Saturday, April 25, 2015

Culturist Policy Article # 4 – Repatriation

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.

--   --    -    --    --    --    --    -
There are three approaches to repatriation: racist; ‘absolute culturist,’ and ‘pragmatic culturist.’  This article will completely reject the racist model; explain the problems with the absolute culturist model and promote the pragmatic culturist model.

---     --    --    --    --    --   -- 
Racist repatriation policy:
Racist policy gets mentioned only to highlight its stupidity and vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation. 

Racists repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western areas.  Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multiethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy would lead to society collapsing into violence. 

Absolute culturist repatriation policy:
Absolute culturists want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their country of origin.  Note how much subtler this is than racist repatriation.  It does not cast Hindus, Asians, and all Africans into the same net.  It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.

The culturist profiling of Muslims is advocated on the basis the belief that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with and even hostile to, western civilization.  From a culturist perspective, this makes sense. However, it suffers from the same potential for civil unrest that the racist position does. 

Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to the West.  If we violate the rights of citizens, we set a precedent and take actions that intrinsically erode our sense of due process. 

Thus the absolute culturist policy, it seems to me, a road to civil disorder and, on a more philosophical level, immediately undermines the West’s view of itself by violating our laws and due process.

Pragmatic Culturist repatriation policy:
The pragmatic culturist policy relies on several measures aimed at stopping the Islamification of the West, while preserving the rule of law.

First of all, in terms of immigration, both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West.  And, to the extent legally possible, both would deny all pending residence permissions.  Neither of these measures compromises our system of law or rights.  Our Constitution protects our citizens.  If you are a foreigner, we have not compromised any rights to which you were entitled. 

This next measure is tailored to the United States, but pragmatic culturist would hope that a legal version pertains in your western nation. In our naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, “that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Furthermore, they “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.”

Sharia law violates our Constitution.  Having supported ISIS or Al Queda means you backed a foreign state. In other words, persons who have backed these terror groups perjured themselves during their naturalization process. As such, such a person is liable for prosecution. However, in the name of efficiency, simply rendering their naturalization null and void and repatriating them will do. 

Furthermore, if you donated to or actively participated in a mosque that is knowingly pro-Sharia and hostile to the West, your citizenship should be revoked.  If you engaged in any un-western practices such as polygamy, female genital mutilation, attending a Sharia court or defying our government proceedings in the name of Islam (for example, not removing your hijab for identification or demanding our schools are halal) repatriation proceedings must proceed immediately. 

Such a policy would allow us to target Muslims who have no intention of assimilating.  And, unlike the absolute culturist position, this policy recognizes the fact that many Muslims are passive in regards to their religion: they drink, smoke and watch football matches on Friday night. To the extent that these folks do not engage in hostile foreign activities, their rights should be protected. People whose rights are protected will not necessarily become antagonistic to their adopted nation. 

To help ‘secular Muslims’ support the West, as detailed in the culturist assimilation policy article, such secular Muslims would be exposed to our common assimilative pressures such as culturist public schools and events. And, ending the foreign funding of mosques on western soil would undercut our enemy’s culturist efforts to radicalize young Muslims. And, as above, fear of repatriation would keep first generation Muslim immigrants from outwardly advocating western culture be replaced.

One might ask, “If pragmatic culturists believe Muslims can be assimilated, why completely stop Islamic immigration?” First of all, large insular communities retard assimilation.  Small amounts of Muslims, neither replenished nor funded by foreign powers, will disperse. Secondly, we can never discount the possibility that the children of moderate Muslims will be radicalized.  We have a right to put the safety of our western citizens in front of the desires of any foreign population to move west.

With these pragmatic culturist repatriation policies, we can regain cultural control of our nations without compromising our sense of legal due process or fomenting civil unrest.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Culturist Policy Article # 3 - Assimilation

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 assimilation policy in a nutshell:
Whereas multiculturalism emphasizes diversity, and drives us apart, culturism emphasizes our unity.  Multiculturalism says the West has no core cultures into which to assimilate and calls all who promote assimilation ‘racist.’ Culturism affirms that western nations have wonderful core traditional cultures into which to assimilate. 

Immigration limitations:
Latin American and Islamic immigration to the West must stop now. For both groups, this forces a choice: here or there?  Additionally, if foreign peoples are the majority in an area, they will not assimilate to the wider country.  We must not grow already large immigrant communities.  

Possible repatriation:
A later article will detail repatriation policy.  Suffice it here to say that, in America, displays of ‘fealty to foreign potentates’ provide evidence that you perjured yourself during your naturalization proceedings: your adopted citizenship contract is thus null and void.

Criminalize Sharia law in the West:
Culturism affirms that the West has a core culture.  Sharia is not western.  Refusing to show your face during government proceedings and advocating public schools become halal, shows fealty to non-western ideals.  As such, (where legally possible), those advocating sharia law should have their citizenship revoked.

No dual citizenship:
Rather than convenience for individuals, ending dual citizenship is designed to create unity behind our Western nations and values.  It forces a choice of loyalties.

Western schools must teach that the West and western nations are the best.  Multiculturalism says all cultures are equally wonderful; this undermines schools’ ability to inculcate pride in western values and achievements.  We need culturist education.

Western festivals:
Local governments should celebrate western history and holidays.  While not requiring attendance, these celebrations provide an opportunity for new citizens to show public enthusiasm for their adopted nations. 

Conversely, our local and national governments and schools should not fund celebrations of other nations or their cultures.  Multiculturalists believe that Ramadan is just as western as Christmas.  Culturists disagree.  Our governments must not promote foreign cultures.

Flags and anthems and flags and anthems:
Fly a flag in front of your house, in banks and government offices.  Let’s have the anthem before films. Stand when it plays.  Let’s play our national anthems on television and radio.  Those who don’t want to stand should feel uncomfortable.

Monolingual government:
Government transactions must only take happen in the traditional majority language of your nation.  Language is a primary source of unity.  Not providing services in foreign languages forces new citizens to learn the national language: This is an essential part of being a citizen.

Furthermore, conducting government work in foreign languages creates enclaves where only foreigners may be hired.  This creates foreign dominated communities, which leads to enclaves where only foreigners can be elected.  In democracies, such enclaves make passing immigration laws difficult, which undermines national sovereignty. 

Limited travel to foreign nations:
Returning to ‘your country’ should be made difficult.  This goal will work in tandem with ending dual-citizenship to force new citizens to decide if they really want to adopt the receiving western nation as their new homeland. 

Immigrants must know that family reunification can happen by your returning to your country of origin; citizenship does not mean your family can come into ours.  And, adopting a new homeland necessarily entails familial and cultural rupture: forewarned, the immigrant has the burden of choice.

No foreign mosque funding:
In America, existing law allows us to trace and stop foreign enemy funds from entering our nation during wartime. Investment is welcome. But, foreign mosque building is not investment; it is culturist aggression. Foreign-funded mega-mosques discourage assimilation into western Christian culture and must be stopped.

Rights advocates must know that this policy does not prohibit local citizens from building mosques and engaging in their chosen religion.  Also note, that China, Iran, and other nations also have culturist laws.  Our Constitution is not a suicide pact; we can legally define and protect our traditional majority culture.  Our constitutions are ours; they do not provide foreign nations rights in our nations.

No remittances:
Those in the U.S. annually send more money in remittances to other nations than the combined debt of several of our major states.  Doing this while our nation is in debt shows poor citizenship.  If you are here to ‘send money back to your country,’ you need to return to your country. 

Reinstate real citizenship oaths:
Finally, citizenship is a matter of the heart, not paperwork.  If you refuse to consider advocating laws that prioritize your new nation’s safety over your convenience and your group’s self-interest, you are not a citizen in the truest sense of the word.

Therefore, we must affirm the importance and legal standing of loyalty oaths for those seeking to become new citizens.  We must prosecute and expel those who perjured themselves during their naturalization process.

Citizenship means supporting the nation’s traditional majority culture.  People of varied backgrounds can celebrate the greatness of the West and western nations.  Good citizens must enjoy freedoms and not be harassed.  And, in turn they should integrate into the nation. 

But this will only happen if we replace multicultural philosophy and policies with the culturist philosophy and the culturist assimilation policies enumerated herein.


Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Culturist Fact: Birmingham is not British!

People ask, “John, isn’t culturism just another vague ‘ism.’”  No.  Culturism is not metaphysical.  Cultures exist in heads and on land. This is measurable. That is why it is a culturist fact that much of Birmingham is no longer British.

Do a thought experiment with me: If all of the “British people” were killed (God-forbid) and the land we call Britain were entirely re-populated with Muslims (as in the attached video), would British culture still exist?  Would it linger in some eternal metaphysical realm?  NO!  It would be gone.

Cultures live in heads. And, these heads need land upon which to exist.  These are real items in real space.  When an area is Pakistani, it is no longer ‘also British’ in some metaphysical way. The area is Pakistani.

As of 2011, 13.48% of Birmingham was Pakistani. At the same time, white folks of British heritage, were 53.1% of Birmingham in 2011.  And, Indians were 6.02%.[i]  The Indians may identify with Britain.  Hindus have a long history with Britain. But their temples are non-British spaces. Details aside, the fact remains, much of Birmingham no longer primarily identifies with Britain, its history, traditions, songs, etc.

Now multiculturalists will tell you that everything is British: the Muslims marching in the attached video are just as British as Prince Charles and Monty Python. Shiva is a British God too. Everything is British and nothing is British.  As a culturist, I disagree.  British culture does exist.  Those in the shared video are not British.

From a culturist perspective, the attached video shows, large parts of Birmingham are no longer British, under British control, or a part of the British Isles. 

Join the discussion of this article HERE !


Tuesday, April 7, 2015


Hey Culturists,

I am now an admin, posting lots of anti-Jihad and related articles.  Friend us!  We'll put some good stuff in your facebook feed.

Search "Australian Infidels United" on facebook,  or go click . . . HERE !



Sunday, April 5, 2015

“Reclaim Australia” culturists rally across Australia!

April 4th “Reclaim Australia” rallies were held in 16 different Australian cities.  The rallies specifically focused on the creeping Islamification of their great western nation.  The rally in Melbourne had over 3,000 in attendance!  There and in other locations, violent “#No Room for Racism” thugs attacked them.  But, make no mistake, Australia is fighting back!

One of the speakers at the Brisbane rally said, “Our policy should be Culturism, not Multiculturalism!”  This is a culturist movement.  The last words of the first paragraph of the Reclaim Australia website ( says they wish to retain their ‘Australian cultural identity.”  They say they stand for “pride in the Australian flag and Anthem at all levels of schooling,” . . . “Christmas, Easter, Australia Day,” and beliefs “Australians have grown up with.”

Who would deny that Australia has cultural identity to protect?  Multiculturalists! Who is Reclaim Australia reclaiming Australia from? Multiculturalists.

Of course, multiculturalists showed up with preprinted signs saying “#No Room For Racism.”  They pull out the “R-word” whenever someone says they love their western culture or that cultural diversity includes negative aspects. Reclaim Australia’s website denounces racists. That’s good.  But, more of them must also say they are for culturism.  This will give them room to speak; to go on the offense.

And, they have plenty of culturist causes to go on the offense over.  Reclaim Australia’s site says they are standing up against female genital mutilation, halal, polygamy, Islam in the classroom, and burqas. Do the “#No Room for Racism” people really want to defend polygamy, burqas and female genital mutilation?  No?  Then they are culturist too!  This attack beats just denying you’re racist.

Anti-Jihadists take heart!  Australia has woken up!  You are not alone!  The well-dressed Reclaim Australia crowds were physically assaulted by multiculturalist thugs, but they stood proud for the West and will do so again.  We all owe these brave Australian culturists our appreciation.  Network with them.  Share their facebook pages. Spread the word!  GO TEAM!!

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Culturist Policy Article # 2 – Foreign Policy

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 foreign policy in a nutshell: bomb those who hurt us (with an intent to inflict pain); aid our friends, not our enemies; and otherwise mind our own business. 

Globalists think the world agrees on fundamental values and thus all people can be united: Multiculturalists promote that idea domestically.  Culturists believe that cultures disagree on, and fight over, values and territory.   

--   --   --   --  --   --   --   --   --   -- 

- Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan -

The US is officially in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn them into western-style progressive democracies with freedom of speech, separation of church and state, women’s rights, etc., However, Islamic nations reject these values; cultural diversity dooms these nation-building missions. 

From a culturist perspective, what Muslims do to each other is not our business.  If China does not have a democracy or gay rights, that is not our business.  Our culturist job is to protect our own western traditional majority culture, not to go bankrupt undermining other nations’ sovereignty.

- Bomb when you bomb -

That is not to say that culturist foreign policy is strictly isolationist.  If nation attacks us, we should bomb so heavily and hard that they will remember it for a long time.  Then, the next time a terrorist group tries to set up camp in their nation, the country might put some effort into routing them out. 

- Iran cannot have the bomb -

Because they are our enemy, Iran cannot have the bomb.  If they do not dismantle their means of production voluntarily, we should use military force to eradicate their bomb-making potential. After that, we should leave Iran immediately: no trying to make them a democracy, no rebuilding aid. 

- Reject non-Western asylum seekers -

The above policies can only lead to domestic terrorism via Islamic sympathizers in our western nations. Multiculturalists tell us that Muslims are also western and they share our values: Neither is true.  We must stop all Islamic immigration into the West now.

- We have sides in international battles -

Our globalist western leaders see themselves as neutral mediators in the Israeli / Palestinian talks (and those with Muslims in India, Thailand, Nigeria, etc. ).  We are not neutral! Where practical, we must check Islamic expansion.  We should not be asking our allies to make concessions to our enemies.

- Our first duty is to protect ourselves -

If we fall, neither China nor Iran will promote ‘human rights;’ Such rights are, in fact, only ‘western rights.’  Therefore, if we want to protect ‘human rights,’ we must avoid bankruptcy.  We should drastically reduce foreign aid and give zero dollars to non-western nations.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

The Culturist Battle in Ferguson

The U.S. is rightfully nervous about the battle in Ferguson: the shooting of Michael Brown, the retaliatory shooting of two police officers the shooter’s prosecution.  However, it is important that we know that the real battle is between two ways of defining America, because our nation’s fate depends upon which definition prevails. 

On one side we have the multicultural narrative.

Michael Brown’s supporters – and I include President Obama and his Administration in this category – see the Ferguson teenager’s death as proof that America is a racist nation that will never give “people of color” and other “historically under-represented minorities” a fair shake.  This narrative paints America as a source of oppression that must be fought.

On the other side, we have the patriotic narrative.

Our traditional patriotic narrative points to America as the New World, where innovation and freedom have led to the greatest expansion of wealth the planet has ever known. Here, with hard work, anyone can achieve their dreams. This narrative teaches us pride in our nation and challenges us to work hard in order to sustain and honor it.

If we continue to push the multicultural narrative, our nation will dissolve in race-based resentment.  If we can revive the patriotic narrative, we will be united, solvent and strong.

Since African-Americans are at the heart of the multicultural narrative, converting them to our narrative is key to winning this life-or-death debate.

First of all, to win the debate, we must aggressively criticize black-American culture.  Black - Americans are poor because their thug-life culture is violent, too sexualized, and hostile to education.  Black – on –black homicide is the cause of cheapening black lives, not police.  They are not victims of America, (America is great), they are the victims of themselves and their cultural degeneracy.

Using the term ‘culturist’ will allow us to make these necessary criticisms of black culture.    If we say it now, multiculturalists just call us ‘racist.’  Using the term ‘culturist’ points overtly to our concerns being about culture, not race. “If cultural diversity is real,” we can reply, “then we need to be able to talk about it.”  The discussion, we will note, is culturist, not racist.

Secondly, we must appeal to what the black – American author of the book Culturism calls “right – minded” blacks.[i]  They are sick of having their reputations tarnished by association with the black under-class, he tells us.  And, we must join them in celebrating great black-American patriots such as Crispus Attucks and Kobe Bryant.  If we can get African-Americans to again see themselves as a great part of a wonderful country, we will all win.  

Winning this debate will take discussing facts. But, it must also involve culturist public events and pressure.  Handing out American flags in Ferguson, and shaming all who do not treat the flags well, would be a great start.

The physical battle in Ferguson is terrible.  But, it is only a symptom of the real battle, the narrative battle.  If we lose that battle, I am afraid, we will lose the nation. 

[i] Hampton, Scott, Culturism: The Real Reasons People Dislike African-Americans - And Race Has Nothing to Do with It. Atlanta: Lehigh Press, 2014.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Culturist Policy Article # 1 - Islamic Immigration

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 or supports the art or science of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy. - adj.

--   --  --   --  --   --   --   --   --  --

Culturist immigration policy calls for an immediately halt all Muslim immigration into western nations.  Cultural differences, history, and recent events justify this position.  We must counter globalist and multiculturalists politicians’ culturally-neutral, open-borders agenda.

Western culture has its roots in Athens (the scientific / secular approach) and Jerusalem (our Judeo-Christian roots).   Both sources of western culture dovetail in esteeming the conscience of the individual.  Democracy and freedom of speech, for example, are rooted in respect for individual’s reasoning capacity.

Islam means ‘Submission.’  Submission herein is not just a matter of establishing a personal relationship with God as the individual sees fit. Muhammad ruled the government and religion at the same time, making theocracy an Islamic ideal.  Thus in Islamic nation after Islamic nation we find either full-blown theocracies or pressure for theocracy. 

Individual conscience and theocracy are incompatible.  Increasing the size of a population that holds values inimical to those of our traditional majority culture erodes and endangers the foundation of our culture.  History and recent events prove that this is not only a theoretical debate; It is a matter of life and death.

Historically, Islam has long been hostile to the West: They took Spain; They took Constantinople; Islam’s western attacks were stopped in France by Charles ‘the Hammer’ Martel in 732; Islam’s eastern advances were halted at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.   Culturists agree with Faulkner’s sentiment - the past is never dead and buried; in fact, it isn’t even past.

Recent terrorist attacks provide all-to-concrete evidence that the past is prologue. 9/11 in New York, the 7/7 London bus bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and the Charlie Hebdo attack are just the peaks of a sustained hum of terror coming from the West’s Islamic population.  We have a right to immigration laws that err on the side of physically protecting our populations.  Politicians who deny this have blood on their hands.

Prohibiting more Muslims from becoming citizens in western nations is not racist – it is culturist.  It would not depend upon whether the Muslim were black, Middle Eastern, white, Asian or Latino.  Religion is cultural, not racial. Cultural diversity is real, therefore culturist policy is rational and justified. Culturist will happily debate any politician who thinks cultural diversity is not real and important.

Those who say this immigration policy violates some ‘universal,’ ‘human rights’ norm are globalists, not culturists.  All non-western nations have culturist or racist immigration laws. Culturists need to ask globalist politicians why only western nations must be held to their ‘globalist,’ ‘human rights’ standard, why we cannot be culturist like other nations.   

Politicians who reject culturist immigration policy because western culture is grounded in religious tolerance must understand that our western Constitutions and laws only protect our western citizens’ freedom of religion.  Our laws are national, not international. A later culturist policy article will discuss domestic freedom of religion. But, our religious tolerance laws do not protect foreign Muslims’ right to immigrate to the West.

Lastly, multiculturalists will object to this proposed immigration policy with their defining beliefs: The West has no core culture to protect; It is a culturally neutral zone where random cultures happen to coincide; the West is just as Hindu and Muslim as it is Christian and secular; we cannot favor any culture or consider any cultural traits in our laws. Culturists affirm that the West is not Islamic; Islam is hostile to the West; and we have a legal right to protect ourselves. 

Because cultural diversity is real, history is important, conflict exists, and our citizens have been harmed, culturist immigration policy would immediately halt all Islamic immigration to western nations.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Culturist Lessons from Argentina's Border

Half of the Foz do Iguacu waterfall is in Argentina and half is in Brazil.  The Brazilian half is amazing.  But, the wife and I heard that the Argentinean side was even more spectacular.  Getting to the Argentinean side fueled the following explosive culturist rant!

Long story short, Americans must pay $160 to visit Argentina for a day.  Why?  Reciprocity.  We charge them for visas generally, so they charge us huge sums for one day.  They said it was fair?  Fair?!?!  I’ll tell you what fair is!

When nations get angry at the United States for not being fair and generous, remember that the West – largely the US – invented the ideas of being fair. 

We have endless nuclear weapons and Argentina has zero.  If we wanted to, we could easily tell them, “Tell you what, you drop the visa fee, and send us 4 billion dollars a month and we won’t nuke you!  Is that fair?”

If you think this policy suggestion is outlandish, think again. Historically, nations have gone to war to steal land and get slaves.  Even now, Iran just wants to nuke Israel to kill its people, with no eye to profit.  China is slowly retaking Asia via expanding its air and water borders because it can, not to spread fairness. 

So Argentina is using the “fairness” doctrine we created, with resentment, against us.  As always, of course, it is much worse than it seems.

In 2012 Argentina got 178.9 million dollars in aid.[i]  This is from the ‘global community.’  But the ‘global community’ always means the US is footing the majority of the bill.  This even though, Pew Global Attitude Survey shows Argentina’s population largely considers us, an “enemy.”[ii]

Of course, it is much worse than it seems.  In 2012, the West Bank and Gaza got 1.8 billion dollars in US aid.[iii]  This is the very same Gaza that is hurling missiles at our ally Israel every chance it gets.  Is that fair enough for you?

Of course, it is worse than it seems.  Afghanistan housed the terrorists that murderously attacked the US and the heart of the Western economy on September 11th, 2001.  As a result, we are trying to rebuild their nation and are supporting its infrastructure.  Is that fair enough? 

China is kicking our butts economically.  And, though the amount is declining sharply, we gave China 28.3 million dollars in foreign assistance in 2012.[iv]  That may not sound like a lot.  But, compare it with the amount of financial assistance the world has given the West in the last 100 years: exactly ZERO dollars.

Aiding our enemies and competitors is more than fair.  It is insane.  This insanity stems from a combination of multiculturalism and globalism.  The multiculturalism means that we don’t judge any cultures – including our Islamic enemies. The globalist part means we don’t take sides.  Saudi Arabia only aids the Palestinians, but we aid the Palestinians and the Israelis because we’re ‘global citizens.’  We support everyone on the globe equally.  Globalism means never taking sides.

The culturist foreign policy position is that we take care of ourselves first!  And, if we must send money or military overseas, we aid our friends, not our enemies.  That may not be fair, but it isn’t insane either!

OK.  I have a proposal meant to clarify the parameters of the possible:  Argentina drops the fees on us and we make Argentineans pay huge fees to enter the US.  We do this until all of the foreign aid we have ever given them is paid back.  And, if they refuse?  We’ll show them what normal nations - with the imbalance of power our nukes provides – have normally done. 

That seems fair to me!

[i] List of Countries by Foreign Aid Received, Wikipedia,
[ii] The U.S. Gives the Most Aid to Countries that Hate It the Most, Vocative,
[iii] West Bank and Gaza Strip, Global Humanitarian Assistance,
[iv] Aiding and Abetting: Why are the United States and Japan still giving Tens of Millions of Dollars in Aid to China? Foreign Policy Magazine, July 12, 2013,

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Culturist Lessons from Rio's Carnaval

I am in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for carnaval - the biggest party in the world. Drums and costumes, imagination and dance, pervade the megalopolis.  Taking part in this celebration has provided me with some valuable culturist insights. 

Culturism is the science and art by which nations protect, promote their traditional majority cultures.  It is the opposite, therefore, of multiculturalism, where nations are to deny they have a majority culture and promote other cultures within their borders.

Carnaval is a great culturist tool.  The costumed drum and dance troupes, usually including over 3,000 people, are largely drawn from poor neighborhoods; this creates community cohesion.  Ultimately, people of all races and classes get involved.  In the end, this televised explosion of light, color and fun, unites all Brazilians by making them proud of their vibrant culture.

Art can help bind a nation.  When possible, culturism should be fun!! And, to be effective, it should invite wide participation.

Walking home from one of the massive carnaval-related events tonight, I stopped at a food cart.  A 30-something brown-skinned woman took dough and cut it way too slowly, then she put meat on it, wrapped it, and dropped it in a frying vat.  While waiting I spoke with a local man in Spanish. 

He probed, “The US is very capitalistic, eh?”  “Well,” I replied, “you couldn’t just set up a stand like this in the US.  You’d need a business license and the food server would need certificates.  We couldn’t be drinking beers on the street like this.”

We regulate street-level economic activity far more than other nations.  Allowing more sidewalk shops and street food vending in the US would give people easy access to self-employment.  This would make the transition from welfare to work much more feasible. 

My walk home from the carnaval street party took me between neighboring wealthy homes and ghettoes called ‘favelas.’  Favelas consist of improvised brick mountainside homes stacked on top of each other.  In America building homes means adhering to byzantine codes. The favela homes can be rented and sold. Loosening building codes could raise levels of home ownership.

Rio’s favelas are safe now, but they used to be ruled by brutal drug gangs.  These same drug gangs launder money through supporting carnaval.  The police and military battled these forces and won.  Brazil’s heavily armed police still have a heavy presence in the favelas.

Governments must forcefully combat bad people for good people to have a decent quality of life.  Sometimes this requires armored cars and heavy artillery.

These culturist proposals run against our Protestant-Enlightenment culture, from which well-built homes, food served in proper restaurants, and self-policing naturally stem.  But, as we import millions who value babies much more than education, whose culture is rife with gangs, as we increasingly embrace carnaval-style commercialized sensuality, Rio offers culturist tools with which to soften the downfall.