Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Hamas Versus Israel in NYC




“Support the West Not Islam,” were the highly contentious words on my sign. These words got me in constant, interesting and vital arguments with those on my side. Cordoned off by police barricades, my side was the one supporting Israel's retaliation for constant rocket attacks. The video relates this battle quicker, but the text below has much more detail.

I made the sign as none of the ones our organizers distributed mentioned Islam. The signs simply addressed Israel and Hamas. Our signs failed to educate people about the clash of civilizations. They gave no reason for supporting Israel. If the conflict is just one nation against another, the West has no stake in this fight. Obviously, the Israelis’ cultural roots and values align them with the West. The Islamic world backs Palestine. Sides exist.

Two young ladies gave me an interesting challenge. They claimed their Muslim friends were not against the West and I was alienating and defaming their friends by carrying the sign. I also have a nominally Muslim friend from whom I fear no terrorism. But she supports the West precisely because she does not take Islam seriously. The vast majority of Muslims do no harm. But that reflects laziness, not fidelity to their faith.

Someone barged in to our conversation, “Then why aren’t they here?” It was a rhetorical question, but one that packed a punch. When push comes to shove, even my good friend is on the Palestinian side. Subtly, culturism does not posit that one side is right and the other wrong. Obviously both groups believe in their side. It is actually pathological for people not to believe in their side. With rare exceptions, Muslims will support Muslims and westerners should support westerners. Love it or hate it, this is just the culturist nature of the world. Sides exist.

Another argued, “Your sign makes us look intolerant.” I replied that ‘not supporting” is not intolerance. Multiculturalists tell must “celebrate diversity” and we have no core culture. This means that we have no western cultural standards by which to judge and must embrace everything. This globalist, human rights, multicultural idea that we have no special cultural traits and that every one around the world agrees on fundamental values is incorrect. Other cultures do not prize tolerance. Other cultures have harems and circumcise women. Our values do not dominate outside of the West. If we tolerate or support such behaviors in the West, they will disappear.

And so we get to the very reason for my sign. Islam does not believe in women’s rights, individual scrutiny of life, democracy, freedom of speech, or the relative separation of church and state. I do not begrudge their protecting their culture on their lands - I expect it. But we need to protect western lands and allies; our land, our side. If, after 1300 years of battle with Islam we lose, western style rights will disappear. The Muslim goal is not Israel, India, New York’s twin towers, Spain's trains or London’s busses. Islam is aggressive in the name of theocracy. Muslim powers believe in theocracy. Diversity is real.

The video illustrates these points. Notice that their organizers distributed anti-American signs. They want to "defeat" western presence in the world. They are very clear about having a side. Note that the protesters chant “Allah Akbar.” Notice that the Israeli side has no anti-American slogans. One Israeli sign even acknowledges western pain over 9-11. Israel is on our side. They are a democracy with freedom of speech. America must not conceive of itself as a multicultural, global, neutral space. The West has a culture to lose. Muslims know they are on the Islamic side and so support it. Our duty is to "Support the West, not Islam."

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Dr. Samuel Huntington R.I.P.

Samuel Huntington has left us and he has left us a more enlightened. I saw this coming, I sent him an offer of a complementary copy of my book, Culturism, a year ago. His secretary said Dr. Huntington is too ill to read new books. This, of course saddened me. It did so because I consider Dr. Huntington the main scholar to have inspired culturism. His 'Clash of Civilizations' model is the culturist model.

Huntington's book, 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" describes the post-Cold War world. During the Cold War the question was, "Which side are you on?" All nations either identified with the USSR or the USA. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that question no longer had meaning. The search for national identity then defaulted back to older sources. These sources would be ethnic, nationalist and religious.

When the Cold War ended many assumed that the world would become united under western precepts. There would be what Fukayama called the "End of History." Everyone would become globalist. We forgot about history as other nations saw their chance to reassert themselves. Huntington noted that even in economics, the basis upon which the democratic, capitalist union of the world was to happen, Australia was not let into the Asian trading organizations. We went globalist while others stayed nationalist and we have been stripped in the process.

When people assume the new global order, they fantasize it happening under an agreement on western values of democracy, individual rights and free markets. It does not occur to us that others imagine this union on an Islamic basis or happening via again acknowledging China is the center of the world. Huntington foresaw the demographic rise of Islam. He understood that history mattered and that both would resent the West's prominence. As in culturism, Huntington argued for respecting others' sphere of influence. In Asia that would mean not protecting Taiwan. With Islam that would require containment, not conversion. Huntington warned that our attempts to impose western values we imagined were global could aggravate the clash of civilizations.

In the Clash of Civilizations Huntington also talks about swing civilizations. He wonders if Russia and Latin America will become more like western core states or less. In recent years Latin America has become more democratic. But this requires the strength of a core state to promulgate such values. He shows that wars break out on fault lines. Fault line wars tend to lead to extremists, not moderates. The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of the World Order is summarized under 'book summaries' under 'world history' at the culturism website, www.culturism.us. But I recommend buying the book.

Huntington's "Who are We?" also greatly influenced culturism. In this work he focused on Mexico forcing American demographic change. He worried about us becoming a 'cleft nation.' That is a nation with two different linguistic groups and historic allegiances. He pointed out how poorly this had worked out historically. It leads to Civil War. Furthermore, he relied on Ronald Inglehart's World Values Survey to show the importance of a futuristic, non-fatalistic values system to progress. More information on this important survey is at www.worldvaluessurvey.org.

It is frustrating that twenty years since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, people still do not recognize the Clash of Civilizations model has come to pass. Islamic aggression and Chinese dominance are no longer remote possibilities. The idea of America becoming an unstable cleft nation gets more entrenched with each day. Politicians all act as though sides are a thing of the past and all share the same values in the new global order. The words culturism and culturist are basically offered to provide an easy way for people to show agreement with Dr. Huntington. Even as we carry on, reading his works provides us with more ammunition. We will sorely miss this giant intellectual warrior.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Coulter, Jews and Culturism

I saw Ann Coulter last night. Not surprisingly, she made some shocking remarks. Amongst them was the claim that liberals hate Jews. A liberal audience member hated the fact that she used the word hate! She responded by arguing that between covering for Palestinian atrocities, blaming Jews for infractions, protecting Ahmadinejad and other policies enabling the annihilation of Israel, it seemed like hate.

Then the liberal asked her a very interesting question, “If liberals hate Jews, why did the vast majority vote for Obama?” Coulter said she was personally dumbfounded by the phenomenon. She didn’t know. But she guessed it had to do with Jews once having been the “popular victims” and not having realized they’d lost the status. She has the instincts of a lightening rod! Her answer did not satisfy me.

Herein it gets personal. I am Jewish. And, though I do not identify as such, as thinker I must ask, “would it be anti-culturism if I did identify as a Jew?“ The answer is no. That is because Judaism is integral to Western history. We share values with the West. To be Jewish is to be a part of the West.

That said, culturists being culturists they must acknowledge Judaism has distinct cultural propensities. When the Jews came to America, like others, they brought their own history, tradition and ideologies with them. The largest influx of Jews to come to our shores was escaping tyranny and oppression at the hands of the Russian czar. A large faction was also embracing socialism as they rejected the faith of their fathers.

Jews' leading roles in the Civil Rights movement likely reflect this history. This Jewish orientation, magnified by a propensity for being lawyers inherited from Talmudic traditions, definitely sped up the rise of civil rights, multiculturalism and open borders. For better or worse, history impacts culture. And the entry of particular cultures into mainstream culture also has an impact.

Blindly using laws to assist all victims hurts Jews. We do not benefit when protecting the rights of anti-semites to enter the nation and spread theocratic ideals. Doing so puts Jews at odds with the protection of western culture. Insanely enough, many Jews even ride this cultural trajectory into positions where they fight for the rights of those who would destroy Israel. Rather than automatically siding with the underdog, due to our broader roots and heritage, we should just fight for the West.

Many Jews are Democrats because their parents were Democrats. Their parents were Democrats for the same reason. Ultimately, we fight for underdogs because of our treatment in Russia. Culturist explanations teach us that people naturally and without much scrutiny absorb the cultures that nurture them. By recognizing this trend we can diffuse it. We can start to ask ourselves why we Jews, of all people, would be so enthusiastic about a disciple of Farrakhan’s friend, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who wants to have discussions with Ahmadinejad.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Culturist rights versus human rights

Protect rights. Get rid of the idea of human rights. Protect the West.

The UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Besides a bizarre list of entitlements with no regard to affordability (such as the right to housing and medical care) it follows this 14 in prohibiting discrimination based on "race, religion, sex, political views or any other status." This totally emasculates the ability of the cultures in question to practice culturism. Culturism, again, says majority cultures have a right to define, guide, protect and promote themselves. Islam cannot discriminate based on religion and China cannot discriminate based on race. That destroys their identities.

You may say GREAT!! But there is a hitch. This document is not Universal. Islamic nations ignore it. China ignores it. Only the West takes it seriously. That reflects the fact that these are Western values (the preamble is stolen from the American Declaration of Independence) and we mistakenly think all people believe in Western values.

You may still say, "Our values ARE universal!" The problem is, in the real world, Islamic nations practice culturism and fight for their side. China practices culturism and fights for their side. When we are the only one playing by these rules it puts us at a terrible disadvantage. We must open up to mosques. They need not open to churches. We cannot discriminate against any types of immigrants. Islamic and Asian nations do. In battle we must uphold universal values, they do not. We are held to these standards and they destroy our sovereignty. Other nations wouldn't dare implement them.

Even if you believe eventually everyone will eviscerate their cultures in favor of a totally open society without any cultural values or guidance, it behooves us for the time being to adopt culturism. Rather than the multiculturalist tact, it behooves us to recognize that we have a unique Western culture (pretend if you don't believe it) and employ our culturist right to protect it. That gives us a level playing field. And, universalist believers in human rights, if the West falls, human rights will cease to exist. This is because they really are just a Western concept. We in the West really have a unique culture. The UDHR concept undermines our ability to protect it.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Culturism, Loyalty and Barack

Divided loyalties should worry any political observer with a sense of culturism. Presidents must be born American citizens. If you're in the Congress or the Supreme Court there is no such requirement. The answer as to why brings us to recognize the importance of loyalty. Though some controversy reverberates in come circles, President-Elect Barrack Obama has American citizenship by birth. But there are still loyalty problems.

President-Elect Obama just barely got born here. His family globe-trotted and his father and step father were not Americans. He has a lot of foreign-born relatives. So now he has an illegal alien Aunt living in public housing in Boston. It would emotionally tear him up to enforce our border laws. Should he betray his aunt and send her back? Should he turn against his family to do his job as our Chief of State? Here we see the immediate impact of divided loyalties.

History has provided other evidence of the danger of diversity when it comes to loyalty. In 1846 the United States went to war with Mexico. When the treaty signing happened we had taken Mexico City militarily. It was an easy win. Today would we easily win a rematch of that war? We probably wouldn't. Why not? Divided loyalties.

This is natural. The other day I was discussing this with my classes here in New York. One fully Americanized student of Mexican -descent contributed, "you guys stole it from us." I brought his pronoun use to attention of the class. I joked about it and explained why it is dangerous. We need to discuss loyalty and teach about it in our schools.

Americanization programs met the last wave of immigrants. These sought to get immigrants to stay in and identify with America. This was a widespread culturist reform effort concerning loyalty. They used parades contests and public schools to teach about loyalty. Many people of Mexican descent already do identify with America. And replacing multiculturalism with culturism will help with increase that number. This is our best step forward.

In Europe, they have been at war with Islam for over one thousand years. So they must ask if in their case diversity is a good thing? Does diversity make them stronger and more able to win wars or the reverse? Americanizers recognized that some cultures were harder to assimilate than others. If assimilation does not work the only choice is border laws. But here loyalty comes back into play.

In a democracy the laws represent the will of the people. In a democracy, if demographics change to where people are more concerned with opportunity for peoples of other nations than the domestic one border laws must become lax or non-existent. And I pray that President - Elect Obama find it in his heart to put American interests above all else. And, though it will be hard for Barrack to send his auntie back, the only other choice is dismantling all of our border laws for sentimental reasons. I hope President - Elect Obama has the strength to put America first.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Culturist Election Results

Barrack Obama will be our next President. In some ways this bodes very well for our culture. There are also real reasons for concern and potential dangers from an Obama Presidency. We must productively address our culturist concerns and work to maintain our point of view. We are especially well placed to avert the dangers the Obama Presidency brings. And, ultimately, as proud Americans we must wish Obama the best of luck as the next President of the United States.

First the good news. We have a black President. This can help America shake its self-image as a hopelessly racist nation. Obama's election seems to be irrefutable evidence that we have moved beyond racism. It will also provide a sense of optimism to minorities. Rather than hating or resenting America for being racist, having a black President should help minorities to see that America is amongst the least racist nations on earth. This realization can aid culturists in their quest to teach Americans that differences in achievement have more to do with culture than race. Thus having a black President could make us prouder and more culturally aware.

While celebrating the cultural impact of Obama's being black, it would have been preferable for culturists if he did not have a Muslim name. Our leader having such a name normalizes an Islamic presence in our nation. It implicitly teaches us to consider cultural differences irrelevant. And while his color may help us to identify the Enlightenment roots of our Western culture, his name subtly undermines the recognition that we have specific Western culture to protect and promote. Culturists must point out that our lack of racism highlights our Enlightenment roots and Obama's Christianity confirms the other source of our Western civilization.

Obama's election creates some very real concerns. His having chosen a Muslim name and his affiliation with some powerful Muslim leaders indicates that he will not recognize that Western cultural is under siege. This will at very least lead to lackadaisical security. His affiliation with the racist Reverend Wright raises concerns that he may describe ours as a racist nation. Even more than other Presidents, he may label efforts to protect ourselves and our economic inequality as reflecting racial rather than cultural concerns. Both possibilities point to culturists needing to continue teaching people to distinguish the important variable of culture from the irrelevant one of race.

The biggest danger of Obama's Presidency comes from the power it could give to one lone nut or even an undercover Jihadist. Assassinating Obama would greatly destabilize America. We are very vulnerable now. Remind people that the West is great because of democracy and democracy is great because it makes for stable, flexible and peaceful governments. As many culturists blog on the right, we have a special duty to sternly denounce hysterics. As culturists we take pride in the fact that Western nations use ballots and words, not bullets. Obama's getting through office safely will help us showcase the greatness of America and democracy. Being a good American means monitoring and arguing with your President. But at the end of the day, it also means wishing him or her success in their attempts to improve America. As a culturist and an American, I hope Obama makes us all proud.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Culturism and Barack

The election of Barack Hussein Obama will be a great event for mulitculturalism and thus a horrible one for culturism. Multiculturalism denies that western nations have a core culture. They would assert that America has no more of a tie to the heritage of British protestant culture than it does to Saudi Islamic culture If Barack Hussein Obama gets elected, if our President's name has an Islamic cast, it will undermine our ability to define ourselves as unique and in competition with other cultures.

His supporters will respond, but he is not a Muslim, he just has an Islamic name. This argument would fly if he were born with that name. In fact, he chose it as an adult. And people should ask themselves why people have changed their names to Islamic names. Why did Cassius Clay become Muhammad Ali? Why did Lew Alcindor become Kareem Abdul Jaabar? But if we take him at his word, if he is as he claims to be, we have to hold him to it. We need him to repeatedly remind us that he American and proudly identifies with our Christianity and Enlightenment based culture. To control the damage his Islamic name does, we need him to constantly reaffirm he does not identify with Islam.

Unfortunately, his reassurance that he is not a Muslim will not help us internationally. Whether true or not, the Islamic world considers it obvious that he has ties to Islam. His name, muslim father and stepfather, madrassa training and close ties to the Islamic rebel in Kenya give them grounds. And though multiculturalism has hidden the fact that the West has been in mortal conflict with Islam since 700 ad, the Islamic world meditates on this fact day and night. They will see this as a victory and get a tremendous morale boost from it.

Obama's policy on Iraq makes him seem like a culturist. Culturism takes diversity seriously and so has very limited hope for turning Iraq into a progressive democracy. McCain takes the globalist position that we are all the same and Iraq's Islamic culture is not inherently incompatible with being a liberal democracy. Obama follows culturists in regretting our involvement in Iraq. But, culturists should be fooled into thinking him a culturist because of this coincidence. Whereas culturism takes Islamic nations to be essentially hostile and foreign enemies to whom we owe nothing, Obama sees them as friends in the global community whom we have injured.

Obama's name not being recognized by English spell checkers reflects its foreign genesis. It reflects the fact that much of his family has non-American ties. Does this create complications? Well, how can he purely think of American interests when his aunt is an illegal alien? How can he consider the American perspective in international aid when his brother lives on a dollar a day in a Kenyan slum? His connections with the Muslim Luo tribal leader Odinga shows a non-Western cultural affiliation. For internationalists, for globalists, these relations are a boon. Just as other nations do, culturists argue we have to put our culture and nation first in our land. Culturists would rather have an American president purely reflect American interests.

What's in a name? A whole lot. Even though Obama is not Osama, the Islamic world will interpret his pulling us out of Iraq will in a much different way than if someone named McCain did. Even if Obama is not a Muslim, celebrations will break out across the Islamic world on this basis if he gets elected. Even if he is as Christian and American as the day is long, his very name will undermine the idea that we have a common cultural heritage in the West. His aunt being a Kenyan illegal immigrant shows the foreign nature of his name actually does reflect foreign ties. But even if he governs with none but America's interests in mind, his name alone will convey extremely detrimental culturst lessons.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama Assassination Causes Culturist Terror

The Barack Obama assassination plot terrified me. No I am not afraid for Obama. The culturist dynamic I saw begin today was worse than the death of any one man. And, don't get me wrong, I would not like to see him assassinated. That is third world style idiocy. We have a democracy. And as bad as I may think Obama is, as an American my job is to ride it out Presidents I don't like and wait for the next election. What I saw today concerned me more than the death of any one man would.

The media jumped to report on the white supremacist plot to assassinate Obama. But when you read below the headlines there was no "plot." An 18 year old and a 21 year old had a less than half-baked scheme. To get enough guns for it they were going to start by robbing a gun store - lotta luck with that! Then they were going to kill eighty-eight black Americans. Fourteen were to be by beheading. And, if they still hadn't gotten caught, they were going to assassinate Obama. This is poorly thought out juvenile fantasy, not a white supremacist plot.

I got my news of this from an black man who put the paper down on the bus as he was leaving. As I politely went for what he was leaving behind he saw me and gave me an unlikely combination of a sad, cold, disappointed and angry look. It was intense and meaningful enough that I noticed it. When I picked up the paper and saw the headline I understood. He had been reading about white people beheading black people. The feeling could not have been good. That moment sent race relations back fifty years.

The horrifying thing is that the media loves this sort of sensationalism. It could be that it confirms their leftist view of the world. It could be that hate simply causes such a visceral reaction that it makes people pay attention to the newspaper for once. If it bleeds it leads. Regardless of why they ran it on the front page of two local papers, the trend could be devastating. Imagine reading of white supremacists trying to kill black people every week. And if they print every teenage fantasy as a white supremacist plot, under an Obama presidency we could be in for a lot of such print.

The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not have to set off days of rioting. No cultural event has significance apart from the interpretation of it. One man being shot led to so much mayhem because black power advocates and the left had spent years telling black Americans how oppressed they were. People such as Jesse Jackson still teach that anger, despair, bitterness, rage and even violence are justified by the brutality and injustice of our racist system. The reason you didn't have such rioting in the 1950s was that black Americans got a different message.

Compared to the rest of the world even our poorest citizens are well off. A huge portion of the world's population lives on less than a dollar a day. People come here because there is still some social mobility. The world is not poor because America is rich. Before the West, everyone was extremely poor. Now there are other opportunities with which to compare your station. Feeling rage over being in America is not an obvious choice. But that does not matter.

If the media continues feeding America pictures of white supremacists who hate black people, just like on my bus ride, bad feelings will rise. Just imagine if another ethnic group was targeting yours. And in a multicultural world, where we have made a fetish of differences, we have many ethnic boundaries to cross. Multiculturalism has put us on a powder keg. But if endless images of hate get capped by an assassination, we could have an explosion. Unfortunately, the media seems ready to prepare the fuse. They are taking us into a dark place. If they do not resist the temptation to sensationalize every teenager fantasy as evidence of a hateful racist white America, things could get ugly.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Culturist Banking Lessons

Does the culturist perspective teach us anything about the international financial meltdown? You bet it does. In fact, if we had had the words “culturism” and “culturist” we likely would not have gotten into this financial mess in the first place.

How did we get into this mess? We got in this mess because the United States’ government noticed that different cultural groups get mortgages at different rates. And since they had no word to guide them to a cultural explanation for this discrepancy, they took the disparities as evidence of racism. And since banks make the loans, our government decided banks must be racist. Thus not having the concept of culturism forced them into a tragic misstep.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act under the American President Jimmy Carter first started checking banking institutions to make sure they were giving credit to low income and minority families. During the Clinton administration, the United States government’s Housing and Urban Development Department sued banks to force them to make risky loans to these buyers. Barack Obama’s ACORN organization intimidated banks, via tactics such as protesting mergers and lawsuits, into making more of these bad loans. Banks complied, but spread the risk throughout the entire system. The stage was set for a collapse.

If the United States’ government had had a culturist perspective, rather than using the disparity in loan rates to show society is racist, they might have used it to show reality is culturist. They could have used it as a teaching tool by says, “Cultural group A, you’re lagging behind cultural group B. You need to do some collective reflection and get your cultural act together.” Culturists would see this as a more constructive reaction than suing banks so that they could not discriminate on a rational cultural basis between good and bad loan risks. Recognizing the important variable of cultural values helps people make realistic decisions.

Multiculturalists will tell you that all discrimination is bad. They do this because, ironically, they do not really believe cultural diversity is important. They think cultural diversity is just a matter of food, fashion and festivals. Deep down, they do not really think diversity exists; they think all cultures are the same. Culturists, on the other hand, acknowledge cultural diversity. If people in your culture drink too much, if they do not postpone pregnancy, if they don’t study, if they do not keep their families together, culturists know it will impact your economic and educational outcome. Cultural practices can even affect the rates at which your cultural group gets mortgages approved.

The next time you hear someone start into that tired rhetoric about how racist our Western societies are, the next time you hear them start to use different levels of achievement to prove it, I want you to get angry. Tell them that that is the same lame sort of thinking that got us into our financial mess! Tell them that rather than dismissing the possibility that cultural values can impact society, as multiculturalists do, they need to start considering the very real impact cultural values can have, as culturists do. The multiculturalist perspective makes us indiscriminately ignore the impact of culture and denigrates our society as racist. It undermines our rationality and pride. Shout that you are sick of people constantly undermining our teaching of values and pride by calling America racist. Then, after regaining your composure, remind them that the financial collapse proves multiculturalism is dangerous.

To get our financial institutions and society back to discriminating and judging rationally, to safeguard both, we need to recognize the very real impact of cultural diversity. We need to stop being multiculturalists and start being culturists. We have to switch from multiculturalism to culturism. We must to learn from our mistakes. Otherwise, reality will soon hit us in the face again.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Muslims and Culturist Nuance

The culturist policy towards Islam dictates that we stop Muslim immigration and do not recognize Muslim holidays. Culturist thinking also argues that we should not needlessly antagonize Muslim Americans or violate their Constitutional rights. These culturist policy suggestions provide the best methods by which to foster the unity culturism seeks and safeguard America.

In some European cities Muslims have become such a large block of the population they can make demands, disrupt affairs and get a taste of victory when propagandized towards this end. That sends the testosterone level up in males. They feel they could supplant the current top dogs and become a ruling class. We should not allow such large pockets of foreign, un-assimilated populations of any stripe to develop.

No nation is required to admit any persons to whom it objects. Not allowing more Muslims to enter the US would not violate our Constitution. US Constitutional rights only apply to Americans. We have no global or mystical 'human rights' obligation to continue on an immigration pattern. We need to be especially harsh on this account because Islam is, at its core, hostile to Western values. A growing Islamic community is more likely to produce threats to our safety and society. We need not take that risk.

That said, Culturism is dedicated to uniting America and, ultimately, the Western world. And it is also pragmatic. Over a million Muslims live among us legally. We cannot make them leave without savaging our Constitution. Mass deportation would undermine, not protect, the Constitution and our Western heritage. We should profile those who have gone to radical mosques. But unity can best be fostered, in all who are not haters of America, by making love for America our goal. Fairness and kindness are our best weapons in this endeavor.

For unity's sake, we must not needlessly antagonize otherwise possibly good citizens. But being friendly does not mean giving legal sanction to other culture's holidays in our schools or society. Drawing this legal line will define our core culture by pointing to our traditions. When we legally affirm that we are just as Islamic or Buddhist or Malay a nation as we are Christian, Jewish or Enlightenment-based, it undermines the Western identity upon which we must guide ourselves. Honor killings, child brides and polygamy won't be far behind.

An Islamic presence will always present a danger. After a few generations of moderation a radical son may be born. The whole ideology of Islam makes this a real and fearful possibility. To reduce this risk we must not increase the Islamic population. We must stop the funding of Mosques by foreign governments. If people preaching radical Islam, our government must watch them. Loyal Muslims will understand. We must also be aware, however, that violating the rights or liberties of legal Muslims will only create antagonism and push people towards Jihad. And that would undermine our culturist goal of unity.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Islamic Terrorism

I teach muslims at an aeronautic college. The topic is World History. Guess you could say I'm at ground zero. As I was going to an evening protest against the Hyatt hosting a dinner for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, Islam was on my mind all day long.

On the subway the tape played the announcement that those in New York no longer pay attention to, "If you see a suspicious package, report it. All bags and backpacks are subject to random search by the New York Police Department. Thank you and have a safe day." I have always thought inserting "Because of Muslims" between the first and second sentences.

While funny, this suggested insertion is not inaccurate. While not all muslims are terrorists, nearly all terrorists are muslims. Because of the presence of muslims, we have lost basic rights. Safety requires that we now allow police to randomly search our backpacks. If it were not for 9 - 11 we would have no patriot law. This is a cost for those who prize diversity to consider.

On the bus I take after my subway I sat with a student named Muhammad. He has just arrived from Pakistan. He told me that the North of Pakistan is safe, but the cities are dangerous. He did not realize that the cities are unsafe because of the idyllic north. He is not evil, but clueless.

Muhammad should not be allowed in my university. Though personally nice, his clueless nature and frequent trips to Pakistan make him a perfect recruit. And as we have to accept the curbing of our rights due to Muslim's presence, it is not unreasonable to expect them to accept some restrictions in gratitude for letting them resettle here.

This would not be racist, it would be culturist. Racism is stupid. I would not discriminate against Muhammad because his skin is very dark. That would be ludicrous. But his coming from the country that would host Osama Bin Laden seems like a reasonable precaution. Racism is evil and stupid. But because cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational and necessary.

On the subway ride home, I noticed that the "whyislam.org" signs are now up. I later went to the website. It says that misunderstanding other cultures, not jihad is the greatest threat to civilization. Jihad, after all, means love. Multiculturalism teaches that there are no essential differences between cultures and that any mention of one must be mistaken. Culturists know that diversity is so broad it includes cultures that kill for their God - Jihad.

To resolve this situation, someone should get the URL "whyNOTislam.org" We should link it to jihadwatch and produce stickers to place on all of the Islamic propaganda signs.

At the rally people all descried Americans hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I concur. It is inappropriate to dialogue with people that kill gays and seek the destruction of our partner nation in the West, Israel. I did disagree with the neo-cons who think we should invade Iran and turn them into the western outpost their citizens really desire to be. I think we should take out his nuclear development sites. But beyond that, I argued that thinking countries are all just little Americas waiting to realize it ignores cultural factors that will undermine our efforts.

I condemn Muslim presence in America because we are essentially different. The senator who wrote the law protecting Americans from libel tourism discussed threats to our freedom of speech. And that phrasing is correct. It is "our" freedom of speech. We believe in it, not them. They protect their culture and we have a right to also. Iran is a Muslim nation. That is fine. We are not, that is fine too. We need to recognize that we have a culture and protect it.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Culturism and the Economic Meltdown

Businessmen without loyalty are the forgotten targets of culturism. Yes, culturism advocates border control. Yes, culturism is against multiculturalism in schools. Yes, culturism seeks to have laws that uphold some values. But the book culturism also goes after disloyal businessmen as well. In fact, not just businessmen, but the whole globalist paradigm.

Culturism hates the song "We are the world." We are not the world. Americans are a Western nation. We are not required to stay neutral and give aid to both sides in the Middle East. No place is neutral to culture and the US is home. Globalist businessmen who send our factories overseas forget these facts. They forget that they live in a country that has supported them, taught them and provided an infrastructure that made their business possible. When this country goes down the toilet, I'm not sure where they are going to live. Their best interests lay in pumping up the home team.

Our current economic meltdown reveals disloyalty to values. This hurts all of us. We can see it in the fact that when our economy is rocked, we all suffer. It also goes to the reputation of America. Made in USA used to mean high quality. It now, sadly, is rarely seen. And when it is seen, I'm not sure the good reputation goes along with it. This makes people less likely to buy our products and undermines pride in our work and our nation. This economic situation should help us remember the value of integrity.

Culturism suggests a small legal remedy for white-collar crime. We need to get rid of the two-tier prison system. If you commit fraud, you need to do hard time. Spending five years in a Federal prison that resembles a country club does not deter people. Furthermore, when the small guy robs a liquor store and gets hard time while someone who bilks millions of seniors out of their retirement gets a special prison, it conveys the message that America is stacked against the poor. Ultimately, we need to get our culture back to a place where people have a sense of shame. But, in the meantime, hard jail time for white-collar crime will show our culture cares about its integrity and economic survival.

Friday, September 12, 2008

September 11th

Today people all across America had musical tributes to commemorate the seventh anniversary of the horrific Islamic terrorism inflicted upon us on 9 - 11 - 01. I appreciate the intention, but the New York City, Washington Square Park's choice of foreign music disturbed me.

For over two hours the same band played. I did not understand their language and so could not pinpoint the roots of the music. It could have been Israeli or Romanian. It sounded a bit like gypsy music and features what appeared to be a balalaika.

On 9 - 11 we should feel some sense of connection with our fellow Americans. Listening to music with words I could not begin to understand was alienating. I could feel no common cause with these people as their cultural emanations are literally foreign to me. Perhaps it being 9 - 11 made me overly sensitive, but this focus on foreign persons and cultures with whom we could not communicate brought me less comfort than they likely intended.

Music is not the universal language. Music reflects specific cultural roots. For all I know, the lyrics could have been celebrating acquiring a third wife or the engagement of a child-bride. War can be used for religious ceremonies and to send people off to war. I am not a gypsy from the old world. As a culturist I do not automatically celebrate other cultures or their emanations on our soil.

Multicultural celebrations of 9 - 11 indicate that we still do not understand cultural diversity. We still do not recognize that some cultures mean us harm. Multiculturalists want to reduce cultural differences to food, festivals, fashion and music. While urging us to "celebrating diversity," they fail to recognize that cultures actually do have profoundly different values and that some even teach hatred for the values of Western civilization.

The simple multicultural vision of the world reminds me of "Its a Small World" at Disneyland. This all-cultures-are-equal mode undermines our sense of progress and pride in our accomplishments. This same ignorance of diversity leads us to not take our borders seriously. It leads us to inadvertenly celebrate and validate communities in our midst with regressive and violent values. The multicultural 9 - 11 celebration showed how little we learned on that day.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Quick Culturist Sarah Palin Post

I, personally, am what is called "pro-choice." I am pro-choice AND I believe that states should have the right to decide their laws. The legislature is the branch closest to the people; the Court is the branch furthest removed. And when the vote came to my state, I'd be pro-choice all the way. I have a position and so does culturism. But this post is NOT about me or culturism.

I am blown away by Sarah Palin. Lets hope that many politicians are honorable people. And when they've made tough votes (costly to them) they deserve some praise. But her choice to keep her down syndrome child is beyond me and extremely noble.

Honestly I do not know if, given the choice, I would keep such a child. I would certainly look at it from a selfish point of view. It would be a lot of work, trouble and concern for me. Then I'd likely justify my decision using the child's best interests. What kind of life would that child have? I'd tell myself that we would all be better off if I waited and had a healthy child later. If this was an option, I'd likely abort. Damn, that sounds ugly. But, as it is a difficult and personal decision, I cannot make it for others who are in different circumstances.

But, I deeply respect Sarah Palin for her choice. She has her plate full with four healthy children and work. And no matter how much help she has, this child will bring a lot of work with few prospects. Her decision to keep the child says more to me about her than any voting record ever could. This is a woman of her conviction. This is a woman who values life more than I do. This is a person I can trust to stand by her morals when the going gets tough. She has some executive decision experience. But this experience sets her apart from the rest.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Universities Gone Wild!!!

Approximately one hundred presidents of America's best-known universities signed a petition to have the drinking age lowered!!! Read all about it by clicking the post title. The West has lost its mind. And the saddest part of our cultural mental meltdown is that it is happening at universities.

The university presidents think this will actually help stem the college binge drinking epidemic. A movement leader said, "college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal." Not being culturists, perhaps they have not recognized cultural diversity. In many cultures college students are not heavy drinkers. If they had any education they would realize binge drinking in universities is recent, American and not something we must accept as inevitable.

Education is supposed to change people. University, once upon a time, had the mission of making people more civilized and refined. If we accept the fact that elite universities cannot even stop youth from binge drinking, then what exactly is its function? If education is so ineffective, why waste money on it?

Well, we do not (I can hear some say) go to university to get refined, its for a job. The degree and maybe some acquired skills will translate into money. Unfortunately, we live in a culture. Having no moral standards whatsoever is NOT conducive to a thriving economy. Note that the paper diplomas no longer guarentee you a job as industry has fled. And, part of the reason industry has fled is that the universities have stopped inculcating values and a sense of loyalty to the Western tradition.

At some level, the universities are right. Education does not translate immediately into behavior. We absorb the cultural assumptions of our surroundings via adoption of what is expected and given status. If universities want to regain any sense of esteem, lectures about drinking will not do it. Rather, universities must use culturist methods to regain their value, values and traditional role in society.

The presidents of America's top 100 universities should sign a pledge that any student caught too drunk to drive during the school year will be automatically expelled from the university. That will stop the problem dead in its tracks. Students will quickly learn that universities are places that value sobriety. That done, universities can once again symbolically teach America that we value the life of the mind and self-control.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Culturist Lessons from Georgia

During this week of international Olympic harmony-through-competition, Russia has attacked Georgia! Oh the irony!! As war is hell, it is a terrible thing. But perhaps this timing can help to wake us from our multicultural slumber.

Russia may have felt threatened because it is being surrounded by NATO countries. Rumor was that Georgia might have joined. Whatever the reason, the attack is illustrative of the fact that raw power exists and some folks aren't PC. Russia just said, "Screw you, we're taking your country cause we can and we want to" and did it.

Our administration condemned this act. That's fine. And then they, and Obama, started blathering about taking this to the United Nations so that the "world community" can pass judgment. More than half of the world community members are serious gansta nations. And they only do, as culturists would expect, what is in their own interest. Any condemnation from the world community will be smothered in hypocrisy.

Americans seem to have forgotten the culturist fact that diversity exists. Not all people are progressive rights and democracy loving Westerners. Some people mean to do us harm. And not all nations are filled with humanists. Putin is KGB!! I'm sure that he has enjoyed torturing people many times. I doubt that not living up to our moral standards will cost him much sleep. Furthermore, he is being cheered at home. Diversity exists.

What should we do about it? An argument can be made that this naked aggression is like that of Hitler's and it should be checked. As a culturist I could almost be persuaded to agree with this course of action because the aggression is nominally on Western soil. But just as all of those rogue U.N. nations, we have to put ourselves first. As a culturist I recognize that rights are a Western ideal. If America falls due to debt incurred protecting Georgia, the rogue nations will take over and rights will disappear.

For Western nations want to sustain rights, they have to realize they are a Western concept. Our culture has traditionally been isolationist. We have traditionally been isolationist because we have realized that we are a sane nation in a world of insanity and evil. The minute our army goes off our soil we've already corroded our traditions. Rather than invading Russia because they are not upholding our values, we should remember that diversity exists, we're special and protecting America is the surest way to protect rights.

Friday, August 8, 2008

The Culturist Perspective on China's 2008 Olympics

Many Americans have trouble celebrating China's Olympics. They worry about China's influence, military, economy and human rights record. We should be concerned about our not effectively competing with China in the Olympics as well as economically. We should be as pro-Western and competitive in our dealings with them as they are pro-Chinese and competitive in their dealings with us. But we should not insist that China will turn into a liberal democracy. We need to recognize that so-called "human rights" are really a Western concept.

As the Olympics start those who believe in universal human rights will start protesting of China. They will basically be saying that the entire world must adopt Western standards of right and wrong. It seems to us that our ways are undeniably right for the whole world, but remember that China's GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1992. It has since been growing faster. Think about that when we, with our huge trade deficits, tell China how to live. They may have reason to suspect that heavy rights for criminals, high school student empowerment and freedom of the media lead to victory.

We are a young nation. Asian - American students comprise 50 percent or more of the student body at numerous universities. Perhaps we have something to learn. If we continue to confuse liberty and licence, the right to be responsible in numerous ways with the right to party without consequence, we may not be around as long as China. Rather than telling other cultures that they must be like us, we can best secure liberty by telling our current population that they must be more like our forefathers. They always understood that liberty is not sustainable without responsibility. Before we tell other nations how to live, we should make sure of our own standing.

The Olympics should teach us something: it is a competitive world. Teams that do not accept discipline from their coaches are at a disadvantage. Teams that will allow you to play regardless of how many practices you miss will fail. Teams on which the members do not really care if they win or not will not prosper. Human rights activists are globalists and multiculturalists tell us that we have no core culture - both undermine our sense of team. We do not gain by decrying China for knowing it is a sovereign nation with a different culture. Culturists say we should enjoy the Olympics and learn from China. We should rally for our team, instead of decrying theirs.

Saturday, August 2, 2008

Culturist Basketball Lessons

Today my local park had a Chinese basketball tournament. To play on the front courts you had to be Chinese. Well, except for the black referees. It was a race or culture-based exclusionary event. When you're Chinese those things overlap a great deal.

I got a pick up game going on the back courts. One of the guys, interestingly enough, had a Negro League shirt all-star basketball shirt. And so, for the purposes of this blog, I asked him what he thought about this situation.

"You know we fought as a nation for integration. Now do you think it's right to have a game where no blacks or whites are allowed?"

He seemed genuinely intrigued, but unsure. His tentative response was, "Well, I guess its their neighborhood, I mean there are a lot of them around here, and that's what they want to do." His point was interesting. They were happy and content locals and they did have two American flags on some seats.

"But you wouldn't be happy if we had a whites only game, right? I mean your shirt was an all black league." "But that was forced!" He quickly replied. "Yeah, but if they had a choice, they'd have wanted to play with everyone, right?" "That's true."

We broke it off there as we were there for basketball. I noticed that he had Chinese writing on his arm. He, apparently, hadn't given much thought to the clash of civilizations! And this is a such delicate culturist subject it would even be a source of debate amongst self-identified culturists.

Loyalty is largely local. In World War Two, people fought for their families and neighborhood's safety as much as they did for America. What they loved about America was the life it had provided. Having happy citizens, like the Chinese ballers, deserves consideration.

And, as uncomfortable as it is for me to be asked to go to the back of the park, culturism is not just about me. It asks that we always focus on what is good for Western culture.

If we countenance Chinese leagues, then we have to agree to Islamic events where no Christians are allowed. These would likely be anti-American in tone and bad for Western civilization. The thought of whites-only events curdles my blood and would create hostile relations. You could make a historical argument why there could be Chinese leagues and no white leagues.

The culturist bottom line is that we need to foster assimilation and attachment to America and Western ideals. A neighborhood basketball association that demographically happened to be mostly Chinese would obviously meet this culturist goal better. Racism is wrong. A battle on these grounds would teach important culturist lessons, but it would also create resentment and possibly clash with our commitment to freedom.

In the end, the point is not my park. Separatism and the divisiveness that comes from the issues discussed herein result from multiculturalism. Our schools need to teach unity. We have to win such arguments in the marketplace of ideas and not the courts. Until we do, I guess we'll have to take comfort in the fact that they had those two American flags on the sidelines.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Culturists Can Win the Battle with Multiculturalists!

Cultural conservatives have been losing the war of words. The multiculturalist slogan “celebrate diversity” has become the official motto of western governments. If you dare mention the real impacts of diversity you get called a racist. Thus, having discussions about important political issues concerning cultural diversity has become frightening. “Culturism” and “culturist” are new words that can help us defeat the multiculturalists and those who stop conversations with the word “racist.”

We can win arguments with multiculturalists because they do not really take cultural diversity seriously. Some cultures value education more than others, some believe in jihad, some engage in polygamy, cliterectomies and honor killings. Some encourage repeated teen pregnancy. Some do not support the right of women to wear what they want. Multiculturalists argue that cultural diversity is limited to food, fashion and festivals. Culturists can supply ample evidence to the contrary.

Multiculturalists not really believing cultural diversity blinds them to the fact that western values are not universal. Freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, democracy, rights (including those for women and gays), and fighting racism are NOT universal beliefs. A quick look for these values around the globe will confirm that these are only western values. Getting multiculturalists to admit that these are rare and recently created values is the first step to their recovery.

Of course, if you try to talk to multiculturalists about cultural diversity, they will call you racist. Their instincts have some merit. Racism is stupid and dangerous; it can divide and destroy us. That said, we must be able to talk frankly about cultural issues. If we fail to win conversations in this arena, we can lose our civilization. Our first, and not so difficult task, is to get our opponents to admit that race and culture are two different things. There are fun ways to go about this, but, once done, using the words culturism and culturist helps them to keep the distinction in mind.

After we establish that we are only talking about culture, we can, for once, put multiculturalists on the defensive. Do they really want to argue that cultural diversity is unimportant and that all countries accept western values? In fact, multiculturalists have committed themselves to acknowledging diversity. If they now argue that culture is not important, they have to give up being multiculturalists. If they admit that some cultures do cliterectomies and they do not want to defend those practices, they are no longer celebrating diversity; they are judging values based on western cultural norms– they are culturists!

Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. When they say this idea is outrageous, appeal to their love of diversity. Saudi Arabia does not let non-Muslims or their symbols into their nation. A culturist would not begrudge them that. China is a racist, nationalist country without democracy. Culturists acknowledge China’s rights. Would a multiculturalist fan of diversity begrudge another culture the right to define, protect and promote its unique cultural vision? No! If they do judge other nations, attack them as imperialists. But once admitting to respecting other nation’s rights, ask them why it is only immoral and outrageous for western nations to be culturist. They will be dumbfounded.

At this point we can lay the hammer on them. Rights are not universal. They only come from cultures that believe in them and can afford them. You, my multiculturalist friend, cannot become a citizen of Japan or go to university in Gambia (they don’t have one). If western nations go under, rights will not continue to exist in some metaphysical realm. To protect rights, we have to protect western nations. This will require making cultural distinctions a legitimate policy concern. To protect rights we, in short, have to become culturist.

If your opponent still sputters about racism, provide them with the following example. Although approximately of the same complexion, Islamic culture antagonizes western values more than Hinduism does. Stopping immigration from Islamic countries and not from India is, therefore, not racist, it is culturist. Rather than defensively denying we are racist, the words culturism and culturist allow us to stand for rights, separation of church and state and other beloved western values. To win the rhetorical battle, we must identify ourselves as culturists and promote culturism as an alternative to multiculturalism. Do it today!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Hollinger's "postethnic" ideal and culturism

David Hollinger’s Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism is one of the most famous books on diversity in academia today. Hollinger seeks to gently guide us away from the excesses of multiculturalism, without abandoning our modern appreciation of cultural pluralism. But he does not really guide us anywhere. Rather than going "beyond multiculturalism," we need to turn in a culturist direction.

His term “Postethnic” denotes a concept by which we can both maintain and transcend our heritage. The “ethnic” part recognizes that there is some diversity and allows you to choose to identify with it. The “post” part means you recognize that the ethnic identites are not solid. I share his enthusiasm for ethnic intermarriage and agree that the government should ditch ethnicity boxes on its forms. But his "postethnic" idea is too easy. He is really just a fancy multiculturalist.

Hollinger says, to avoid balkanization, we need to have culturally neutral “civic nations." Herein, he commits a serious multiculturalist fallacy. The West has a culture. Democracy, separation of church and state, freedom of speech and thinking females should have rights are not universal. The multicultural idea that Western nations are just neutral spaces for random cultures to congregate denies our heritage and undermines our soveriegnty.

Hollinger notes that warrior Masai masters treat their women with less respect than cattle. Clitoridectomy and Saudi values do not accord with those of western feminists. But once people with such values move here, Hollinger assures us that we will be able to talk them into human rights culture via “intersubjective reason.” This means all diversity will naturally and quickly give way to Western values without any culturist policies because diversity is apparent, but not real.

Unlike multiculturalists, culturism takes culture seriously. Basic cultural disagreements exist and conflict happens. Some cultures value education less than others. Some prize big families that start at early ages. Some cultures have seriously anti-Western values. Some believe in polygamy. Some cultures applaud criminality, some are violent. Hollinger's idea that "we can all just get along" because competition and diversity don't really exist, is false.

If people from a country or region are not assimilating or are promoting anti-Western values, we must stop them from immigrating. Schools must enforce consequences for teen pregnancy and disrespect or expect both. Our public media need to send a message by not broadcasting anti-social music. We should try not to subsidize competing nations via technology transfers, trade deficits or foreign aid. The "celebrate diversity" mantra of Hollinger and multiculturalists is not enough. We need pro-active culturist laws that show we value our culture or we may lose it.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Culturist Black History Lesson

After Basketball, Barton and I were having an intense debate about culturism and censorship when he cut in with what seemed to be a total non sequitur, "That means that I and all black people's culture should not be allowed?"

Since he is black and I'm white and we never really discuss race, I felt I needed to tread delicately. "What does that mean? I'm not sure how you got there."

"Well black culture says that studying in school is acting white, that’s a big part of black culture, does that mean that black people are bad?" My reply got nodding and an acceptance of my side in a way that usually only happens in fantasy conversations.

"That is a very new kind of thinking."

"What?"

“For most of history black people in this country have greatly esteemed education. The Little Rock Nine were those kids that got into the white school by the National Guard.”

“Yeah I know about them, fighting segregation.” “

“You think they didn’t want education? Slaves like Frederick Douglas especially prized education. Emancipation through education has traditionally been a black value. The whites in the South didn’t want them to have education, but they overcame and got access.”

“Yeah,” he said obviously thinking to himself. Then he asked the money question, “What happened to make the ideas change?”

It changes with leftist 1960s education historians like Michael Katz and David Tyack. These guys painted educational systems as rigged. They wrote books saying that mobility did not come from schools. Saying, it was all one big scam set up by rich people to make poor people think they had a chance and that their poverty was their own fault.”

“It all starts with them?” Barton was a little incredulous.

“Well the whole society was in turmoil then. But that was when they wrote and that’s when black people got attitude towards school. But a lot of that generation went from being on the left to being leftist.”

“What is the difference?”

“A person on the left still has hope that the system is benevolent overall and notices the improvement over time. They see things like ending slavery and integration as good proof of our nation getting better. Leftists think the system is rotten and oppressive and needs to be overthrown. They preach despair and revolution. And a lot of these people teach in education schools. That message gets passed along to students, sometimes subtlety, sometimes not.”

“You’re right, I was confused.” Then Barton laid out a beautiful conclusion, “We’ve got to teach that basic idea that black people have traditionally struggled for and wanted education again.”

“Damn straight. Got to get people into their greatest hope around.”

“America?”

“That’s what I was trying to say. That’s culturism.”

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Culturist Tensions with my Muslim Friend

My oldest friend, Geeta, is a Muslim. I just saw her for the first time in six years. Geeta came to this country when she was 13 - the Ayatollah chased her family out. Her clothes, drinking habits and relationship patters - her basic values - are highly Americanized. Geeta is a rock n roll woman and someone I care deeply about. When we were kids, our differences did not bother us at all. But current political realities made this visit tense at the edges.

Geeta just returned from a month-long travel; she guesses that eighty percent of Iranians resent the Iranian government and it imposition of Islamic law. The economy and infrastructure are so messed up that most Iranians need to have three jobs to make ends meet. Iran's development has fallen so low that they cannot refine their own oil and have to import gasoline! If you fought against Iraq you get a pension. If you didn't, you are impoverished. She said Iran’s conservative election results reflect corruption, not popularity. Most Iranians, she reported, love Americans and Western products.

Geeta's descriptions of Iran were meant to convey that Iran and Muslims are not inherently anti-Western. As her parents are currently in Iran, she worries about our wanting to bomb her country. She fears the demonization of Muslims. As a positive and contributing citizen, she resents being automatically considered a terrorist. Geeta's only terrorism has only been against me in pinball. Her concerns illustrate that we needlessly increase our domestic and international tension when we demonize people and nations. Many Muslims are good Americans and there is a real chance that Iran will someday be a relatively benign partner.

Cultural affiliation, though, are real. And assimilation has limits. Likely due to the political climate and the multiculturalism of her native Oakland, California, Geeta still identifies Muslims as her people and her country as Iran. She even calls Palestinians "my people." This need not be harmful. Geeta's voting could restrain our impulse to go to war. Geeta identifies with Iranian sovereignty and does not want Islam to spread. My culturist views also respect Iran's sovereignty and cherish our freedoms. If we follow culturist principles and do not needlessly antagonize Muslims domestically or internationally, citizen’s affiliation with non-Western civilizations need not be so bad.

We must be aware of cultural dynamics. Geeta’s description of Iran shows that twenty percent of the population can rob eighty percent of the population of their freedoms. If we invade Iran, as Geeta and any culturist can tell you, the percentage of Muslims that hates the West will rise internationally and domestically. If we target Iran's nuclear facilities – and I think we must - we should be careful to avoid jingoistic demonizing of Muslims at home and abroad. Such talk would needlessly and insensitively hurt Geeta’s feelings and increase the odds of destruction from the Muslim community.

While I could discuss the culturist principle of isolationism with Geeta, I thought it would endanger our relationship to explain the correlated culturist policy that we should safeguard ourselves by stopping all immigration from Muslim nations until worldwide Islamic terror has long ceased. Immigrants identify with their homeland. If twenty percent of immigrating Iranians or their children wants Sharia law, increasing their numbers endangers us. Such an immigration policy would safeguard us and tell people living here that we value our nation and culture.

Looking backwards, I should have discussed all aspects of culturism with Geeta. The discussion could have been a test case to see if explaining Western interests could minimize the hurt from discriminatory culturist policy. Had I appealed to protecting the U.S. from the Sharia law Iran has been devastated by, our relationship may have survived the confrontation. Having seen what she has in Iran, Geeta likely appreciates Western freedoms more than your Western average citizen.

I regret that political events have shoved issues between us that we never had to consider as teenagers. I love Geeta and dearly value our friendship. Perhaps, our nation will follow wise culturist policy and the world will be fraught with less cultural tension when we next meet.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Creating Vibrant Culturist Communities

Coldwater, Michigan sounds like culturist heaven. In their newspapers one finds endless lectures prepared for citizens by citizens on literature, history and science. Debates and free classes must have reflected the historical, biblical and classical allusions evident in their two leading newspapers. They were culturist in that the town constantly sought to cultivate themselves through knowledge. Coldwater citizens built a full school system, a library and a YMCA. Coldwater’s citizens also displayed culturist propensities in that they sought to improve their world’s culture. Articles on social purity, reverend’s speeches on the duty to improving society regularly appeared in the newspaper. Women’s Christian Temperance Union meetings regularly filled the calendar. There was a Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society. All of this action happened in a town with a population of about 2,500.

Thomas Bender’s wonderful small book, Intellect and Public Life, asserts that in the first half of the 19th century, “even places with small populations aspired to a full intellectual life.” The more one reads about small towns like Coldwater, the more one understands what vibrant associational communities small towns had. We also see that some retained vibrant intellectual communities longer than Bender notes. But, still and all, his tale of their decline rings true. Intellectual life has declined, and he sets out to explain it.

Professional universities helped to kill intellectual life. Originally, even in larger cities, intellectuals were enmeshed in their local civic culture and this emanated to small towns. When East coast intellectuals were discussing a book, all small towns knew of it and took it up. As urban centers got more diverse, there was less of a unified audience to whom to speak. “The urban intellectual, now standing essentially alone, faced a heterogeneous, anonymous, and vastly expanded audience.” (35) Professors professionalized and started talking to themselves. Intellectual life became something specialized professors did and they did not think it dignified or deep to spread their detailed research among the masses. Size and diversity killed community.

To prove a point, Bender shows this pattern repeating in the 1950s. Lionel Trilling’s 1950 The Liberal Imagination became the first serious paperback and made him one of the most influential intellectuals of his generation. Trilling used literature to make us critical thinkers and better citizens. He sought to jar us out of blindly accepting the alternatives given. Liberal in his work’s title referred to a wide spectrum of opinion being investigated – as in the liberal arts – not the narrow political sense of the word as we use it today. By the late 1960s, his audience had bifurcated into identity interest groups such as blacks, women, immigrants, gays, etc., Trilling’s assuming a cohesive national audience makes him totally irrelevant today.

In his conclusion Bender decries the distance from society and specialization that has overcome the university. Academic concerns include PC language concerns that do not speak to average citizen’s concerns. No one, he notes, wrote about the savings and loan debacles before they happened. Instead we get gendered discourses about the marginalized. He asks academics to engage in the search for truth with the community in pragmatic ways – to always make sure that our discussions resonate in the communities in which we are situated. This way we can affectively attack social problems and find relevance within the community once again.

Trilling would, I suspect, teach us another lesson. People do not look to their universities to tackle social problems. While this Liberal political agenda may be noble and appeal to half the populace, it does not inspire us. Outside of union rallies, Marxist materialism never made a community. Rather, universities must return to the role they have held since their founding – teaching Western thought and spawning debate. These subjects invigorate the imagination and encourage discussion. Rather than becoming objective policy advisors, as Bender shows academics did, they need to reclaim their positions as keepers of the Western flame. Unless we cultivate a common public cultural vocabulary, intellectual leaders will not have community to join, let alone lead.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Travel Lessons From Inside America

On my current road trip, my wife and I have been to Detroit, Birmingham, Ann Arbor and Coldwater, Michigan. In Birmingham we stayed with my uncle. He has some power in the automotive industry. I thought it a duty to tell him that I do not think American executives have been putting America first. He came back with some good culturist points. We agreed about the impact of international competition. Where he and I greatly disagreed was his putting so much of the blame on what unions have done to our work ethic.

We have been down sizing at an amazing rate. Detroit is an example of that which I speak. The industry has been slaughtered. One corporation went from 250,000 to 85,000 jobs within the last four years. Detroit's downtown has many, many closed businesses. That means that people like my uncle have to move to suburbs like Birmingham. The entire city of Detroit has been stranded. He told me that a lot of the jobs have gone to the South of the U.S. where unionization isn't as entrenched.

Not having the statistics to contend his assertion, I spoke generically about the merits of localism and the peril of globaism. Globalism not only bodes ill for those fired. Abandoned executive mansions circle downtown Detroit. While we were there a blackout that lasted five hours impacted our suburb. No American can get off of the grid and remove themselves from their fellow Americans. A big house, without power, surrounded by impoverished ex-employees does not strike me as ideal.

Ann Arbor appears to be a model for success. In Ann Arbor we went to Zingerman's famous deli. Their food is sublime. The passion for their staff for their specialties inspired me. University of Michigan has created a learning culture that has brought people from all over the world and seems to have created research centers that are supporting themselves. There is, as my uncle would say, opportunity in America if people would only have a progressive and disciplined culture. This is true, but not all people will create small businesses and staff research facilities.

We came to Coldwater because Frances Kellor, the head of the 20th century Americanization movement, grew up here. As a classic sociologist Kellor looked at society holistically. One half of her program to Americanize the immigrant involved getting native born Americans out of the blaming mode and into the helping mode. Workers need to ask themselves if their implementation of our traditional Protestant work ethic is falling behind that of China. But Kellor's Americanization told those in power that blaming is too easy. Americanization put pressure on all sectors of society to recognize that the West is a team that must compete with others. Where ever you travel in our Western nation you learn the culturist truth that we are all, rich and poor, in it together.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Culturst School Lessons

Yesterday the U.K. University and College Union’s Congress (UCUC)voted to discriminate against Israeli academics. We should discriminate, but our culturist discrimination should be FOR OUR SIDE! Accepting that both sides of the Israel / Palestinian conflict think they sit on the side of right, we first must acknowledge that a conflict exists. Then we should notice Muslim nations support Palestinians and Israel is Western aligned. Finally the U.K. should notice that it is a Western nation. After this analysis, the UCUC should vow to take the appropriate side in this conflict. These basic culturist steps should be taken throughout Western schools.

The multicultural agenda is not neutral. It denigrates the West just by asserting that we have no core culture to promulgate in Western lands. The UCUC’s referendum took it as axiomatic that no one is neutral. Even in scholarship that tries to be rigorous, people take sides on important issues. Geopolitically, there are no neutral observers. Our pretending to be neutral in the Middle East, while the other side is one hundred percent pro- Palestine, puts us at a disadvantage. All nation’s schools teach the glories of their nation and try to inculcate devotion to the values the majority culture holds dear. U.K. universities advocating for the Muslim side is abnormal and dangerous.

The West values freedom of speech. In universities that means, if they take no money from the government, they should be able to be biased. Being educated means absorbing a point of view based on a body of knowledge. If a university wants to announce that it is multicultural and does not want to teach any particular values are preferable to any other, they are only going to “celebrate diversity,” I would not waste money there. If a private university wants to be pro-Palestinian and teach social justice for 3rd world grievances, they have that right, but I would stay away. It might be popular to start universities, like Hillsdale College, who are openly pro-Western civilization. Western governments should encourage this trend and, at very least, recognize the rights of private universities on Western soil to take a pro-Western stance.

Public universities work for us. We, again, do not want to stifle debate. But public universities get paid for by Western citizens via Western governments. Academics who work for public universities do not work for third world or Islamic states. To understand this point we must understand the culturist view. The West has a very long and rich tradition which goes back to Athens and Jerusalem. We have many heroes. Democracies are fragile and new. Universities, again, in all nations teach the heritage of their people to their future leaders. It is the function of Western universities to help to perpetuate our fragile vision of Western values and democracies. Turning our institutions against us in the name of multiculturalism or a “neutral” and “international” vision of “social justice” endangers us. If our universities educate Western people to resent our nation, where will their understanding and appreciation come from? Public universities should fulfill their normal public function and teach to sustain our civilization’s majority culture and its values.

In Western university curriculum, of course, as we are not a top-down theocratic state, controversial views will be aired. Teaching about George Washington’s glories does not mean you do not investigate his failings. The Vietnam War, undertaken with noble intentions, remains controversial. America’s racism did not end with the 640,000 killed in the Civil War and the Reconstruction efforts that followed. Each of these examples can be used to frame questions that lead you to critical thought and make you a better citizen. Having an educated populace that can critically appraise issues is vital. No sane Western culturist would advocate a curriculum of propaganda. But too often our schools do dish up one sided propaganda. The U.K. vote recognizes only one side as right. It shows overwhelming sympathy with the non-Western side. It does not ask, as all critical appraisals of our past should, “What lessons can we take away that will help the West?” At the end of the day, after our critical look, we must affirm that we want democracy and rights, not Islam and theocracy, to prevail in Western nations.

Public k – 12 schools should be the place where teaching about Western heritage and values should be the least problematic. The young are impressionable. Public schools, in all nations, exist to socialize the young into the majority culture. Multiculturalism is destructive of these ends. It says we have no special values to which to adhere. It undermines our sense of duty and ethics when it asserts that no progress has ever happened. It, in fact, lies when it does not teach about the horrors of honor killings, theocracy and mass human sacrifice in other nations and their history. Our young people need to know that our democracy and rights culminated from a long struggle against the usual state of barbarism. They need to know that the dark ages happened, we are in competition, and none of our freedoms can be taken for granted.

In the U.K. I hope that leftists multicultural academics wake up to the fact that all that they cherish, from women’s rights to gay rights, will be washed away if Islamic terrorism destabilizes us. I hope that more universities join Hillsdale College in overtly defining themselves places that teach about Western civilization. I hope that our government drops its stance of neutrality concerning the employment of anti-Western professors. And I urge all of us to stop the multicultural madness that has manifested in Islamic themed public schools in Brooklyn and Minnesota. Our schools need to join other nations’ school in discriminating for the majority culture and traditions. We need to adopt culturist public school policies now.

To get active in fighting the Islamic public schools in Brooklyn go to http://stopthemadrassa.wordpress.com/

Those who are in the U.K. can help reverse academic discrimination against Israeli's at http://www.stoptheboycott.org/

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Hillary, Feminists and Culturists

The Educating Women Conference’s keynote speaker, Jane Roland Martin, chose Hillary Clinton and misogyny as her main topic. When a man is aggressive, she told us, people admire the trait. When a woman is aggressive she gets called the “b word.” This puts Clinton in a lose – lose situation. If she comes off as feminine, people will say she is not tough enough to be President. If she tells people she is tough, they consider her outside the pale of normal female behavior, an aberration, or even "a monster" Martin declared.

During the Q and A Martin got asked about Margaret Thatcher. Her reply was culturist on two fronts. First of all, she said, I do not know much and am not talking about other nations. Secondly, that nation has a tradition of strong women leaders going back to the first Queen Elizabeth. Yet even Elizabeth had to consider gender. The "Virgin Queen" put on armor to rally her troops against the Spanish. In her speech to the military she said, “I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king.” But, in a culturist move, Martin noted that Hillary is only running in America and so was only speaking about American culture.

The woman I spoke about at the conference, Frances Kellor, has been labeled an invert. That was the official term of the early 20th century for people who assumed the gender characteristics of the opposite sex. In my work I tried to show Kellor taking an increasingly male view of immigrants. The academic challenge question here is how to connect gender and policy. The feminist question is whether you can say men are like “x” and women are like “y” without being sexist. When we say Kellor acted like a man, we implicitly accept that there are male behaviors and female behaviors.

The conference was held in Chicago’s famous Hull House. This turn of the 20th century service center’s head was Jane Addams. Addams, likely the most famous woman of her times, was a gender essentialist. She believed women different and superior. She lost her fame when she consistently berated World War One as a man’s game. People thought her pacifism traitorous and unreasonable. If we say women are naturally mothering and nurturing, they may be reasonably disqualified for being President in a world of countries run by men. Our other alternative is to declare that there are no gender differences. But that does not seem right either.

Do men and women differ? Traditionally America has had a lot of tough women. The Puritan settlers, frontier sojourners and the film noir vixens were as tough as any man alive. Biology, sorry feminists, puts women and infants together. That does not mean, however, that women cannot be tough. Feminist thought is one of the great glories of the West. Traditional cultures treat women like beasts of burden. So while I will say long live gender differences, I will not say women cannot be tough or President. But to qualify women, like everyone else, have to be able to take the heat and stay in the kitchen. Thatcher was called the “Iron Lady.” It would be a loss for all of us, men and women alike, if women such as Thatcher could not run for office or lead a nation.