULTURIST PROPAGANDISTS


(1)  Know the many routes for propaganda dissemination 

Patrick tells us to get our message to journalists, editors, scriptwriters, interest groups, voluntary associations, churches, trade associations, corporations, blogs, news media, publishers, educators, researchers, leadership, mass mobilizations, etc. We need to use all of these folks’ platforms to spread our message.

Too often, myself included, we culturists just hammer away at one media source.  

(2) Build your message horizontally

When we think of propaganda, we usually think of the top down dissemination of information. Spreading horizontally means you spread a message between peers, as is done in mass movements and business meetings. The concept of starting a movement is a good one. This requires, Patrick tells us, exploiting wedges in society: rich v. poor; men against women; black against white. 

We in the West should foment a widespread disgust with Islam. And, we should get people in the streets.

(3) Simplify your message.

Stunning common sense insights pervade Patrick’s book. The need to simplify your message is important, despite being common sense. People only have mental space for small amounts of info, so we must stick to slogans and images; people remember these better than arguments. But, this cynical tactic rubs us the wrong way. We resist simplifying. That’s why, obvious as it is, Patrick’s telling us to simplify is important. 

 ‘Sloganize Today!”

(4) Moralize  

Our leaders must be thought of as ethical, righteous and moral. Simultaneously, we must paint our enemies as depraved, malicious rats. The West is glorious, Islam is evil. If you make this morality the basis for a cause, Patrick tells us, it can then become a source of identity and get people to join our groups.

Rather than focus on specific policies, we need to frame our cause as a righteous crusade against evil.   

(5)  Control the flow of information

I particularly liked Patrick’s idea of ‘interior colonization,’ wherein the government uses taxpayer money to propagandize us into giving them more money. He claims the government relies on your only having time to hear one side of the story. And effective propagandists provide their side of the story, when people need it, in a manner they can publicize. That means if we hear a rebuttal, it is on the propagandist’s terms.

Rather than just denounce multiculturalism, we need provide a culturist messages. We should be the aggressors, providing content. Our opponents should be limited to reacting to our assertions when there is time.

WEAKNESSES OF THE BOOK


SCIENTIFIC OMMISSION

Patrick uses very old schools of psychology, (psychoanalysis and behaviorism), to explain limits to the very outdated ‘rational actor’ model. But his commandments still largely refer to verbal strategies.  He needs to look at recent, germane scientific literature.

Bio-cultural co-evolution research has shown people are biased to follow those with status and the majority of the crowd around them. Evolutionary psychology explains the connection of status and testosterone. Cultural neuroscience has shown different cultural groups process considerations like empathy in differing ways and levels.  Patrick ignores all such modern scientific developments.

Ellen Dissanayake’s neuro-anthropological work argues that mother and infants rhythmic rocking and baby talk is the root of collective rituals. She uses analysis of the hormone oxytocin to show the mechanisms are the same. Such measurable, non-verbal, techniques point to the future of culturist propaganda studies. And, as others, Dissanayake’s work suggests we prioritize collective activity and minimize reasoning in our propaganda efforts.

Unfortunately, in his avoidance of science, Patrick even ignores statistics. As such we have no way of knowing if his propaganda techniques work or just sound good.

THE CULTURIST ANGLE


Ignoring the culturist angle is The Ten Commandments’ greatest failing. The book provides generic propaganda techniques. He gives no hint that the West is in a battle for its life against multiculturalism and Islam.  

In a rare show of taking sides, he discusses the American government’s use of propaganda to dominate our citizens (p.26). And, his dissection of propaganda gives us tools by which we can counter our government’s propaganda. But, countering Federal control is the closest Patrick ever comes to a reason for propaganda. The vagueness undermines our sense of war and means the examples don’t address the West’s current challenges.

Instead of science, Patrick uses historical sources. Positively, this allows him to provide many useful anecdotes and examples of propagandists in action. It thus expands our imagination. And, using historical sources leads him to consider identity and ethical perceptions more than modern scientific scholars do. This is great!  But, his history would be more useful if he considered the Social Darwinists that preceded his sources – they understood science and the urgency of the struggle for survival.

OVERALL


While biology is ignored and Patrick leaves it to us to apply his ten commandments to today’s situation, I nevertheless highly recommend this book. To save the West, we must deploy informed propaganda. Patrick’s Ten Commandments provides invaluable assistance to culturists by profiling historical culturist propaganda campaigns and the philosophical and practical roadblocks they encountered.  


Monday, December 12, 2016

Culturist Art Criticism and the Salvation of the West

Twenty-five years ago Camille Paglia cured me of veganism.  Her amazing art history book, ‘Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertitti to Emily Dickinson,’ argued that art criticism needs passion, violence and sex, not PC censorship.  In a side note, she said vegetarians are out-of-touch with nature because they work for a clean, sinless world; real nature worshippers feel its cruelty.  I love Camille Paglia. 

However, this article will harshly criticize Paglia’s newest art survey book, ‘Glittering Images.’  And you may be thinking, “Who cares? I’m into politics, not art.” But, appreciating art is central to Western survival.  Multiculturalists tell us that the West has no core traditional culture to protect and promote. Western art refutes that and can serve as a guide to our cultural revitalization. To make this point firmer, the article will contrast Paglia’s work to Kenneth Clark’s marvelous culturist 1969 BBC survey of Western art, ‘Civilisation.’

The very title of Paglia’s ‘Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars,’ gives away its weakness. Starting in Egypt makes her book explicitly globalist.  Globalism is the flipside of multiculturalism, it says Western culture is not particular to the West and so not really Western. Globalism undermines our enjoyment of the art.  When I see the Sistine Chapel or any other Western masterpiece, I am proud, because my civilization produced it.  And, as I am indelibly Western, Western masterpieces inspire me personally.  When presented as global, Western art is not mine, it alienates, rather than inspires, me. 

Paglia discusses the Acropolis and some Greek pieces.  And, she speculates as to what they might have meant to Greek culture. But, we’re not told what they mean to us, collectively, today.  Culturist art criticism, to have an impact, must speak to our present cultural crisis.  We can see the potential and her failure in her coverage of the icon of Saint John Crysostom.   Icons are, she tells us, “sacred images that functioned as protectors of people and cities. In portable wooden form, icons were carried by armies into battles.”[i]  We learn that, “The icon endorsees a fanatical devotion to God’s word, a renunciation of pleasure and mortification of the body.”[ii] That we see in John Crysostom’s “intensity of gaze.” Good stuff!

But, Paglia only incidentally mentions that the icon sits in the Haga Sophia – a church that was converted into a mosque when the Muslims sacked Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire.  From a culturist point of view, the West and Islam are still battling.  This means Crysostom’s icon should still fill us with intensity and encourage us to battle for the West.  She discusses the suppression of icons by the church, but never mentions that ’The Byzantine encounter with Islam likely played a role” in this.[iii]  She provides zero culturist context.  Thus the icon is just a relic of a long disappeared ancient world rather than an icon to our epic struggle for survival.

Paglia gives us some great insight into the pieces she has chosen.  For example, I love the idea that Titians’ Venus with a mirror “blurs the lines between the erotic and the maternal. Perhaps revealing the deepest truth about heterosexuality.”  But, then she doesn’t ask for a culturist interpretation.  I mean, if fading beauty is joined to fertility, then perhaps sex is not a toy; perhaps sex is more profound and pathos laden than our salacious, promiscuous advertising culture lets on.  Perhaps the West needs to take a more realistic look at life, death and fertility.  This would be a moral, culturist reading.  But for Paglia, art glitters, but it doesn’t speak to the management of our civilization.

Furthermore, Titian’s painting would mean more if occasionally contrasted with Islam’s ban of art and Asia’s boring, static art.  The West is the civilization that moves, creates and ponders tumultuous questions about beauty, maternity and mortality.  Asian art barely has people in it.  This is a very Western painting.  We need to see it’s philosophical query as a part of our glory!

Paglia’s globalism is in stark contrast to the Kenneth Clark’s aforementioned marvelous culturist BBC series, ‘Civilisation.’  His title is culturist. As it is an art history series, his title announces that art and civilization reinforce each other. The title of the first episode, “The Skin of our Teeth,” refers to the West’s precarious survival after the collapse of Rome.  Clark explores this theme in order to make us appreciate the West’s existence.  Fantastically, in a shining moment of culturist clarity, when discussing the Western invention of perspective, Clark suddenly stops, pauses and asks, “But, has it anything to do with civilization?”[iv] (Ep. 4)  This is a question, Paglia should ask of art. 

For a supreme treat, take a listen to Clark’s culturist discussion of Michelangelo’s iconic statue, David.  He tells us that, David’s defiant face, “involves a contempt for convenience and a sacrifice of all those pleasures that contribute to what we usually call civilized life. It’s the enemy of happiness.” And, he notes that though we may not think of these combative attitudes as civilized, in the end, “civilization depends on man extending his powers of mind and spirit to the utmost.” This, he continues, is what makes David a high point for “ Western man.”[v]  By way of contrast, Paglia tells us that Egypt’s stagnation resulted from its ‘harsh desert environment.’[vi] Economic determinism is always behind leftist thought. Ideas being paramount is a culturist conviction.  Their vantage point on art entertains, ours builds civilizations. 

All surveys of Western art must, at some point, discuss our dropping classical realism in favor of increasingly abstract modern art. In one of his relentless culturist gems, Clark tells us, "All the great civilizations have seen themselves as part of history. Both as heirs and heirs transmitters." (ep. 4)  Modernism, with its freeze on the past, rejects Clark’s fundamental insight.  This is likely why he only discusses modernism in the last episode of his series, and then only sparingly, despondently, behind the theme of, the ‘triumphant materialism.’  In contrast, Paglia transitions to modernism less than half way through her book.  There she writes, the “Salon juries in Paris expected important subjects from painting – ancient myths, Bible stories, glorious episodes of French history in polished neoclassical style.”[vii]  Thus, parroting modern art history orthodoxy, she rejects pre-modern art.

But, as orthodox as Paglia is, she is edgy and iconoclastic enough to have reservations about modernism.  She admits that, in comparison to what had come before, “Impressionist pictures . . . seemed pointless.” Quite. And, in her trademark quippy tone Paglia tells us that impressionism fits well in ‘hotels, offices, and doctors’ waiting rooms.”[viii] Yes, they fit in offices and hotels as they help convince ill-educated globalists that they belong to no particular civilization, thus easing their conscience as they sell out their civilization’s economic basis.  Modern art is needed in doctor’s offices, because in an increasingly diversified West, having overtly Western icons could offend the cultural outsiders in our land.

But, modern art is not only unworthy of the West, it is increasingly anti-Western.  We see this in Paglia’s unfortunate inclusion of the horrid, ‘Chillin’ with Liberty.’  This photoshopped complaint features a female black character sitting on top of the Statue of Liberty’s head.  In a fit of noxious virtue signaling, Paglia writes the black woman’s “masked face and penetrating eyes suggests she is contemplating and transcending centuries of atrocity and suffering.”  She says the black woman, “is welcoming the future, but forgetting nothing.”  Forgetting nothing, indeed.  Being a culturist art historian, I can say what the Puritans would say; liberty cannot be won by complaining or ‘chillin.’  The inclusion of this piece marks the saddest moment of Paglia’s book.

The final piece from Paglia’s book that I will consider is Pablo Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon.  (Though, as she notes, he just called it, ‘My brothel.’) Insightfully, she says it recapitulates art history.  The figure on the left represents Egyptian art, then several western works are referenced, finally, on the right, we see a reference to “scarified tribal masks from Africa.”[ix] The West’s history is progressive.  We are better than stupid Old World cultures.  Connecting us to Egypt severs us from our roots.  And, saying our art history culminates in Africa, in any way shape or form, is revolting, multicultural, globalist blasphemy.   

Lastly, two points that Paglia does not discuss:

First, we have a history of culturist art criticism to revive.  Plato was a culturist art critic.  Separating moral art from immoral art corresponded to his main criticism of life.  Matthew Arnold, (1822 – 1888), the first person to be called a ‘culturist’ practicing ‘culturism,’ created a great body of work showing how culture could keep the West from anarchy.  And, of course, Kenneth Clark was a major culturist art critic. We have a long tradition of culturist art criticism to weave into our narrative. 

Secondly, whenever you discuss art with someone, you must bring up the Sistine chapel.  It destroys the multicultural myth that we have no core culture. It undermines the narrative wherein Western history consists of nothing but material exploitation and horror. It never fails to inspire.  Moreover, comparing modern works to the Chapel is a sure guide to estimating whether a work is a symptom of the West’s decline or rebirth.



[i] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 35.
[ii] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 37.
[iii] Woods, Jr., Thomas, E., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005), 116.
[iv] Clark, Kenneth, writer / narrator, Civilisation, Man: The Measure of All Things, Episode 4. BBC, 1969,
[v] Clark, Kenneth, writer / narrator, Civilisation, The Artist as Hero, Episode 5. BBC, 1969,
[vi] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 8.
[vii] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 97.
[viii] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 97.
[ix] Paglia, Camille, Glittering Images: A Journey Through Arts from Egypt to Star Wars, (New York: Pantheon, 2012), 105.

Monday, November 21, 2016

CULTURIST REPROGRAMMING

This is not just an article. I am asking questions, trying to start discussions, and – grandiosely – launch a policy field. Here is my question: How do we re-program our nation?

Of course, we can use the Left’s technique of taking sound bites out of context, and calling individuals “Hitler.” This works for tarnishing individuals and those associated with them. But, culturists are concerned with defining, guiding and promoting traditional majority culture more broadly. As such, rather than tarnish one man, we culturists must work towards a wider reprogramming of western culture.
I teach in a Christian university in South Korea, yes South! In my university, students are required to go to chapel twice a week. If they don't they cannot get a space in the dormitories and their scholarships are put in jeopardy. In their majors, students perform coordinated Christian dance routines in awesome assemblies. I mention this for entertainment’s sake. But, I also mention it to broaden our imaginations.

Speaking of imagination, the first thing we need to do is realize that rationality is not enough. We know that if you really think Black Lives Matter (BLM), statistically you should confront inner-city black-on-black violence. But, pointing that out has had zero deterrence effect. As with my uni’s dance routines, we must look past rationality. 

DARWINIAN CULTURIST PSYCHOLOGY


Herein a Darwinian perspective helps. Fish mark territory with bright colors. Howler monkeys defend territory via howls. Colors and sounds matter. We need to wave flags, have red, white and blue clothes, and use patriotic songs – the national anthem among them – to create loyalty. Anthropologists, ethnologists and sociobiologists of all stripes will tell you ‘us versus them’ is the primal program. Even naming the enemy helps. No them, no us

Void of ideas, content, and morality, BLM
is all about signalling and spectacle.
Evolutionary psychology tells us that emotion is the Darwinian way of controlling our behaviors. When BLM and today’s anti-Trump demonstrators get away with destruction, it feels good. This is key. Jumping up and down, breaking things without consequences and the thrill of not having police stop you is like winning in a video game. It literally pumps you with adrenaline and makes your posture erect.  If violent behavior doesn’t lead to humiliation, it will not stop. 

Prisons are ineffective because they do not take cultural psychology into account. People are ‘punished’ and come out proud of the experience. The only real punishment is humiliation.  Even killing is culturally relative. Jihadi’s are proud to die. To make prison effective, those whose behavior we are trying to deter must suffer humiliation in their culture’s eyes. Pride, as in rooting for a winning team, is the positive pole of the emotional controls of man. Causing our culture to see communist, BLM, anti-social folks as losers is the negative pole.

In sum, to push this effort we must have emotional goals. Disgust and anger should result when someone defiles our flag. Pride at hearing our anthem is important.  Indignant rejection should follow cynicism about our narrative. Laughter must, again, come from mocking our enemy’s ways. Sadness must come from defeat. The reasons for said feelings are significant. As Darwinian culturists we must be specific about the emotional reactions at which we’re aiming. 

INSTITUTIONAL CULTURISM


Our story is compelling. The Puritans created a mighty nation with morals. John Smith told the starving pilgrims, “he who does not work does not eat.” The Founding Fathers were both brave and ingenious. We fought a war to stop slavery. We must get a generation to take the prosocial side on such stories. To safeguard this reversal we must have a long march through the institutions. But we need more instantaneous results too. 

Many national governments have a ‘Ministry of Culture.’ While now perverted, these could be reclaimed. The US could also have one – a Department of Culture. It would coordinate large and small public celebrations of America. Beyond the events, the Feds doling out grants specifically for patriotic artists, would cultivate patriotism in artists.  Publishing conservative art history books would encourage scholarship and embed learned professors for 50 years. 

I’m going to go out on a controversial edge here – but we’re brainstorming – and suggest we reconsider reinstituting a form of the loyalty oaths our universities had professors sign upon hiring. Nearly all universities voluntarily receive Federal funds. From a culturist perspective, beyond skills, inculcating culturist patriotism is the big function of schools.  Promoting hatred of the West should again become a cause for dismissal in employment contracts. 

Again, rather than taking a rationalist approach, these institutional programs will aim at the subconscious mechanisms that motivate humans. People follow rewards such as money. And, they don’t like to tell themselves that they do. So, they reconcile their thoughts with their actions. We must reward patriotism and pro-social behavior and, subtly  allowing for freedom, as is appropriate in the West – punish anti-social attitudes and behavior.

Darwinian psychology says that public avowals that involve physically synched behavior bond people. This gives Islam an advantage. We need to emulate Korea’s school assemblies and rallies. This might seem anti-intellectual to many. You may recoil at the word ‘programming.’ Yes, publicly the term must be dropped. But, as Darwinian culturists we cannot forget that all tribes have initiation rites and religions. We are born designed to absorb cultures. The opposite of programming is not liberation, it is ceding programming to others. 

Prosocial control mechanisms put to a bad use.
One more note on institutions, the western Church is currently moribund and leftist. Yet, Christianity is a major pillar of the West’s identity. And, I know we live in a secular age. But, the Church's story glues our history together and glorifies us. Going to church, publicly singing together, and doing rituals creates bonding. This will create bonding with the Western story. It also promotes good values. We need to increase church attendance. 

THE MEDIUM, MESSAGE AND MAN


I have not been trying to suggest that words and story content do not matter. Quite the opposite. Teaching matters. Ideas have consequences. But, as scientific culturists, we must understand the goal is an emotional response to ideas, not ideas in the abstract – ideas in men, masses of men, in cultures. To this end, we must be familiar with recent findings in sociobiology and literary Darwinism; we must adopt a Darwinian perspective.

Roles also impact thought. Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford University prison studies randomly assigned students to either serve as guards or prisoners. The mock prison experiment had to be called off due to the cruelty of the mock guards and the deteriorating condition of the mock inmates. Interestingly, South Korea uses arrested protesters as crowd control police. You might be wondering what the point of going to churches and rallies and singing the anthem is if we don’t believe. Roles often create loyalty, roles often precede belief.

A final example: You can tell a high status chimp by how much animals look at him.  We’re rigged to accept messages from high status folks; cultures thrive by following the winners. But, in our upside down culture, that means youth are biased to take high-status left wing thugs’ and actors’ pronouncements as gospel. Trump and other high status folks, (actors and entertainers), must be at the ceremonies that the Department of culture sponsors.  I would recommend that Trump have long discussions with the nation about our winning history. But, we can’t just go rational. As with the importance of status, culturists must consider the totality of man’s mechanism.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Trump Destroys Feminist Leftists at the Town Hall

The video title says it all, except how he did it!  Watch the video and find out!!


Friday, April 15, 2016

Here is my introduction of Culturism to the Alt-Right Crowd

If you want to read comments, click here!

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. 1. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures. 2. The opposite of multiculturalism.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. One who judges cultures. 4. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

In introducing the philosophy of ‘culturism’ to the Alt-Right community, I need to make a confession: the section on race, in the first chapter of the book, ‘Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future,’ is disingenuous.  I knew it was at the time.  In the introduction, I briefly argue that race is not a biological category.  In denouncing the book, ‘The Bell-Curve,’ I wrote, “there is no reliable evidence that there are any mental differences between groups of humans.” I was trying to distance ‘culturism’ from ‘racism’ as much as possible, (fearing that any association with racism could blunt the spread of the memes ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’).

In fairness to myself, I gave the savvy reader two clues that I was being disingenuous.  One is that my very dismissal of ‘The Bell-Curve” meant that I had read, “The Bell-Curve.”  Anyone familiar with this book knows there are mounds of reliable evidence showing different mental differences between races.  Moreover, I purposely backed up the statement saying there is no reliable evidence with an insubstantial footnote.  While the cited authors (Boyd and Richerson) are giants in their field, the actual reference is to a throw away line. At the time I thought, discerning readers would pick up on such clues. 

But, more importantly, I still stand by my larger point: whereas racism gives you no useful policies, culturism provides a multitude of practical policies.  As I wrote in the book’s introduction, people cannot change their race.  And, if you think my nation, the United States of America, is going to become white again, you’re dreaming.  That can only happen through the horror of a race war.  It’s a bad idea. On the other hand, culturism gives you ample workable policies, such as stopping Muslim immigration and promoting a positive view of American history inside and outside of schools.  We can identify and protect our culture.

 One further salvo from the book’s introduction on this front: a problem with racism (as well as nativism) is that can easily lead to the simplistic fallacy: black is bad, white is good.  First of all, white culture is in big trouble (check our divorce rate). White race pride demands no refinement. In this vein, white racial pride actually retards needed cultural self-scrutiny. Secondly, the racist point of view ignores the fact that there are many great non-white American patriots and western citizens. Any movement that fails to acknowledge them can only lead to a partial reclamation of America.

While I invite you to peruse the many policy implications of culturism available at www.culturism.us and in the final chapter of the book, herein, I will highlight just a few policy categories and concepts:

 First, we must spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism.’  Culturism is easily understood as the opposite of multiculturalism: it values unity not diversity.  And culturists believe in culturism and judge cultures.  Due to its simplicity, use by a single media figure, could spread these memes and undermine PC clamps on Western political discourse.  Rhetorically, saying, “I’m not racist,” and groveling is not a winning strategy.  Saying, “No, I am culturist.  I believe in culturism, not multiculturalism.  Isn’t cultural diversity real?  Can we talk about cultural diversity?” allows us to go on the offensive.  We need to be able to honestly discuss both the West having a culture and the negative aspects of cultures and cultural diversity; As a rhetorical strategy, being a ‘culturist’ for ‘culturism’ can help.

In countering multiculturalism, culturism implicitly acknowledges that the Western nations have traditional majority cultures. Germany has a culture.  England has a culture.  And, yes, the United States has a culture.  Moreover, the wider west shares a culture.  We are not Asia.  We are not Islamic.  Our culture, as the seminal culturist Matthew Arnold phrased it, has its roots in Athens and Jerusalem. This does not mean that there can be no Hindu temples in the West. But, our school curriculum, holidays and laws should acknowledge and promote our traditional majority cultures.  Plato is a Western hero; Vishnu is not.  In this manner, culturism also rebukes globalism.

In this vein, culturism recommends an ‘America First’ style foreign policy.  The idea that we can turn Iraq, Afghanistan and other Islamic nations into progressive, freedom-loving, rights-based democracies comes from total ignorance of cultural diversity.  With its ‘Clash of Civilizations’ model, culturism denounces the concept of ‘human rights.’ If the West falls, neither China nor the Middle East will promote the concept. Human rights are, in fact, western rights.  So, to protect ‘human rights,’ we need to start labeling them properly as ‘Western rights,’ and protect the West.  Thus saving ‘human rights’ means rejecting ‘humanitarian’ asylum laws.  We’re not the world.  Our laws and funds should help us, not prop up our enemies’ regimes.

Thus culturism suggests we focus our energies domestically. And, domestically, culturism differs from libertarian individualism. Western culture needs to get out of the gutter.  Culturists can argue this point based on biohistory and r/K theory, but common sense also bolsters the directive: stoned children from single-mother families do not often have the job skills that first – world economies require. And, yes, stripping down the welfare state will help enormously in this regard. But, in other realms laws can help bolster morality.  For example, zoning strip clubs out of city centers and censoring lewdness on public airwaves conveys morality.  Keeping drugs illegal does the same.  Our welfare laws are disastrous because they ignore morals. Our government policies should not be either culturally or morally neutral.

This gets us back to the first point in this section: using the words ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist’ can help clean up and direct our culture.  For example, we must say ‘culturist profiling, not ‘racial profiling.’  Far from arbitrary racism, statistics back up the need for culturist profiling of Muslims in airport security screening.  Using the term ‘culturist profiling’ clarifies the cultural rationality. ‘Culturist profiling’ also explains blacks in jail as it acknowledges black cultural dysfunction. Rather than fuel Black Lives Matter resentment, culturist profiling can lead black communities to self-scrutiny. In general, culturists judge cultures based on Western values. This reflexive cultural scrutiny, asking ‘What would Jesus, George Washington or Winston Churchill do?”, can help guide western culture.  As this applies to all of us, it is culturist, not racist.

Finally, as it is a primary concern of the Alt-Right generally, I wish to discuss the Islamic threat to the West. There is a range of culturists: ‘Absolute Culturists,’ believe we need to repatriate all Muslims now.  ‘Pragmatic Culturists,’ only want to deport those affiliated with radical mosques. Both sides wish to halt all Islamic immigration immediately. Both sides, recognize the necessity of culturist school curricula that says, ‘the West is the best and Islam is retarded.’ Both wish to prosecute Sharia courts. Similar culturist policy debates and agreements are had concerning the Latino threat to the United States. While not lock step on all methods, saving the West from Islam is a main priority of all culturists. 

While reasonable culturists will disagree about specific policies aimed at saving the West, none advocates the insane racist policy of removing all non-white people from the West.  Any such attempt, would not work in the United States.  And, so we come full circle to my opening paragraph. We culturists can acknowledge race as a potential cause of national division.  We can note races’ propensities. But, the solutions to our ailments do not lie there. Multiculturalists and globalists deny that the West has a core culture. We must not only acknowledge and celebrate our Western culture, but use it as a basis to protect and judge our specific nations and cultures.  We must have culturist immigration laws that question compatibility with western values. Herein lays a path to safeguarding and guiding our (like it or not) multi-racial nations.


Using culturist rhetoric, (rather than just sadly denying we’re racist), can once again make it safe for the West to have the rational discussions about culture that it so desperately needs. Take action! Spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ today!  It costs us nothing.  And, the words could quickly go viral and, thereby, aid us in saving the West.