Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Islam is the Enemy! Not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda

Islam is behind the Paris bombings, the Mali hostage situation, 7/7 in London, and all the other more than 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.  Media must stop saying “ISIS has claimed responsibility,” “The Taliban did it,” or “We’re looking for the ringleader.” When they ask such questions, they back up the multicultural idea that the religion is okay, it’s only a few bad apples that are giving Islam a bad name.  To win this battle, we must identify the enemy properly.  It is Islam!

“But, Culturist John,” you might ask, “You’re not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?”  “No.  But, I am a culturist, I believe cultural diversity is real.  And, Muhammed was a warrior. He fought in over 20 battles, established a theocracy and beheaded dissenters. If you follow Muhammed, you’re glorifying an expansionist theocratic killer. You’re part of a religion dedicated to violently taking over the world.”

Multiculturalists deny that Islam is behind all these attacks.  Ironically, multiculturalists tell you that all religions are the same.  They say, “Islam is a religion of peace. We’re only hunting a few groups: ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Lone Wolves. Then all will be peaceful again.”  BS.  If you follow Muhammed, you glorify a theocratic warrior killer! As a culturist I am dedicated to convincing the multicultural West that cultural diversity is real.  Islam as a whole is behind all of these attacks.

Then the Left claims, “Muslim’s attack because of what the West did in Iraq.  It’s because of Israel.”  This also pushes the idea that deep down, Islam only wants peace. So I answer, “Did Mali participate in the Iraq war? Why are Muslims attacking in Thailand?  How about India?  Why are Muslims attacking Muslims?  Why did Islam take Spain in 711? Was that because of Iraq?  Israel?” I’ll answer my own rhetorical questions: Islam’s attacks are not a response to a specific policy.  Starting with Muhammed in 622 A.D., Islam has always sought to impose global theocracy via violence. 

“But not all Muslims are terrorists,” they cry.  Culturists reply, “Many ‘Christians’ never go to church, (which doesn’t take much commitment).  And, not all Muslims are brave enough to go on suicide missions. But to support Jesus is to support a pacifist, who valued individuals. To support Muhammed is to support a killer dedicated to theocracy.  All mosques promote the values of this expansionist theocratic warrior.  They are guilty! Individual Muslims may not be violent.  But, Islam is!”   

As a culturist, my focus is cultural diversity being real. Islam is a violent theocratic religion bent on world domination.  And, to highlight cultural differences, we culturists must denounce the media when they ask, “Who was the ringleader?” or “Was ISIS responsible?” or they say, “We are searching for the suspect in Belgium.” We culturists must shout, “The problem is not Al-Quaeda in Mali or ‘the suspect’ or ‘ISIS’; the problem is Islam!”

Thursday, November 19, 2015

US Culturist Immigration History Video

Please learn about the history of our culturist immigration policy.  It helps when Obama tells us 'Who we are." 

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

My Uncle's Death in the Umpqua Community College Shooting

My uncle, Lawrence Levine, was the professor who was killed in the Umpqua Community College shooting.  His death hurt my family and me immensely.  Resulting questions, relevant to political activists, continue to haunt me.
Normally, I am very politically active here and elsewhere promoting culturism. But, this tragedy hit me so hard that I could not watch the news: seeing the killer’s face threw me into a despair-filled rage. I still have trouble watching the news.

Herein, lays a question for us activists: At what level are we appropriate to the political issues we cover?  When I write about the Islamification of the West, I treat it as a theoretical issue.  To the women raped in Sweden, this is inappropriately sedate.  And, if I boldly announce that we should sink refugees’ ships, this is also too casual.
How do I find the appropriate level of emotional sensitivity in my writing and policies?  This emotional question still makes it hard for me to blithely peruse political sites.

President Obama visited our grieving families.  Knowing me, my family begged me to be polite.  And, I thought this would be hard as I detest Obama’s multicultural - globalist policies as much as anyone.  But, he was personable, comparing his daughters to my nieces, and telling us that Michelle and the American people send their sympathies and care – no politics were mentioned.  

This nice gesture humanized Obama for me.  Now I find it hard to conjure as much vitriol for him as I previously did.  And, I say this knowing he is giving Iran nukes, caused continuing death in Libya, and demolished our borders: all things I hate.

Is there ever a moment wherein tragedy – as in 9/11 – makes us all just Americans, or westerners or – dare I, as a culturist, say it – humans?  When, as with grieving families, should we adopt this frame?  And, when should we just be adversaries?

My uncle Larry loved the river and, as a youth, moved to Oregon to escape civilization’s noise.  His home overlooked the Umpqua river, wherein, via fishing, he became one with nature.  This is not hyperbole.  His writings express just this transcendence.  And, on his rare visits to LA, he longed to return to nature. But, civilization chased my uncle to the banks of the river; he did not escape.

Was my uncle’s retreat from civilization spiritual or illusory? How much of our lives should be spent in political trenches and how much outside?  Where is the balance? If retreating to nature is an escape from politics, might not politics also become an escape from life on its own terms? 

Lastly, the existential questions: Why try?  As I worked my way through my uncle’s many unpublished manuscripts, I found myself repeating, ‘Words cannot save you. We will all die. Why continue writing?’  These questions still haunt me.  Perhaps the answer lays in the answers to my earlier questions. For now, just writing again is healing.

RIP Uncle Larry.  

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Why My New Version of ‘Imagine’ Must Crush Lennon’s

I recently recorded a ‘right-wing’ culturist version of JohnLennon’s leftist-anthem, ‘Imagine.” In fact, I have long had a physical revulsion to the destructive platitudes in Lennon’s song.  But, with communists and Muslims attacking, the song is now more dangerous than ever.  My mock version may prove to be the antidote to his cultural virus.  But, if that doesn’t work, we may need to decapitate every zombie who is spreading Lennon’s version.  If we don’t dismantle Lennon’s hymn, it could destroy the West.

Lennon’s anthem asks Western people to imagine there’s ‘no religion’ and ‘no countries:’ A borderless heaven. When we’re being inundated and attacked by Islam at every turn; pretending Islam will just disappear when we all ‘imagine’ it, is suicidal. Rather than imagine there is no religion, we must be aware that one religion, Islam, is coming for your throat!   Lennon admits he’s a dreamer.  We need to wake up and stop sleep-walking towards the cliff that Lennon’s stupefying incantation is sending us towards.

Even the way the hippy prophet uses the word ‘religion’ is dangerous.  Not all ‘religions’ are the same.  He thinks imagining no Christianity is good.  Christianity is the best religion ever.  It teaches the value of the individual, it is the basis of western civilization. Lennon’s religion-equating, ‘brotherhood of man,’ formula is at the root of the multicultural blindness that justifies our letting ‘refugees’ into our nations. Imagine Christianity as the official religion of the West.  Why? Christianity is kind. Cultural diversity is real.  Evil Exists. It is called Islam.

Imagine no possessions?  When Lennon goes into this communist reverie I want to vomit. When I lived in New York, I used to sarcastically imagine all the people living in his exclusive, guarded building, ‘the Dakota.’ When Lennon uses ‘greed’ to explain hunger and inequality, he insinuates that the blame for poor nations’ maladies comes from nations who have possessions - the West.  This means we must let in ‘economic refugees’ because our ‘greed’ caused their poverty.  Bullocks.  Our western cultures produce.  Theirs sucks.  Cultural diversity is real. Their poverty is their fault. We owe them nothing. 

So, imagine a world wherein everyone sings my culturist version of Imagine. It would make the West strong and ready to defend itself.  But, if people persist in spreading Lennon’s commu-tard dream about a borderless, heavenly, homogenous nether-world where Islam leaves us alone and people from backwards cultures get “their fair share” of our civilization, we need to see them for what they are: stupefied, destructive, somnambulist, unthinking, virus-spreading zombies weakening our defenses.  Aim for their heads!

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Why I Hate Hippies!

I hate hippies.  I would like to see their hair set on fire; give them forehead tattoos reading “die hippie die”; and chain them to basement radiators - making them live on dog food and electric shocks.  And, its not just cause I grew up punk rock.  It’s cause their stupidity is threatening my life.

Hippies never understood that evil exists.  They think everyone will be united by ‘peace and love, Baby.’  This is especially moronic as the hippies – the 1960s generation – were the children of the men who fought Hitler.  Yeah!  Peace and love from the gas chambers.

My favorite punk rock article-cum-book is “The Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel P. Huntington.  Written in 1992, it denied the vision that peace and love would rule the planet after the USSR fell.  It said the Cold War question “Which side are you on?” would be replaced by “Who are you?”

With a grade school insight, Huntington noted that, “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years.” ‘Conflict’ would be a great punk band name. He predicted that, now that the West was receding, this long-standing conflict would heat up again.

As Europe gets invaded by its traditional Muslim enemies, via “refugees,” the damned hippies keep telling us, “No, man, its okay to bring them in.  And, we’ll all just get along and our love chakras will harmonize, cause we’re in the Age of Aquarius.  You know, at heart, everyone just wants to be loved.”
This retarded kumbaya idea is the basic hippie logic behind multiculturalism.  But as a culturist, I know cultural diversity is real. ISIS is real.  Evil exists. So I say “BS!” to puke-inducing hippie platitudes.

Everyone does not just want to be loved. Some want to kill you. Some want to tie you to a radiator in a basement and dismantle you bit by bit.  Well, of course (disclaimer) I don’t condone violence. But, I’d sooner have a hippie feel pain and humiliation, than have him invite his ISIS love pals into my nation and get killed myself.  

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Full Metal Jacket: The Culturist Implications

Here is my problem: I am promoting a culturist version of Darwinian literary studies and very few political activists see an urgent and vital connection between Darwinian literary studies and their patriotic cause.  Fortunately, Stanley Kubrick’s powerful Vietnam War film, Full Metal Jacket, makes the connection clear.

Kubrick’s film follows the career of one recruit ‘Joker’ (Matthew Bodine) go from boot camp to the war, wherein he works as a reporter / propagandist for the military newspaper.  In this position, Joker sardonically parodies the war. But, after the Tet offensive, the propaganda chief panics that newsman Walter Cronkite will go say the war is unwinnable.  At this point, the chief stops humoring Joker and sends him into combat.  

We all know how disagreement over the Vietnam War’s meaning tore up the United States.  But, we must also come to see the importance of narrative in current politics.  Black Lives Matter, foreign aid, and the resettling of refugees into the West are justified by a narrative that paints the West as having sins for which to atone.  These would all come to a halt if the publicly largely believed the West were a unique cultural gem that needed protection.

Famously, Full Metal Jacket portrays raw indoctrination in boot camp.  The opening shot shows the recruits getting their heads shaved: their old self is to die, so that they might be reborn.  The drill instructor then proceeds to call them ‘gay,’ ‘ladies,’ and ‘fat bodies,’ while mercilessly running them through drills and routines. This continues until the recruit called ‘fat body’ kills the drill instructor and himself. 

The brutality of the suicide / killing scene makes us recoil at the indoctrination and, by implication, military culture.  But, Full Metal Jacket is just a story.  The narrative argues for implementing a sensitive / coed military culture.  The same narrative currently dominates our schools: We cannot call our students ‘fat bodies.’  But, rather than just blindly absorb the film’s narrative about the horrors of military culture, we must question it. 

Perhaps, gender-segregated schools with public displays of patriotism, corporal punishment and name-calling would make the West stronger.   If the Black Lives Matter kids had such schooling, they might be disciplined pro-West contributors to society who would never dream of shooting police. 

But, my point is not that one form of indoctrination or a particular view of the Vietnam War is appropriate. My point is that narrative has a profound outcome on the policies we have and even the policies of which we can conceive. 

Evolution has geared people to make sense of the world via stories.  Literary studies too often fails to comment on the implied morals and values of stories; it fails to recognize that our high school literature books and the assumptions of the arts have a huge political impact.

Culturist literary critics know that, if we are to save the West, we must – as Full Metal Jacket displays – utilize our Darwinian need for public narrative.  Furthermore, we must be wary of stories that limit the mechanisms we will consider using to inculcate our glorious western narrative.

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Culturist Jack Bucky, Culturist John Press and Audrey Russo, the final cut.

Please enjoy this edited interview by the great and enthusiastic host, Audrey Russo.  Jack Buckby is the other guest.  He has been a culturist leader for years.  He is the communications officer for Liberty Great Britain, who publishes so much of my stuff.   Audrey Russo is an audio warrior! Thanks to her hard work, this show - her show - gets broadcast on 7 or more terrestrial radio stations.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Small Vacation, Audrey Russo and Jack Buckby

Culturist Readers,

I just finished a great radio interview with Jack Buckby and Audrey Russo.  It will be available in this space soon.

---      ----     ---

Here are Six Basic Elements of American Multiculturalism (that impinge on elitism) from William Henry's 'In Defense of Elitism.' 

One - The idea that “fair” competition would result in demographically proportional sharing of society’s rewards.  And that any inequality therefore indicates racism.  

Two - The notion of equivalency of cultures.

Three -  Rejection of European heritage (responsible for most advances).

Four - Not believing the need for linguistic standardization (Spanish and black English).

Five - The idea that drugs and gang crime are reasonable responses to a bad situation.

Six - Doing well in school is acting white.

--    ---   ---  

All this to say, sorry that my vacation has limited my article writing as of late. Please enjoy my previous posts.  And, don't worry, the article deluge start again soon!

In the meantime,

Spread the words 'culturism' and 'culturist.'

Blessings to you, the West and our cause,

John Press

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Culturist Policy Article # 8 –Culturist Rights and Human Rights

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

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. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

--   --    -    --    --    --    --    -
Culturist rights and human rights

Rights are not metaphysical; They come from societies that believe in them and can afford them.  China does not believe in the right to vote.  Africa believes every child has a right to an education, but cannot afford it. 

So called ‘human rights’ are really ‘western rights.’ 

Calling them ‘western rights,’ makes us proud, clarifies why we fight, and reminds us that if the West falls, so-called ‘human rights’ will cease to exist.  Who else will uphold them?

Culturist policy and boat people
Muslim nations don’t take in Christian refugees.  China takes no Muslim refugees.  The West also has culturist rights.

The best way to stop the growing tide of refugees is a zero-tolerance policy.  Not a single boat refugee should step foot on western soil.  They must be preemptively steered to a ‘Muslim world’ member nation.

The term ‘Human rights’ is occasionally a useful propaganda tool for, say, pressuring Iran to change.  But, more often it is used to undermine our sovereignty.  As other regions, the West has culturist rights; we must protect ourselves.

Rather than a ‘global community,’ culturists understand the world is made of competing cultural regions. The Islamic world and China seek to dominate the West.

‘Western rights,’ not ‘human rights,’ must guide our refugee policy.

Culturist Jihad
We should not allow foreign nations to fund ‘Middle Eastern Studies’ programs on our university campuses.  This is enemy indoctrination; it bends students towards sympathy with terrorists, and even a willingness to engage in terrorist acts.

New York City’s 9/11 memorial was build with guidance from ‘Middle Eastern scholars.”[i]   That is why the word “Jihad” does not appear in the memorial.  Our 1400-year defense against Islamic aggression is also not mentioned.

Our memorials must be pro-Western and written by proud western culturists.

Islamic nations are building mosques all across the Western world.  If local communities wish to build mosques, our freedom of religion prohibits western governmental interference. But foreign funding of mosques is culturist jihad.

Our rights are western rights.  Our Constitutions protect our western citizens’ freedom of religion; Our constitutions do not give Saudi Arabia the right to build mosques on our land.

Our not being able to build churches in Saudi Arabia shows that ‘human rights’ do not trump ‘culturist rights.’

Culturist rights and borders
Despite the assertion that ‘no one is illegal,’ if you try crossing China’s border without a passport, you will be incarcerated. We too have a culturist right to have borders. So-called, ‘human rights’ do not nullify our culturist rights.

Western citizenship should only be given to western people.

The United States must halt immigration from Latin America.  Changing our cultural demographics is turning the United States into a linguistically split, second world nation.  Worse yet, Mexico has a history of conflict with, and resentment towards, the United States. 

The western world must wholly reject Islamic immigration.  Again, western policies should work towards that which is good for the West, not ‘humanity.’

Those in our lands illegally should be either forcefully deported or pressured to self-deport via making their finding employment or receiving government aid very difficult.

Ending third – world immigration to the West is not racist, it is culturist.  Cultural diversity is real; cultures compete.  Protecting the West is the best way to protect so-called ‘human rights.’

Global trade
One might argue that free trades’ allowing the West to borrow from China helps the West.  This is dubious.  Trade imbalances give China enormous sway over our politicians and our national security decisions.

If a true win-win trade situation can be identified, we should not fear it.  But, we should not pretend that long-term regional culturist strategic competition does not exist.  We should not sell our ports or mineral rights to foreign nations.

Culturists naturally suspect all organizations and systems that work for ‘humanity.’ 
We must denounce ‘western’ politicians that make trade deals to help ‘the world,’ ‘the global community,’ or ‘humanity’ rather than to benefit the West and its member nations.