Technorati Profile
This long blog lays out basic culturist precepts the understanding of which is necessitated by the third night of rioting in France. It also addresses Atlas' related report of massive Muslim immigration to North America. Throughout the blog the theme is this: citizenship involves the love of the country it is exercised in. Diversity, despite multiculturalists' pronouncements to the contrary, includes people that are hostile to the Western project. Giving such people the legal status of citizens cheapens the meaning of citizenship and endangers Western civilization. When Western civilization goes rights go. We won't stop the destruction of France until we understand and implement culturist precepts. Please read the entire blog.
The youths rioting in France are not only rioting because they are Muslim. They are rioting because they have been fed the warmed over Marxism that equates Western civilization and oppression. In this vision the underclass need to be liberated and destruction is noble. The anthropology chapter in culturism shows, however, were Western civilization to fall the natural alternatives that would assert themselves are not progressive and egalitarian. The rioters' burning of libraries and destruction of property also give an indication of what a post-Western world would look like.
Many of the youths rioting are Muslims as well as disaffected by bad ideology. Either way, the question we must ask is "Are their sympathies with the success of France and Western civilization?" If their sypathies were, they would not be rioting out of hatred for France and oppressive Western civilization. As culturism tries to explain, citizenship is not just about paperwork. If you root against the Lakers basketball team, you are not a lakers fan. If you root against America, you are not an American. We desparately need to reconnect citizenship with its proper meaning.
The relocation of Somali villages into heartland America and Canada is done on the basis of international rights. Culturist philosophy dispels the existence of international rights. Rights only exist in cultures that believe in them and can afford them. Without America there are no American rights. When we bring in people who are likely traumatized by war, illiterate, extremely different in assumptions about life and anti-American it does not strengthen America. China and Muslim nations do not let random traumatized refugees in. We are the only ones who believe in the concept of international rights and it undermines our sovereignty, solvency and sense of the importance of citizenship.
Cultures are diverse and they have rights. We have a right to ask if those wanting to immigrate are pro-American and willing to show it in cultural assimilation and positive behavior. We do not violate their human rights by having sovereignty. Not allowing immigration does not violate your rights as an American unless you are one. Only people who love America and are willing to show this by living and working in ways that uphold and perpetuate our valuable traditions should be allowed to immigrate or be named citizens.
Until the rioting and terrorism stops the United States and France must stop immigration from all countries whose culture predisposes their emmigrants to rioting. All others must be put on a tight leash. Being a French citizenship is an honor and a responsibility. If you dishonor France and seek to destroy it there should be no hesitation over repatriation. You cannot have your rights as a French person violated unless you are one. This does not mean you cannot criticize France; that would run counter to Western traditions. But, being French means working in positive ways to improve France. Cultural diversity and the fragility of Western civilization necessitate culturist immigration policies.
While France is showing it respects itself by protecting itself, people must be taught that France is a good project. People must know that France's history, ideals and future are positive for all French citizens. Such culturist affirmations explanations should go along with expelling non-citizens and long term jailings of those involved in rioting to destroy France. France cannot take citizenship or people trying to destroy it lightly if it wants to be respected or survive.
If Western nations go under rights and progress will cease to exist. Believing in universal human rights instead of culturist rights makes us complacent and undermines our sovereignty and solvency. Only by changing cultural precepts and understanding of what it means to be a citizen can France and other Western nations be secured. We must adopt culturist principles to secure Western nations. If we do not define, protect and promote Western civilization the rioting may never stop. This is the culturist creed. Please call yourself a culturist. Our civilization's survival depends on Western nations remembering the culturist truths inherent in the word.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A culturist double negative - Madrassa ex-Principal Sues School System
Technorati Profile
Think of children throwing rocks at Western aligned soldiers, and Debbie Almontaser should come to mind. Almontaser is the ex-near Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy (a newly opened arabic language and culture school in New York). She is suing the New York school system for discrimination. She lost the chance to lead American children because the public did not buy her claim that the "Intifada" on the T-shirts she was selling stood for generic struggle against injustice without reference to any particular situation. We know the Indifda was a specific Palistinian uprising which sent children to throw stones at Israeli soldiers.
Culturism is leery of metaphysical concepts. The claim that intifada or any term refers to a generic sense of struggle should raise doubts. In reality, there are sides. In general there is a Muslim side and a Western side. Over there, the Western outpost is Israel. Only Western leaders want to be fair and impartial brokers. The pose of neutrality is suspect. In war it is dangerous. Intifada should cease to be generic when a rock hits your head.
The first negative concerning Debbie Almontaser is the idea that we should have "international" academies in our public school system. Schools, in all cultures and all times outside of the modern West, have been for teaching the youth about the culture into which they were born. We are not a neutral space. We should not confuse Western culture with universal culture. We have a specific culture to teach and so should teach it. Arab culture schools belong in Arab countries. International schools belong nowhere.
The second negative coming from Ms. Almontaser is suing the school system. Culturism wants to contextualize individualism. Culturism's definition includes the precept that the perpetuation of the majority culture should be a legitimate policy consideration. If destruction Debbie gets her way, she will be enriched. The money she receives will have to be drained from the public school system and childrens' educations. Culturism shows that individuals live in a cultural context. Culturism contextualizes individualism. The judge should be allowed to consider the fiscal sustainability of the public school system, a culturist value, when adjudicating. Just the fact that she would assert her individual "rights" at the expense of the school system should disqualifier her from being a steward in the public school system.
Ms. Almontaser's intifada is not neutral, it is destructive of our national and institutional sustainability. Ms. Almontaser either has no culturist awareness or has too much and is on the wrong side. Her first concern is not the bolstering of Western civilization here or abroad. Her first concern is not the health of the public schools or the children in it. Destruction Debbie is a one woman intifada against public schools and America. She is a double negative. Intifada is a foreign word of hatred for a Western outpost. Intifada is not neutral and neither is culturism. We cannot be the only non-culturist civilization and survive. We need to prioritize the survival of our institutions and civilization. If you do not hold pro-American principles, you should not be an American principal.
Get active at http://stopthemadrassa.wordpress.com/
Think of children throwing rocks at Western aligned soldiers, and Debbie Almontaser should come to mind. Almontaser is the ex-near Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy (a newly opened arabic language and culture school in New York). She is suing the New York school system for discrimination. She lost the chance to lead American children because the public did not buy her claim that the "Intifada" on the T-shirts she was selling stood for generic struggle against injustice without reference to any particular situation. We know the Indifda was a specific Palistinian uprising which sent children to throw stones at Israeli soldiers.
Culturism is leery of metaphysical concepts. The claim that intifada or any term refers to a generic sense of struggle should raise doubts. In reality, there are sides. In general there is a Muslim side and a Western side. Over there, the Western outpost is Israel. Only Western leaders want to be fair and impartial brokers. The pose of neutrality is suspect. In war it is dangerous. Intifada should cease to be generic when a rock hits your head.
The first negative concerning Debbie Almontaser is the idea that we should have "international" academies in our public school system. Schools, in all cultures and all times outside of the modern West, have been for teaching the youth about the culture into which they were born. We are not a neutral space. We should not confuse Western culture with universal culture. We have a specific culture to teach and so should teach it. Arab culture schools belong in Arab countries. International schools belong nowhere.
The second negative coming from Ms. Almontaser is suing the school system. Culturism wants to contextualize individualism. Culturism's definition includes the precept that the perpetuation of the majority culture should be a legitimate policy consideration. If destruction Debbie gets her way, she will be enriched. The money she receives will have to be drained from the public school system and childrens' educations. Culturism shows that individuals live in a cultural context. Culturism contextualizes individualism. The judge should be allowed to consider the fiscal sustainability of the public school system, a culturist value, when adjudicating. Just the fact that she would assert her individual "rights" at the expense of the school system should disqualifier her from being a steward in the public school system.
Ms. Almontaser's intifada is not neutral, it is destructive of our national and institutional sustainability. Ms. Almontaser either has no culturist awareness or has too much and is on the wrong side. Her first concern is not the bolstering of Western civilization here or abroad. Her first concern is not the health of the public schools or the children in it. Destruction Debbie is a one woman intifada against public schools and America. She is a double negative. Intifada is a foreign word of hatred for a Western outpost. Intifada is not neutral and neither is culturism. We cannot be the only non-culturist civilization and survive. We need to prioritize the survival of our institutions and civilization. If you do not hold pro-American principles, you should not be an American principal.
Get active at http://stopthemadrassa.wordpress.com/
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Culturism and Feminism
Technorati Profile
Today I heard the feminist leader Carol Gilligan talk about her adaptation of The Scarlet Letter at the American Moral Education conference. Gilligan wants us to recognize the Scarlet Letter as a feminist novel. Feminism, women having rights, being one of the precious parts of our culture, I applaud her work.
Culturism is meant to foster disscussion and, unfortunately, the tone of Gilligan's rhetoric only led to polarization. She kept speaking of fighting the New Puritanism. A man from the audience said his children were exposed to much more raw sexuality than he was as a child. He wondered where she saw this threatening movement. She said in abstinence programs and anti-gay marriage initiatives. She then went on to express her disgust for the overly sexualized nature of our culture. But Gilligan stuck with the theme that patriarchy and the religious right constituted a menace that she could typify as the New Puritanism. Furthermore, she made it clear that the New Puritans were a tyrannical force that needs to be stopped.
Reading culturism could help Gilligan realize that she and the patriarchal New Puritans have much in common. Both are concerned about a utilitarian view of people that does not recognize their souls. Culturism argues that feminists and religious people share a view that the soul should be more highly regarded than the body. This understanding creates a basis upon which feminists and religious folks can have cooperative outlooks and programs. But Gilligan's demonizing of abstinence promoters does not foster mutual understanding or discussion of important cultural issues.
Gilligan's version of the Scarlet Letter portrayed Puritans as purely evil. We have no sympathy for them as they try to get the imprisoned Hester Prynn to name the father. Colonial governments did this in order to collect child support (a Clinton agenda item) and enable girls, like the novel's Pearl, to have fathers. Certainly the Puritan's use of "A"s for public shaming, not to mention whipping, went too far. But there is room for common ground and I would hope that Gilligan could find some merit in Puritan and religious values.
Lastly, Gilligan defined feminism as "democracy liberated from patriarchy." Culturism teaches that describing ideals as abstractions is harmful. The West is feminist in the sense that women have more rights here than in any other existing culture. We can only be derided as patriarchal and anti-feminist in comparison with an ideal that does not exist any where in the world and may not be attainable. When you undermine Western civilization you undermine the best bastion of feminism in the world. I would hope that Gilligan declare herself a culturist (I hope everyone does :) and work with - not against - her religious brethren in fostering a more caring culture.
Today I heard the feminist leader Carol Gilligan talk about her adaptation of The Scarlet Letter at the American Moral Education conference. Gilligan wants us to recognize the Scarlet Letter as a feminist novel. Feminism, women having rights, being one of the precious parts of our culture, I applaud her work.
Culturism is meant to foster disscussion and, unfortunately, the tone of Gilligan's rhetoric only led to polarization. She kept speaking of fighting the New Puritanism. A man from the audience said his children were exposed to much more raw sexuality than he was as a child. He wondered where she saw this threatening movement. She said in abstinence programs and anti-gay marriage initiatives. She then went on to express her disgust for the overly sexualized nature of our culture. But Gilligan stuck with the theme that patriarchy and the religious right constituted a menace that she could typify as the New Puritanism. Furthermore, she made it clear that the New Puritans were a tyrannical force that needs to be stopped.
Reading culturism could help Gilligan realize that she and the patriarchal New Puritans have much in common. Both are concerned about a utilitarian view of people that does not recognize their souls. Culturism argues that feminists and religious people share a view that the soul should be more highly regarded than the body. This understanding creates a basis upon which feminists and religious folks can have cooperative outlooks and programs. But Gilligan's demonizing of abstinence promoters does not foster mutual understanding or discussion of important cultural issues.
Gilligan's version of the Scarlet Letter portrayed Puritans as purely evil. We have no sympathy for them as they try to get the imprisoned Hester Prynn to name the father. Colonial governments did this in order to collect child support (a Clinton agenda item) and enable girls, like the novel's Pearl, to have fathers. Certainly the Puritan's use of "A"s for public shaming, not to mention whipping, went too far. But there is room for common ground and I would hope that Gilligan could find some merit in Puritan and religious values.
Lastly, Gilligan defined feminism as "democracy liberated from patriarchy." Culturism teaches that describing ideals as abstractions is harmful. The West is feminist in the sense that women have more rights here than in any other existing culture. We can only be derided as patriarchal and anti-feminist in comparison with an ideal that does not exist any where in the world and may not be attainable. When you undermine Western civilization you undermine the best bastion of feminism in the world. I would hope that Gilligan declare herself a culturist (I hope everyone does :) and work with - not against - her religious brethren in fostering a more caring culture.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Why we need to use the word "CULTURISM" NOW!!!!
Technorati Profile
Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!
The Washington Times reports, "A group of Iraqi Pentagon contractors is suing American Airlines claiming racial discrimination for delaying its flight, but a police report shows that some of the men might have been intoxicated, behaved in a frightening and belligerent manner and scared one family off the plane."
This is exactly why we need the term "culturism." Racism is stupid, but culturism is logical. If diversity exists and culture matters then where you come from will logically condition your attitudes.
The word "culturism" helps us clearly distinguish racial profiling from cultural profiling. This is not racist at all, it is culturist. Racism is evil, but culturism is necessary. If we do not have a separate and logically substantiated alternative term they will just keep attacking our ability to defend ourselves with the word "racist." Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!
Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!
The Washington Times reports, "A group of Iraqi Pentagon contractors is suing American Airlines claiming racial discrimination for delaying its flight, but a police report shows that some of the men might have been intoxicated, behaved in a frightening and belligerent manner and scared one family off the plane."
This is exactly why we need the term "culturism." Racism is stupid, but culturism is logical. If diversity exists and culture matters then where you come from will logically condition your attitudes.
The word "culturism" helps us clearly distinguish racial profiling from cultural profiling. This is not racist at all, it is culturist. Racism is evil, but culturism is necessary. If we do not have a separate and logically substantiated alternative term they will just keep attacking our ability to defend ourselves with the word "racist." Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Majority culture and culturism
Technorati Profile
Culturism holds that the interests of the majority culture should be a legitimate interest in policy concerns. In this regard, culturism balances out the extremes of individualism. Using culturism also benefits us because it fosters discussions of what majority culture means.
A practical application of this aspect of culturism can be seen in displays of the Ten Commandments. Even though I am not religious, I recognize - as any honest scholar would - the centrality of Christianity to the rise of America and its culture. Recently (I mean only recently) individualism and individual rights have attacked our ability to promote our majority culture. The Ten Commandments have been taken down because they offend certain individuals. We must be sensitive to individual rights in this country as they are fundamental to our cultural mission. But culturism says that we cannot allow individualism to eviscerate our public life and cultural traditions. We cannot become unable to say anything because a single individual might be hurt emotionally.
Parenthetically, a woman who showed up to protest enforcement of immigration laws because they might hurt her daughter's relationship with her illegal alien father also needed a lesson in culturism. We cannot throw out our national sovereignty because an individual baby might be hurt. That doesn't mean we should be insensitive, but the culture must be taken as a legitimate interest too.
But back to our main discussion of majorities . . . Recently (guess when) Muslims agitated to have Halloween banned from schools. Again, individuals and their rights are being used to stop our culture from promoting itself. But what if they were the majority in the school district? Majority refers to majority writ large. Ours is a decidedly Western nation. Halloween is a Western tradition. It should have legal consideration as such. Culturism provides us a moral compass to define, promote and protect ourselves.
Culturism holds that the interests of the majority culture should be a legitimate interest in policy concerns. In this regard, culturism balances out the extremes of individualism. Using culturism also benefits us because it fosters discussions of what majority culture means.
A practical application of this aspect of culturism can be seen in displays of the Ten Commandments. Even though I am not religious, I recognize - as any honest scholar would - the centrality of Christianity to the rise of America and its culture. Recently (I mean only recently) individualism and individual rights have attacked our ability to promote our majority culture. The Ten Commandments have been taken down because they offend certain individuals. We must be sensitive to individual rights in this country as they are fundamental to our cultural mission. But culturism says that we cannot allow individualism to eviscerate our public life and cultural traditions. We cannot become unable to say anything because a single individual might be hurt emotionally.
Parenthetically, a woman who showed up to protest enforcement of immigration laws because they might hurt her daughter's relationship with her illegal alien father also needed a lesson in culturism. We cannot throw out our national sovereignty because an individual baby might be hurt. That doesn't mean we should be insensitive, but the culture must be taken as a legitimate interest too.
But back to our main discussion of majorities . . . Recently (guess when) Muslims agitated to have Halloween banned from schools. Again, individuals and their rights are being used to stop our culture from promoting itself. But what if they were the majority in the school district? Majority refers to majority writ large. Ours is a decidedly Western nation. Halloween is a Western tradition. It should have legal consideration as such. Culturism provides us a moral compass to define, promote and protect ourselves.
Lessons From Pakistan
Technorati Profile
Pakistan is falling into martial law and threatened with becoming an Islamic state as I write this. Many are shocked and outraged. As a culturist, I am not shocked. I expected this. This lack of surprise separates culturists from many others that worry about immigration and attacks by muslims.
Culturists take culture seriously and so do not hold out much hope for making other nations progressive liberal democracies. My allies in fear of Islam may say that there are many who are for liberal democracy in Pakistan and hate the Taliban. That is likely true. But there are many in the country that are attracted to the Taliban's message and many sit on the fence. In America the Taliban's vision wouldn't even make sense as we are not muslim and hold the separation of church and state sacred. That is not to say that muslim terrorists could not destroy our ability to uphold our values (after all they have already foisted the Patriot Act on us). But what would emerge would not be an Islamic state, but military rule or chaos. Pakistan is a muslim state and therefore full of muslims. The populace will thus have a natural antipathy to liberal democracy. An Islamic state will take hold there. The few elections that Pakistan have had were an aberration, not a new norm.
Culturist hold as fundamental the idea that diversity exists. Here we share common ground with others that worry about Islamic fascism. Not all people make great Americans. We should bar people from Muslim countries from immigrating to the United States and gaining citizenship. Islam is not just another version of liberal democratic culture. Diversity is real. Certain values are needed for democracy to thrive. And, as we saw in Pakistan, no universal rights or norms prevent democracy and the appreciation of individual rights from disappearing.
The shock when Pakistan goes Islamic results from a failure to appreciate that there are fundamental differences between cultures. This shock reflects a denial of diversity which assumes it natural that all peoples value equality, feminism, individual rights and democracy by nature. It is the same thinking that justifies massive immigration from nations that are hostile to America and the values that made it a first world bastion of free conscience. Culturists, would be willing to take out Iran's nukes, but not rebuild their nation. Culturists recognize diversity is real and are not outraged or shocked when it manifests itself. We say pull up the drawbridge and do not fight the cultural wind outside of our sphere.
Pakistan is falling into martial law and threatened with becoming an Islamic state as I write this. Many are shocked and outraged. As a culturist, I am not shocked. I expected this. This lack of surprise separates culturists from many others that worry about immigration and attacks by muslims.
Culturists take culture seriously and so do not hold out much hope for making other nations progressive liberal democracies. My allies in fear of Islam may say that there are many who are for liberal democracy in Pakistan and hate the Taliban. That is likely true. But there are many in the country that are attracted to the Taliban's message and many sit on the fence. In America the Taliban's vision wouldn't even make sense as we are not muslim and hold the separation of church and state sacred. That is not to say that muslim terrorists could not destroy our ability to uphold our values (after all they have already foisted the Patriot Act on us). But what would emerge would not be an Islamic state, but military rule or chaos. Pakistan is a muslim state and therefore full of muslims. The populace will thus have a natural antipathy to liberal democracy. An Islamic state will take hold there. The few elections that Pakistan have had were an aberration, not a new norm.
Culturist hold as fundamental the idea that diversity exists. Here we share common ground with others that worry about Islamic fascism. Not all people make great Americans. We should bar people from Muslim countries from immigrating to the United States and gaining citizenship. Islam is not just another version of liberal democratic culture. Diversity is real. Certain values are needed for democracy to thrive. And, as we saw in Pakistan, no universal rights or norms prevent democracy and the appreciation of individual rights from disappearing.
The shock when Pakistan goes Islamic results from a failure to appreciate that there are fundamental differences between cultures. This shock reflects a denial of diversity which assumes it natural that all peoples value equality, feminism, individual rights and democracy by nature. It is the same thinking that justifies massive immigration from nations that are hostile to America and the values that made it a first world bastion of free conscience. Culturists, would be willing to take out Iran's nukes, but not rebuild their nation. Culturists recognize diversity is real and are not outraged or shocked when it manifests itself. We say pull up the drawbridge and do not fight the cultural wind outside of our sphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)