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.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)