Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Corporate Culturism, Frances Kellor, and Gary Oberoi

Gary Oberoi is the lead trainer and CEO of my company, Starnest. One of his presentations helped me connect Frances Kellor (on whom I just completed my dissertation), culturism (my published manifesto), and my new job. Thus he combined my three great current and lasting passions. And his pep talk may have a lifelong impact on me.

Gary told us about an internet-based shoe company he toured in Las Vegas: Zappos. They gave him the royal treatment. Zappos has tried to create worker productivity and low turnover by making the employees, (likely called ‘team members’), totally content. To this end they give them free books, childcare, free food, health benefits, 24 hour, cooking facilities at some work stations, concierge service, and more. These perks allow Zappos to live up to its slogan, “powered by service.” Happy people are really much nicer to customers.

Frances Kellor (1873 – 1952), the leader of the Americanization movement, led in the effort to create what, her day, was termed ‘welfare capitalism.’ This was her form of corporate culturism. Seen as a solution to worker unrest and strikes, this effort sought to address worker’s concerns via a voice in management and great working conditions. She also protected immigrants from abuse in our society at large. These initiatives were typical of her efforts to ‘Americanize’ immigrants. Once happy and invested on our soil, people would never go back home and they would love, and be loyal to, America.

Because Kellor used this technique outside of, as well as inside of, businesses, she was not just practitioner of corporate culturism; she was a practitioner of national culturism too. Culturism counterbalances multiculturalism. My book, Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future, profiles many culturist heroes such as Kellor. Just as Kappos’ leaders tried to build unity and team spirit, these culturists sought to unite and improve our national culture. Noah Webster tried to knit our nation together with his dictionary containing American English spelling. Frances Scott Key’s national anthem still unites America today. And Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s attempt to unite America made him a culturist too.

Gary’s speech sent me away determined to study Zappos. This led to the research that led to my epiphany about the connection between corporate culturism, Frances Kellor, and culturism. Gary later led us on a culture-creating exercise about the power of goal setting. His handouts guided us to writing 10 goals, with dates, that he said he would make sure we would see again at the end of 2010. After reflecting on his lecture, I would like to add a goal. I wish to be a trainer or some kind of corporate culturist by late April 2010. Thus Gary’s spawning thoughts about the parallels between culturism, Frances Kellor’s work, and corporate culturism, may well impact the trajectory of my career.

John Kenneth Press, Ph.D. is the author of Founding Mother: Frances Kellor and the Quest for Participatory Democracy. has more information

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Where are They Now? Culturist John

Culturist John is now Dr. John K. Press. My dissertation on Frances Kellor and the Americanization movement is done. And, now that I am free to attack, sans concern about PC, mulituculturalism and all of its splendors, I am out of gas. I would say that I am defeated, but exhausted is kinder. But I am exhausted from fighting on a couple of text-based fronts.

I have some fun with text. I continue to revise my Frances Kellor project. Two agents were interested, and one said she was excited, wanted more, and will accept a rewrite. After ruminating for a few days, i recognized the problem. My doctorate advisor's advice made my work more academic. That is, it made it focus on my argument that the literature had mischaracterized the Americanization movement. Thus all France's actions, and Frances herself, faded into the background. In making it pointed, my dissertation lost its passion for Kellor for Kellor's sake. It lost its broad range of speculation and inquiry. I pledge, in the New Year, to revise the versions that first excited me.

And, I find myself, these days, fighting with text in another arena. I am writing history of education curriculum for a local branch of the State University of New York system. I put my soul into this work. It is beautiful and an accumulation of all of my culturist wisdom, teaching wisdom, and history of education wisdom distilled into 40 pages on a 12 week, three and a half our per class, curriculum. But dweebs, for reasons totally inexplicable to me, wanna mess with it. As this may make me sound uncoachable, I will will show below that it is ridiculous.

The text is and is not the issue. The curriculum is built upon a reader comprised of 400 hand-picked pages of handouts. Every week has full instructions and supplemental question handouts to guide the discussion. Each week is both chronological in presentation and represents a different theme. They sought to replace this noble construction with a book on co-ed education. They did not know it was such a focused book because they read neither my syllabus nor the work before trying to impose. This labor union university higher-up just wants to prove something to themselves. I may lose here, but I'll always have that curriculum.

And the sum total of my life dedicated to cause, mission, and meaning; now with my Ph.D I am qualified to do no work. I should have been a dentist. I would like to think the university martyrs and tortures me for my political stances. They haven't read the curriculum. The content doesn't matter and the results are intangible at best. And as the futility of my five books, many CDs, and various political actions to the landlord become clear I despair of the value of all but the buck.

The last poetic irony follows. When I was young I did telephone sales for a coked up British con-artist. When out of his mind he would pace the room and shout, "Stay with the pitch." His con written his way, was the best way. Now after devoting my life to creating meaning, my new real estate position will - for the sake of money - require me to "stay with the pitch." And, as such, word oppress me. Wittgenstein should know they go straight from the system to the heart.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Culturist Amy Whinehouse

I heard Amy Winehouse heard for the first time. That is, I have seen her many times, but I never saw a performance that grabbed me more than it was just illustrative of her tragic wastiness. But her version of Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard it Through the Grapevine” with Paul Weller of the Jam was a stunning virtuoso performance. She could miss nothing, but remained both vicious and wild, yet controlled to the point of perfection in pitch with metered clever vocal fills. And even the fade-outs from her competent co-vocalist happened at the prescribed time. But her final intonation of the chorus, when she went quiet, it was like you’d imagine the subtle twang of Mae West in her prime.

With reason, many could conclude that Winehouse is deleterious to the success of western civilization. She is a role model of potentially disastrous impact. She makes drugs and the refusal to go to rehab sexy. That would be true were she not such a public mess and so embarrassing to herself. Yet, culturists know that youth follow those with status. That is why we need values leadership from positive and popular role models. I would much rather those who took care of their families and diligently pursued their studies in the name of western civilization getting glamorized. I would much rather see the artistic elite banish junkies for shame's sake. But that would cost us the Rolling Stones, Billie Holiday, and many other artists. It would make the West much more like communist China. And that, I would not like to see.

Winehouse brings a very interesting cultural mishmash she brings to the table. She is definitely Jewish, her music is clearly derivative of African – American soul tradition ala Motown, she has the biker chic that tattoos bring, and – most of all – she embodies that ennobling yet defiling self-destruction, Ziggy Stardust-style tragedy of the burn out and crash of the chosen one, the rising star. While she presents no role model, she represents a vamp, a type, a trope, that we can all share joy in. In her way, if teachers want to use her for edification, she even ties us back to the 19th century romantic tragedy of the romantic Goethe's Lotte who died for love. The sacrificial lamb to our deep cultural longing for bonding through her familiar formulaic romantic cultural mish mash. Unlike the more electronic pop idols, she reminds us of the jewels of western culture; the romance of the individual self. Perhaps, in a world where offending Islam may soon become a crime, her drunken iconic presence is a culturist good.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Culturist Dissertation Done !!!

This week I finished my dissertation. The two weeks before or two days after that I could not write a post; my streak of years of weekly posts broken. But it was for good occasion as I just climaxed getting my dissertation done in three years - record time. Over the last three years I have been under constant pressure to write. I have written 5 books, including the dissertation, in 7 years. This is the first time I have been without a text pressure in a long time.

I would feel remiss were I not to tell you something of the content of my dissertation. My dissertation covers Frances Kellor's thoughts and actions as she led the national Americanization movement that greeted immigrants from 1898 to 1921. The literature portrays this movement as a coercive attempt by American society to enforce conformity on immigrants. There is truth to that. But Kellor was a deep activist. She coached and wrote about basketball, created networks of domestic workers, founded the National Urban League from a coalition, had everyone in the streets publicly when she made the 4th of July Americanization Day, tried numerous times to make all American residents super progressive activists, ran the Federal Bureau of Immigrant Education, ran two Presidential campaigns, united much of the world in arbitration, reluctantly led the fight for suffrage, and started Industrial, Educational, Political, and Neighborhood Americanization programs in order to increase democracy.

The night of my dissertation I went and got trashed with Sarah. The day after turning in my dissertation I taught a college course on Culturism and World Civilization. We spoke of how every major civilization has a story. Without Socrates and Jesus we'd have no western civilization. Without Muhammad no Islam. Without Confucius Asia would not have its current form. I told them the story of how the Romans wrote themselves, retroactively, into Homer's ballad, the Iliad. It is the same with Muslims writing them into Abraham's story as the son intended for inheritance. Civilizations need stories and these can't be made anew. You must look back. Incisively a student noted that it is hard to tell if these things even happened. And, I pointed out that this is especially dangerous for the West. Universal scientific rationalism peels away our dedication to our particular civilization. Islam defies the rationalism and China has a high context race-based cultural source of unity in a scientific age. But we only have individualism holding us together on the bonds wear thin. Culturism is needed.

That night I spoke late with Mary. She is an American studies student and a very old friend of the family. She is now in the American studies department. We spoke forever. Among the topics, my having dedicated my dissertation to my professor Lynn Gordon. She taught a course called "What are teachers for?" This course taught me about women's history and community and ways of presenting heroines. I enthused to Mary about how school has given me so much perspective generally. I can do Kellor's Americanization as labor history, or consumer history, or sexuality history, or gender history, or progressive history or education history. My mind has been expanded by three year doctoral crash course. Mary and I battled through the night about how much of ideology is foisted or malleable, and how ideology is connected to or grows out real realities. And, my schooling had made me about to recognize most of the theorists Mary knew. FUN !

I spent this morning and afternoon, Oct. 2nd, 2009, a day and a half after turning in the dissertation, taking Real Estate licensing and investment classes. I am headfirst into a new endeavor that will teach me something completely different. It may reform me as a person. What I cannot figure out is my new relationship to text. As I have said, I spent all of the last 7 or 8 years working feverishly, 7 days a week, long hours, writing my books. Now I needn't read my books. I have no full time class for which to research. Being possibly free of text creates nausea for me and makes me confront the world outside of text. But this is okay as my world civilization course is making me think things will run their course, in the long haul of history, regardless of my ideology. Still I write you this not across the divide from the post-dissertation barrier.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Culturism in Nature

We are hardwired to absorb the culture we’re brought up in. People quickly become partial to the ideology of their culture even if it is ridiculous. Tribes would die if each new person had to be rationally convinced of the logic of the tribe’s system. Males must be willing to die for their group by thirteen years of age. Having a solid zeal for your tribe would present a huge battle advantage against a tribe where people don't consider their tribe rational or special. In nature, critical assessment is a luxury that would be bred out. Automatic cultural absorption and zeal would be bred in.

We see that cultural transmission is natural in the speed with which kids pick up language. We also see a mechanism for naturally reinforcing culture when kids seek out differences and mock each other. Teens are notoriously (rock) group oriented. In the Nurture Assumption, Judith Harris locates the point of cultural melding at the new generation. She notes that when parents move to a foreign country the parents unsuccessfully adopt. If the child came early enough, it is not a matter of “when in Rome do as the Romans do;” It is a matter of “When in Rome, become a Roman.” The kids become one of the locals.

Group formation happens throughout the animal kingdom. Chimps patrol their borders and are murderous to those who come in from an outside group. Scientists have taken baby rat out of their family settings, cleaned it and then put the smell of another group on it. When they put that rat baby back in the den, the family kills them. While they do not recognize each other as individuals, coral fish have bright colors to mark their presence at a territory. Antigens mark invading foreign bacteria. This is natural. Groups form and this serves a survival function in nature.

These pressures steer us subconsciously. Michael Mitchell created artificial groups by (incorrectly) telling people they were part of a group that overestimates or underestimates based on the amount of dots they thought were on a piece of poster paper. Once formed the groups discriminated against each other. We only need the slightest pretext to favor our group. It is natural. And, it feels good! My love for the Lakers is an example. GO TEAM!!

Natural and wonderful are not synonymous. But there are two culturist takeaway points that come from this post. First of all, the tribe that is most united often wins. Even if, as with the Greeks fighting the Persians at Salamis, we are united on our respect for individual conscience, group affiliation helps. We must all hang together or we shall all hang separately. That is why we need to push culturism, not multiculturalism. The second culturist point is that, since children come hardwired to absorb a culture, we adults have a duty to provide one. If we do not give the youth a satisfactory sense of belonging to a community, they will find it in gangs. Fortunately, when pushing a sense of belonging to the western world, natural and wonderful happily converge! GO TEAM GO!!!!

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Lippmann, Arnold, and Culturism

Walter Lippmann and Matthew Arnold were culturist opponents who agreed on a lot. Living as the industrial revolution was tearing up the remnants of 19th century society, both decried the decay. Mathew Arnold vented in his beautiful book, “Culture and Anarchy.” Walter Lippmann’s masterpiece is “Mastery and Drift.” Both of these beautiful writers sought to reign in anarchy and drift, the same sort of decadence and decay, that western society faces today.

Lippmann hoped that we would find social coherence and direction by embracing the terms and conditions of the emerging scientific age. We could find adventure in applying the scientific spirit in confronting emerging social problems. New choices in unprecedented situations had to substitute for the moribund pieties and traditions that used to suffice. Rather than look to the past for a guide, he asked us to look to science and the future.

Arnold sought to anchor our fragmentation by tying us to our past; by living up to the best that has been thought and said. Famously, he argued that we must unite Jerusalem and Athens; that is our answers will come via looking both to traditional religious and secular western truths. While facing the future, Arnold looked to western tradition as a guide. As many conservatives, he had a predilection to want to return to a simpler time, to turn back the clock.

As we face the flotsam and wreckage that is the American culture, out of control debt and an uncertain future, which philosopher should we emphasize? This culturist says both! Scientific inquiry need not be corrosive of western culture or democracy. Science becomes corrosive when it belittles the past as a time of unscientific ignorance. Science becomes corrosive when it only recognizes the existence fleeting empiricist sensations. The scientific worldview of a hedonistic shopper without a history cannot sustain a viable society. In fact, it cannot even sustain science.

Our scientific adventure has to happen within a Roman / Christian sense of moral responsibility to history. Science comes about via a dedication to deferred gratification. This is best nurtured by a two-parent home. It requires a sustainable economy. On what basis can we regain a sense of duty? We can do so by recognizing that our heritage is unique. China and Islam show that not all roads lead to science or democracy. We must once again recognize that the West is a product of thousands of years of effort towards a particular humanistic view of man, rather than an automatic unfolding of universal scientific truths.

Multiculturalism’s obscuring of differences between cultures corrodes our appreciation of the unique nature of the West. Multiculturalism’s veneration of the past in the form of traditional societies undermines our sense of progress. Culturism takes diversity and progress seriously. Culturism does not buy into the idea that science makes all particular cultural stories relics of a pre-scientific age. Particular divergent cultures still persist and are in competition. If we do not look out, one of our competitors will come to dominate us. To have Lippmann’s consciously guided sustainable future we must remember Arnold’s sense of duty to western history. We must replace beliefs in scientific universalism and multiculturalism with a sense of our western culturism.

To have a futuristic society we must remember our stoic Roman sense of duty to the collective. To have a futuristic society, we need to respect the Protestant moral distinction between irresponsible license and responsible liberty. We must ask with Arnold “What would George Washington do?” or “What would Jesus do?” We must ask what which choices and values will lead to the furtherance the West and its vision of rational self-governance. The West cannot get to Lippmann’s science friendly future without the sense of dedication to Western culture that Arnold advocated.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Tarantino's Anti-Semitic Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s new film, Inglorious Basterds, has been hailed for helping to improve the image of Jews. Instead of being victims, they are for once, the spin is, portrayed as tough. This is the hype. An argument can be made, however, that this film could be seen as an extended anti-Semitic allegory.

The Jews in the Inglorious Basterds are not tough. Brad Pitt has a macho attitude he charmingly spreads throughout the film. But he is not portrayed as a Jewish character. In fact, his nickname is ‘Aldo the Apache.’ He recruits Jews to kill NAZIs. But he himself is not one. The other big killer got broken out of prison. His being Jewish is never established.

The Jewish soldiers are overwhelmingly silent. When being interrogated by the German Colonel Landa, in one of the final scenes, the Jewish character who is captured with Raine sheepishly repeats Raine’s answer rather than formulate and assert his own. Landa then mocks the Jew by letting him know that his nickname among the Germans is ‘The Little Man.’ Sitting next to the defiant, macho, southern Raine and across from the NAZI that captured them, this Jewish character’s masculinity is belittled.

In another scene we are to meet the feared ‘The Bear Jew.’ He is the Jew that the NAZI’s most fear because he beats them to death with a club. We hear his hear his club hitting the walls in a dark tunnel as he slowly comes out to kill an SS officer. When finally emerges, rather than a club he has a baseball bat. After killing the German, he parades around yelling about baseball and hitting one out of the park. He is just a stereotype of an innocent Jewish kid from Brooklyn. The feared Jew is deflated.

The only real Jewish NAZI killer is Shoshana Dreyfus. If one were looking for a vindication of Jewish masculinity, it is interesting to note that the main tough guy is a Jewish woman. The Jewish men who simultaneously kill with her are stock comic figures oafishly pretending to be Italians. Shoshana is the only consistently tough Jewish killer. Showing the Jewish woman as powerful hardly boosts the image of assertive Jewish men.

But Tarantino’s heaviest dose of anti-Semitism comes in the film’s climax. Soshana kills the NAZI high command by burning them to death in the movie theater she owns. While they burn, her face appears on a screen saying, “This is the face of Jewish vengeance.” Since Shoshana made the film, it is projected on the face of the screen, and the screen speaks for her, anti-Semites could interpret this line to mean, “film is the face of Jewish vengeance.” These anti-Semites could easily understand this as an allegory for Jewish control of the media.

For this film to be a parable about Jews and America, the Germans would need to be seen as stand-ins for Americans. The NAZIs in this film make several nasty racist slurs against black people. Since Germans of that time and place had little contact with black people, you would typically attribute such racist anti-black remarks to Americans. Subconsciously, putting American attitudes in NAZI mouths could convince the audience that the NAZIs are stand-ins for white America.

Shoshana angrily and resentfully rejects the love advances of a German (read white) soldier for being a part of the State. Her only real love interest is with her black employee, Marcel. This is offensive to the NAZI power structure and would have, at the time, challenged America’s mores too. Their love appears wholly noble. But Tarantino’s work inviting so much theoretical interpretation causes us to ask, “What is the symbolism?” “What drove Tarantino to make the love interest and co-conspirator black?” Was this, again, an attempt to compare America and NAZI Germany? Unfortunately, the Jewish – Black alliance against the power structure could lend credence to anti-Semetic interpretations.

Shoshana’s passion with Marcel finally erupts in the projection booth just as the couple is about to destroy the racist hierarchy. Thus their transgressive love is nearly projected. In fact, when her vengeance is enacted, they stand on opposite sides of that screen and communicate with each other via a bell. Shoshana stops the NAZI film entitled ‘Nation’s Pride” and projects her vengeful film in its place. Simultaneously Marcel, behind the screen, starts the fire by igniting a large pile of film. Thus anti-Semites could easily see the film as an allegory of Jews destroying the Nation via Jewish the use of white guilt, control of the media, and advocacy of multiculturalism.

My reading of this film may see symbols where none were intended. It is probably not significant that the film that plays while the NAZI hierarchy burns is black and white. But Tarantino is nothing if not a self-reflective auteur. The film’s focus on Goebbels’ use of film to bolster the nation inevitably raises questions about film’s ability to destroy the nation. In a film that has been billed as a Jewish empowerment film, some anti-Semites will notice that the vast majority of the Jewish vengeance happens in a cinema. As one famously obsessed with film theory, Tarantino should have anticipated this potential anti-Semitic interpretation.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Silence = Death: The Culturist Take

"Silence Equals Death" is a slogan of the gay rights movement. In conjunction with this we see the Pink Triangle. The triangle was the symbol homosexuals wore for identification under the Third Reich. Along with Jews, those with birth defects, Jehovah’s Witnesses, communist, and traitors to the State or Hitler, gays were an officially recognized category targeted for camps and death. If one were not silent, homosexuality equaled death under National Socialist rule.

The era proceeding Nazi Germany was the Weimar Republic. In history the name of the ‘Weimar Republic’ is synonymous with decadence. Perhaps you have scene the movie Cabaret. While clever songs regale decadence and social satire, public displays of sexuality provide the constant backdrop. Sexual decadence and homosexual behavior were visible, not closeted, when Hitler rose to power. Silence did not lead to death in this historical example. It is widely recognized that the backlash against public sexual decadence was the toehold upon which Hitler built his NAZI edifice.

If we consider the wisdom of Plato, the constant play between the Apollonian and the Dmonysian in Greek myth or the writings of the NAZI collaborator psychologist Carl Jung, we know that political life swings like a pendulum. When society becomes too constricted it swings back the other way and vice versa. As in managing a Keynesian economic model, you want to forestall extremes to avoid ricocheting extremes. Extreme loudness, public display, as well as the extreme silence imposed by totalitarianism have lead to persecution and death.

This is not to say that the historical oscillation being described has any merit. It is not to claim that in an ideal world public decadence would or would not be celebrated. But this culturist query is arguing that refusing to speak of trends for fear of bad feelings nor ignorance of historical forces will help us consciously guide our destiny and stay clear of the shoals. Basic knowledge helps us. It teaches that moderation leads to moderation. Neither sexual repression nor excessive public sexuality makes for stability. It is time for the sloganeers to recognize that the ‘silence equals death’ equation is false and potentially dangerous.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Culturist Take on Kant

Kant has been called the epitome of the Enlightenment. He wrote a famous work entitled, “What is the Enlightenment.” His ethics come at a time when religion is dying away. Socrates had faced this before Kant. He came up with the famous metaphysical forms of beauty to worship and not degrade for an ethical system. Kant rebelled against such metaphysics. He was a scientist. He created a rational ethical system to replace religion. His system is the basis of the concept of “universal human rights.” Since only the West believes in such systems, thinking they are universal corrodes our sovereignty. Understanding how we got committed to them can help free us from this Kantian trap.

Kant he created a very simple seeming set of ethics because it is logical. But those who study him recognize his nuance. In addition to ethics he wrote about academic freedom, aesthetics, politics, perception, astrophysics, and the philosophical literature in addition to ethics. He created the idea for the predecessor to the United Nations, the League of Nations. He coined the term “League of Nations.” He also invented the logic that underpins the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). I will argue that the UDHR is destructive because it does not recognize cultural diversity.

The ethical system of Kant’s, features the “Categorical Imperative.” (CI) This posits the ethical principle that we should figure out what the ethical assumption of your action is. Then you must make it a universal law of the precept and see if you still like it. If you are going to steal a car, the principle might be “would you like to live in a world where people steal other people’s cars?” Could you rationally, looking at your enlightened self-interest, will that to be a universal rule? The answer is no. “You should not steal cars” follows. Thus the CI makes ethical precepts.

Kant then gets into something he calls the kingdom of ends. For an action to be moral, it must be chosen. Things done out of compulsion or cannot be moral. For a choice to be morally decided upon you must have moral autonomy to make that choice. Kant says this gives you personhood, choice is what makes you a person. That means you cannot compel restrictions on a person’s activities and have a moral person. That means that you must treat people, not as means that you control, but of ends – autonomous free ends in and of themselves: respect their right to choose. Autonomous individuals forming society by using the categorical imperative to freely choose society’s rules sans compulsion is the ideal state.

Rationality is the lynch pin of this system. It assumes that everyone is rational. They make the rational choice. And, HERE IS THE FATAL MISSTEP, Kant holds that since all men are rational, as sure as logic is logical, his ethical system is universal. And since his system ultimately gives individual rights, he invents universal individual rights. This concept weakens the West as we are the only culture that believes in it. It undermines our sovereignty in the form of asylum rights. It undermines our borders in that enforcing them infringes upon universal individual rights. This is the flawed Kantian logic behind the U.N.’s vision of universals.

Culturists recognize that there is no universal autonomous rational person. Some people are irrational. And there are different standards of rationality. The Chinese look at the population and say, “WE hold this truth to be self-evident, all men are created UNEQUAL.” And what of Muslims who would still kill to implement theocratic systems Kant assumed dead? What of Islamic Jihad groups who would abuse our freedoms to undermine them? What of gangbangers that do not care about ethics and kills people for a living? Thought systems are divided upon national and cultural lines. For our “logical” rights-bearing system to survive, we must realize that it is rare, precious and fragile. It is not ubiquitous and common. Like other nations, we must be culturist. The West must protect, guide and domestically promote our specific language, culture and borders.

This does not violate our tradition; it is our tradition. From the Puritans to the Founding Fathers, from Abolitionists to progressives, to Prohibition to the 1924 Immigration Act, to the FCC, we have been a culturist nation. Crusades, such as the Civil War and the Great Awakenings fill our history. We must do this in accordance with our cultural traditions. Violating rights to save the system of rights makes no sense. HUAC’s censorship of the movies was wrong. But, America has traditionally regarded our vision as a fragile experiment. We need to recover the sense of individual and collective responsibility this requires. Herein lays the culturist system of ethics. It is grounded in our history. It provides ethics. It recognizes geo-politics and cultural diversity. It stops our destruction via buying into Kant’s universal rights principles.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Bruno's Political Messages

Bruno is a triumph for free speech. In this film heterosexuals are portrayed as frozen, stupid, repressed homosexuals. Conservatives have to squirm as pastors are mocked. And yet, Bruno is quite the stereotypical pansy. Worse yet, his outrageous sexual antics reinforce the stereotype of gay men as vapid amoral sluts. In an age of enforced political correctness, Bruno serves as a hilarious icebreaker for necessary culturist discussions.

When seeing Bruno we are forced to ask “to what extent are gender roles and sexuality socially constructed?” Is the fact that all the men who made it past editing showed great discomfort with Bruno a sign of repressed homosexual tensions? Bruno assumes that the minister who tries to convert him to heterosexuality is suffering from repressed homosexual urges. Are the hunters who do not want to be compared to Sex in the City characters repressed homosexuals? Are they ignoring vast portions of their potential?

If heterosexuality is a form of repression, as the film implies, must it then inevitably be paired with ignorance and the violence needed for suppression? The reactions to Bruno’s sex scene in the Ultimate Fighting cage make one fear for his safety. The military personnel respond brutally to Bruno’s suggestion that they should get promoted for good skin. Since the West adopted Freud, it has become a commonplace that gay bashing represents repressed homosexual desire. Paraphrasing Obama, when masculinity is threatened people turn to their religion and their guns.

Culturism argues that the Victorians were not ignorant of the power of sexuality and violence. Their drive to enforce propriety was as much a homage to the great power they wished to bottle as plain prudery. Bruno would provide them fodder. His visit to a terrorist’s home and silly effort to create peace in the Middle East mocked vacant consumerist thought. And, this mockery reinforced the need for the macho men of the military; certainly a society comprised of people as effete and frivolous as Bruno would not last long. This is especially true when, as we see in the film, our enemies take their constructs very seriously.

Virtually no women appear in the film. When Bruno meets a sensual female swinger with an overblown boob job he comments, “you must get a lot of milk out of those.” He interviews mothers who would starve their children and approve liposuction to get their children into commercials. From this culturist’s perspective, the acceptance of gays is a strong western selling point with which to confront our intolerant global competitors. Most gays have higher than average incomes and educations. But families need committed parents. Bruno’s involving his bought child in gay sex orgies hints at limits a society must be aware of if it is to remain viable. Having seen the dumb males within the context of their families would have pulled much of the punch from this film.

Go see Bruno. Few films, comedic or serious, raise so many important issues. Beyond that it is very funny. Paula Abdul talking about her love of humanity as she brunches seated on Mexicans is priceless. Bruno’s interaction with the typically socially conservative African – American audiences about their cultural touchstones deserves dissection and discussion. The hollowness of celebrity worship runs through the film. And the propriety of his puncturing the vanity of the fashion industry can be used to lead discussions concerning the need for restraint, decorum and assuming roles in society. Bruno is a culturist must see because it illustrates and questions so many political principles.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Empedocles, rights talk and culturism

The following are thoughts from an important debate I am having with Empedocles. He runs the "a pox on both your houses" blog. Please read and respond to our crucial discussion. And please visit his wonderful philosophical blog by clicking the title of this blog post!


I very much agree with your anti-metaphysical stance on rights. I also agree with your statement "I do not think that right claims need to be acquiesced to if they are harmful to a people." And the switch from negative rights (what the government can't do) to positive rights (the constant government intrusion in the name of equality and fairness you mention) is very significant.

My favorite book on rights is Mary Glendon's short "Rights Talk". It would answer your question about limits to rights by saying that under current situations, where positive rights are asserted on metaphysical basis of justice, there are no limits to them and they are not negotiable. Group rights, economic rights etc. cannot be challenged. She would ask us to accept that rights are a construct gained by power and not eternal truths, so that we can have discussions like the ones we are having about the limits and use of rights.

If we accept the Neitzschiean premise, and take rights to be situational, does that weaken them in any sense? I say no. We can then adopt pure pragmatism. So I can say rights here in America are valid and we will verbally push for them as being international, but we will not legally recognize international rights such as the right to build mosques here. We use that language against others while protecting ourselves from others use of them against us. This would be a pragmatic approach to rights.

Accepting pragmatism, the only question left is then, pragmatically, which is the best strategy. Thanks to our discussions I am leaning towards the above strategy. And if people say it is hypocritical that you want to push rights as an idea internationally via sanctions etc, but do not recognize international rights that hurt your sovereignty, I would respond by explaining the pragmatic, real politik view of rights. This is the strongest position to come from.

The problem is that, in the current world debate, whenever you use the phrase "human rights" people hear "weak sovereignty" and use your own language against you. And yet, if we do not go with human rights language we cannot vocally back the Iranian dissenters. The sword of "human rights" language cuts both ways. The second best idea is to say we back "Western rights" as an international idea. But this will not make a satisfactory substitute for human rights language because explaining the distinction is too difficult. Furthermore, Iranians will likely not rally for anything designated as 'western rights.'

Finally, my first impulse is to just say screw the international scene and assume rights only apply in the West. However, if we could weaken Iran and make them more amenable to rationality, it would greatly enhance our security. I have never believed in that possibility before, but now I have some hope. The potential of a moderate Iran is a hard carrot to give up. If that is an impossible carrot, then I would adopt my original stance of saying screw the international scene, rights are purely western. So again, unknown variables determine what is the best strategy.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Britain's 85 sharia courts

The think tank Civitas profiled and condemned 85 British sharia courts. Since it is ‘extremely difficult” to gain access to these courts, the report references fatwa’s, or religious rulings, “run out of or accessed through mosques in the UK. These give a “good indication of the rulings of sharia courts in Britain. Examples are, “a Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man; polygamous marriage (i.e. two to four wives) is considered legal... a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for the same reason); . . . [and] a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce” These rulings undermine Britain in several ways. But they, most obviously, do not violate the laws of every nation.

First of all, by denying the right of legal protection to its female citizens, it alienates them from the British community. The rulings, a Muslim representative noted, are only valid if both sides agree. But Susan Okin, who writes on the incompatibility of multiculturalism and feminism has noted that most female oppression takes place in private. If her family pressures her to drop out of school to marry she may be so isolated from the opportunities and protection of western law accepting the ways of her subculture may seem like the only opportunity. As Civitas argued, the Islamic tribunal “may be the only tribunal the man will accept.” In Canada Muslim women stopped the imposition of legally binding Islamic arbitration. But notice that this effort stopped sharia in the west, not in an international space.

Worse yet, a spokesperson for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal said that the courts were an opportunity to “self-determine disputes.” The “self-determination” language comes from the League of Nations. It refers to separate nations determined by a distinct people. That is it refers to international matters. Under multiculturalism, however, this language is used to mean that nations within western nations have a right to self-determination. And, herein, we see a distinct legal system within a western nation. We have to ask, “What is next?” In Canada there is already a Canadian Islamic Congress. Will we see an Islamic Parliament? Will there be a Muslim Prime Minister in Britain? In asking these questions we see how having a parallel legal system threatens the sovereignty of the West. But notice that this move does not threaten the sovereignty of an imagined international space, it threatens western nations.

Civitas’ director, David Green said, “Our system is based on moral and legal equality or it is based on nothing.” This culturist truism only grazes the issue of sovereignty. Britain must only recognize British law. “The IK’s highest court has ruled that sharia law was “wholly incompatible” with human rights law. The House of Lords granted asylum to a Lebanese woman on this basis. Though culturism agrees in general, the language used herein also reduces western sovereignty. Britain is a nation with a distinct evolved tradition, heritage and culture. Islamic law is distinct from British law. Human rights law, though based on western thought, is also a foreign legal construct held together by those allied with the UN. Britain needs to stand up for British laws or it will disappear. Rather than adopting international or multicultural tenets, Britain must be culturist.

All opposed to sharia law in the West will condemn the existence of Islamic courts in Britain. Yet most cling to the language of ‘human rights.’ Readers please ask yourself these questions, “Is human rights language more often used in favor of the West or against the West?” If you are not in favor of the United Nations, why do you support international rights language? Is there a way to support the concept of international rights without supporting the United Nations and undermining our sovereignty?” As ‘human rights’ language is western, we are the only nations that take it seriously. As with ‘multiculturalism’ other nations ignore ‘human rights’ and turn them on us as a weapon. There is not question that the West would be better off replacing the use of multiculturalism with culturism. Would it better protect the West to replace ‘human rights’ language with culturist language?

Human rights language has recently come close to toppling Iran. Were they called, western rights, it might not have caught on as well. Yet, I am troubled by the use of international language in western disputes. The international space of the UN is also very much against us. We are told to side with the Palestinians with indifference because their 'human rights' are being violated. We are not to take sides as all else do. Herein human rights language means we must be neutral. We must be aware of language. When should we use culturist talk of western rights? Should we ever use 'human rights' language? I know we definitely should not use such language when it comes to asylum claims. Multicultural rights to self-determination back Sharia courts in western nations. What other examples come to mind?

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Culturism, Affirmative Action, Marxism and Sotomayor

The Supreme Court overruled a decision by President Obama’s choice for that Court, Sonia Sotomayor. To get a promotion as a firefighter in New Haven Connecticut, you must pass a test. In one round of testing few Hispanics and no African Americans passed. As New Haven was afraid of a Federal lawsuit, they tore up the test results. White applicants sued. Sotomayer ruled against them.

The Court decided on the grounds of whether or not potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another. This 5 – 4 decision was a blow against Affirmative Action. And thus, liberals contended, knocks the legs out from the Civic Rights Act. Is this racial discrimination or not? Unfortunately, none considered the possibility that it might be culturist discrimination.

Culturism notes that some cultures study more. Thus some cultures have higher literacy rates. Thus some groups do better in school. Affirmative Action assumes that cultural differences do not exist and, therefore, all distinctions in academic and economic achievement are irrational and due to race. Using this logic America is unfair and racist. Social justice chants echo these sentiments. These lead to lawsuits, resentment, racial discord and – most importantly, no incentive for African – Americans to study harder. Taking a culturist view that black applicants need to study harder, would serve all concerned better.

Liberals claim that the tests are culturally biased. I am not familiar with the details of the test, but it seems that knowledge concerning fire-fighting procedures would likely be fairly objective. If ebonics versus standard English were the issue, black people should take this as proof that they need to master standard English. To expect China, the international business community and the majority of Americans to write tests in ebonics is silly. Refusal to acknowledge this fact does not provide a way forward. If pandered to, ebonics can only lead to ghetto-ization.

Marxism uses the same culturally neutral logic as Affirmative Action. In assuming that all differences in achievement are due to unreasonable bias, it also undermines values. Rather than hard work, anger at injustice becomes the way forward. It also undermines motivation. In the USSR the failure to understand human nature cost tens of millions of lives. In America it seeks to create equality from the bench rather than individual effort. The laziness of the human who has been given excuses undermined the USSR. Freedom leads to disparity. If we crush initiative in the name of equality we may follow the direction of the USSR.

In failing to consider the impact of cultural diversity, Sotomayer and her potential colleagues on the Court become dangerous. Following their logic, they will not stop blaming America until all people achieve at equal rates. As this culturally neutral outcome is impossible, such a stance can only lead to permanent discontent, resentment, and grievance. If Asians are beating whites in college admissions, or whites are beating blacks in passing fire-fighting tests, the answer is personal or cultural responsibility. Those groups need to study harder. This is the way to productivity. Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcome. Culture is important. Replacing the lefts constant reliance on racist and Marxist thought with culturist thought is vital.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Michael Jackson, Super Culturist

Michael Jackson’s passing has changed our world forever. He took all of the insanity of the world - the phony, the commercial - and distilled it. He strove to embody our nation’s, nay our world’s, sense of beauty. He personified all the trash that we swallow daily and gave us a target to mock. Now that he has gone, we are alone, profoundly alone.

The world no longer has hope. Around the world, the one thing all humans shared was a love for Michael. He was popular in Korea, Nigeria and India. Now that he is gone, nothing positive can unite us. The world is forever splintered. If the people of Iran wanted us to understand them, they’d suspend the protests for a day in honor of Michael. As it is there is no hope of world unity now. In despair, I keep expecting him to reappear in the sky as our redeemer. This is existentialism.

Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer. Flesh destroyed her. Michael transcended flesh. He incarnated and morphed into a surreal sense of beauty. Farrah, God bless her, was an icon that became human. Her tragic downfall brought her down to earth. Michael was an icon that became more of an icon. He was not humanized. Lisa Presley once said, “Michael is an artist. He changes his face for us everyday.” Michael was a great artist. He embodied our dreams. He died for our sins.

Some people will say that his wonderland ranch represented predation. To me, his ranch represented our collective sense of innocence in a violent, sexualized world. It was the silhouette of our existence. We asked for a priest; we basked in his faithfulness to Bubbles. We asked him to not grow up. We looked the other way as he courted Emmanuel Lewis. He gave us our childhood back. He tried to restore our innocence.

The world is in denial. The BBC, CNN, nor MTV will admit just how crappy his post – Jackson Five music was. That would reveal that all of us who drink the cool-aid of pop culture are insane. Michael Jackson was a prophet. He revealed our generation to us as John Lennon had reflected the prior generation. And, so he is gone. We have a big hole where he revenged himself by gouging at our collective hearts. We could laugh at his insanity. But we no longer have anywhere to absorb our tears.

RIP Michael Jackson. RIP Farrah Fawcett.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Wilders Controversy

Western rights exist on a spectrum. It is not a matter of having all of our rights intact or having none at all. Reasonable culturists can disagree as to what the local situation requires. But let's not get polarized over this issue.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Kobe for Culturist MVP!!!

The following is a revised version of a 5/08 post. It is updated and timely!

Kobe Bryant deserves the MVP award from the National Basketball Association for numerous culturist reasons. He also deserves the second annual Culturist of the Year Award. Before writing on this, however, I must confess that I am a HUGE and PROUD lifelong fan of the Los Angeles Lakers. Culturism does not believe in objectivity. Be warned that I have long loved, rooted for and admired Kobe Bryant. That said, there are legitimate and important culturist reasons to celebrate Kobe's being awarded the MVP award.

Kobe's work ethic provides a culturist standard towards which we should all aspire. Kobe answers nearly all questions on bad nights, "We have to work harder, we have failings that we need to address and we have not reached our potential or personal goals." More impressively, Kobe answers questions on winning nights the same way. Kobe's poor personal relationship with Shaq O'Neil led to the dismembering of their three-time championship team. They were winning, but Kobe did not respect Shaq's poor work ethic. If more people consistently valued the work ethic, as Kobe does, we'd be a better nation.

During last year's Olympics, do you remember Kobe - Gate? During the Olympics Kobe repeatedly said what an honor it would be for him to bring the gold to America and how proud he was to represent his country. The media was incensed. An incredulous Chris Collinsworth of NBC interrogated Kobe about this asking "Where does the patriotism come from indie of you? Historically, what is it?" Kobe gave an excellent culturist answer, "It's just our country, it's . . . we believe is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities." After Kobe reiterated that "our country is the best" Collinsworth asked, "Is that the cool thing to do? . . . it seems sort of like a day gone by. Kobe said, "No, it's a cool thing for me to say. I feel great honor about, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor."

People have criticized Kobe for being egotistical. This comes from an expectation of entertainment and clown like behavior in celebrities. Kobe smiles often, but he does not show up at parties and provide scandal. His public persona and answers to questions reflect seriousness. He has been accused of not helping his teammates and hogging the ball. His decisions all have to do with winning. Would you call Michelangelo conceited for not making small talk with the Pope? Was it selfish of Einstein to not teach much? Kobe has had harsh words and criticized teammates who do not work. This reflects his taking his craft seriously. Those who want a populist should not watch competitive endeavors. To call Kobe ungenerous is to misunderstand greatness.

The League has ignored Kobe due to the rape charges in Colorado. Kobe deserves some blame for this. But, our sick society deserves more. The woman who accused him had semen from several men in her underwear when the police came. She sought fame or infamy and did not mind the difference. We know where she got these values. Kobe was found not guilty. Since that time, four years ago, Kobe has been - as far as we can tell - totally dedicated to his wife, children and craft. How many NBA players do interviews with their children on their laps? Where Kobe finishes a game and his interview, in the exit tunnel he kisses his two daughters on the way to the locker room. Very few people daily display the devotion and dedication that Kobe displays. I am glad the league cares about morality. Yet they are long overdue in recognizing that Kobe has long been a role model for hard work, dedication, respect and good morals.

Kobe received a lot of flack for his anger at management a couple years ago. And he made flack about being disloyal to his Lakers. But Kobe has only a limited number of years to dominate and he is competitive. Management was surrounding him with players who were not of his caliber. Kobe is not a socialist. His dedication is to excellence and winning. His pronouncements likely led to management getting off their duffs and trading aggressively. His complaining reflected real reasons for worry and showed leadership that has likely made our playoff success possible. Complacency in the face of mediocrity is not a culturist virtue.

Kobe Bryant deserves the MVP award. All who honor achievement, dedication, the work ethic, excellence, patriotism and competitiveness should congratulate him. Sports provide one of the only mass media areas where we actually still have the joy of seeing people dedicated to craft. Basketball has teams that are small enough to see the results of seriousness in individuals pay off. Actor's success comes via agents, lucky breaks and despite themselves. Interviews with important people do not discuss the work they put in to get that way. When we celebrate Kobe Bryant we celebrate the ethics that have made America a top competitor on the world stage. Kobe Bryant has earned the MVP award. He deserves a great culturist congratulation from all of America. Congratulations to Kobe Bryant, the 2007 - 2008 NBA MVP! I know you are sentimental about your Olympic Gold. Now bring in another Lakers' O' Brian trophy.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Feminism, culturism and group rights

The late Susan Moller Okin was an academic who argued that multiculturalism hurts feminism. This was great. In doing so she largely argued against Will Kymlicka’s arguments for legally protecting minority’s cultural rights such as that to have polygamy. Some of the points Okin makes are useful to culturists in their arguments. And, from a culturist perspective Okin makes some major missteps. But, overall, her pointing out that multiculturalism is bad for women constitutes a significant contribution to culturist literature.

Kymlicka argues that we should protect liberal non-western minority cultures inside the West. Kymlicka supports Sharia law. Astoundingly, for an academic, Okin, notes that no other cultures are as liberal to women as the West. From women’s vantage point, every granting of indigenous rights is a slap in the face of feminism. Okin notes the slippery slope from valuing cultures in education to granting group rights. And she successfully argues the culturist point that Kymlicka and multiculturalists underestimate diversity and the West’s uniqueness.

Kymlicka wants traditional cultures to be able to have separate cultural laws and autonomy within the West. He would, however, still allow violations of individual liberties to still be taken to State courts. This is how he proposes to square western rights with illiberal cultures’ practices. Okin counters that Kymlicka underestimates the division between the private and the public. A culture indeed may not discriminate against a woman’s ability to vote, but much of her oppression takes place in the private sphere. A Muslim girl being pressured to leave 10th grade in order to marry her cousin may not have the wherewithal to go to the majority cultures’ court. If we note that not all rights are public, we understand that public law may not protect the individual rights of women in illiberal subcultures. This will be doubly true if we grant the diverse cultures group rights protections.

Within the debate we hear about girls torn between the demeaning and limiting messages they get at home and the feminist messages at school. Okin implies, but does not state, that feminist teaching could be a great wedge by which to attack multiculturalism. But she wants to use feminism to undermine all cultural restrictions, western and non-western alike. She argues that we need a universal sisterhood to attack multiculturalism. Kymlicka argues for cultural rights due to the uses the psychological benefits of having a “rich and secure cultural structure, with special language and history.” Neither he nor Okin consider using the advanced condition of women in the West as a source of common identity and meaning. This would be the culturist strategy.

Culturism does not advocate basing our actions on the universal ideal of humans liberated from their context in the way that Okin does. She decries Orthodox Jews for typecasting boys and girls. But having studied Jewish history will increase these youths ability to communicate with other westerners. Some subcultures are more compatible with western culture than others. And, more importantly, we live in a particular western culture that has been cultivated for well over two thousand years. We should not strive to release people from our own cultural limits and guidance in the name of universal ideals. The desire to go universal leads to the alienation in the West that feeds multiculturalism. Feminists should not attack the West for having had cultural ideals, they should celebrate feminist history as western and western history as feminist.

Okin has done a great job in attacking the fallacies of multiculturalism and highlighting a how feminist the West is. But her desire to protect refugees of gender discrimination undermines our sovereignty. It fails to recognize how real cultural diversity is. Her idea of universal sisterhood fails to take the viability of illiberal cultures seriously. It also overestimates our viability. If people in other nations want to become more feminist, I welcome it. But in the meantime, we can better protect feminism by celebrating and protecting the West than by undermining our pride and culture by arguing for universal sisterhoods’ war on all cultural structures. But, besides having taken a universalist stance that erodes our group pride and sovereignty, Okin has done a great service by pointing out that multiculturalism can be bad for feminism.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Culturist Solutions, Vlaams Belang, the BNP and the USA

Blogs and political parties focus on the spread of Islam. They have made us aware – if terrorism did not – of the danger Islam can pose to western civilization. But, what solutions can be had? Many worry that right – leaning political parties such as the BNP and Vlaams Belang will, for lack of positive options, move towards advocating ethnic cleansing. Such actions would completely undermine our values and cause major civil unrest. This policy could destroy the West. Culturism relies on history. American history provides lots of positive, legal solutions to the fear of Islamic law growing in western nations.

We have long taken culturist action based upon an appreciation for our culture and its fragility. Puritans, the two Great Awakenings, the Freeman's bureau and Beecher's spreading of women's schools, Abolition and Prohibition, our naturalization and immigration laws, progressivism, the FCC and the Americanization movement all illustrate that we have a culturist heritage. Culturist mass movements of concerned citizens provided the impetus for many of these culturist episodes and mechanisms. We must again come to see ourselves as a culturist nation.

Our culturist immigration laws provide an example of solutions from our history. The 1921 and 1924 immigration laws capped thirty years of culturist agitation. These excluded Southern and Eastern Europeans. The quotas were based on the 1890 census. Right or wrong, culturist immigration laws fall within the scope of our traditions. We also have many other immigration court cases to draw upon. The obvious application is having another culturist law aimed at restricting immigration from Islamic nations. This is not racist, it is culturist. If such laws cannot now pass legal muster, you'd get the same effect by outlawing immigration from terrorist nations. Certainly this is within the rights of our nation.

We also have the right to take our naturalization laws seriously. There is a language component. Besides this, there is a loyalty clause; becoming an American citizen means disavowing allegiance to foreign potentates. We have tossed out folks who advocated the overthrow of our government for violating the loyalty clause before. Another legal tool is ending of monetary remittance to the home country. This would stop American funding of Jihad. People who then stayed here would be clearer that they were working towards the betterment of this nation. We can also stand up for our legal system as a component of our culture. That means saying no to Islamic or Sharia law. That means no polygamy, etc. Taking these culturist stances in law would help

Without invoking legal changes we can insist that schools once again recognize their traditional culturist mission. These need to teach our historical western narrative as a progressive one. One also based on values of duty and responsibility. You teach this by teaching the culturist history mentioned above. The schools of all nations are culturist. They transmit the dominant culture. We should enlarge the scope of our national holidays. We should have thematic parades, etc. This does not mean that those who do not want to partake must, but we have a right to celebrate our majority culture. When it is a good culture, like ours, it is good to do so and serves important culturist purposes.

We must welcome foreign investment, but we cannot allow culturist imperialism in the form of Saudi Funded Whabbi Mosques. Obviously, because of the 1st Amendment, citizens may build whatever religious complexes they like. But, just as we have no international right to build churches in Saudi Arabia or China, there is no international right to build mosques in America. And, herein, demographics are important; we live in a democracy. That means, in part, the majority gets to direct the community via votes. That is self-government. If we wish to vote in such restrictions we may.

The ACLU needs to be counterbalanced by recognizing the legal standing of the majority culture. This is also a tradition. Read the first and second Supreme Court cases concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. The need for a community to perpetuate itself has traditionally had standing. And throughout most of our history the law has assumed the existence of culturist rights exist and balance out individual rights. The modern idea that one individual's sensitivities overrule the entire community's right to perpetuate traditions should be questioned. You do not have the right to build a porn shop next to an elementary school. Self-governance is our tradition.

We must also remember that culturist profiling is not racist profiling. And that while racist profiling would be bad, culturist profiling - because diversity is real - is rational and necessary. Splitting the two allows rational dialogue. This allows you to explain to Muslim citizens of America, that only strongly anti-American mosques and their members will be watched. You can get some in the Muslim community to acknowledge that this is necessary. And then we must scrupulously avoid keeping an eye on anyone for whom there is no probable cause. This way you can have legal, rational security, without violating the rights of Americans. If we violate the rights of people with no sensitivity, resentment will be justified. We have no need to, and should not, antagonize any good Muslim citizens.

Were the demographics frozen as they are now, were Muslims to get no adverse treatment, were radical mosques to stop spreading, were remittance and western cultural laws used to remove the incentive for radicals to move to America, the remaining Muslim population would likely become fairly content and moderate. Remember that rising populations and intimidation feed terrorism. If we praise our culture in our schools and in our discussions, if we provide fun holidays, most every citizen will more enjoy being an American. This is a positive program. It will reap more rewards than pure negativity and unjust discrimination.

We also need to change our international outlook. We must replace the globalist vision with a culturist vision. We have a side in international disputes. Despite what multiculturalists say, we have a core culture. We are the West. We are not the world. Since other nations do not accept refugees we need not. Other nations are culturist, we be so too. We should support Israel and other western nations because they are western. We should not send aid to Muslim countries. Muslim countries do not help us out. We should not be the only non-culturist civilization.

To initiate any of this, we need a shift in public discourse. Right now we would dismiss many of the above solutions as 'racist.' These culturst policies have nothing to do with race. We must recognize them as culturist. This will allow us to discuss such policies rationally on the basis of cultural diversity being real. And, we must embrace this fact. Multiculturalism needs to be counterbalanced. We will always have diversity. But we must stress our unity. We must avoid the extremes of both those who only wish to blindly celebrate diversity and those who preach hatred of Muslims, but provide no positive solutions. The West must acknowledge cultural diversity and start talking about legal and reasonable culturist solutions.

We can help foster culturist awareness and policies by using the terms culturism and culturist. When we use the word culturism we challenge multiculturalism. In every education school in America, students should demand culturst courses counterbalance the multiculturalist ones. When we use the word culturist we help silence those who abuse the word racism to stop conversations. When invoking the words, we stop being the only globalists on the planet and counterbalance the anti-social use of individual rights in the Courts. Finally, using the terms culturism and culturist help us remember our culturist traditions. Unlike multiculturalism, unlike the hysteria of racists, culturism and culturists point to many positive solutions.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Culturist Perspective: The Taliban Spreading

We should not accept refugees from Pakistan. That nation is descending into turmoil. In Pakistan the government is fighting an extremely important fight. The government gave the Islamic group, the Taliban, parts of the Swat Valley region in exchange for peace. Shortly thereafter, the Taliban showed what appeasement does and pushed to expand outside of the agreed upon borders. And their implementation of Islamic law, called Sharia, has been brutal. Beheading and the destruction of hundreds of girls’ schools exemplify the terror the Taliban Muslims seek to expand. 1.3 million people have been internally displaced by this struggle. As culturists we demand that all refugees be sent to Islamic nations, not western ones.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, has called for aid. We can send some aid, but had better not grant anyone from the region asylum. Why not? Well the brutality of the Taliban and their expansion tell us why not.
Multicultural globalists, take a generic view of humanity. They speak of “displaced persons.” But, culturists understand the importance of culture. If a significant percentage of those fighting in Pakistan did not believe in Islam and Sharia law, the war would have never reached this pique. Many people, without dispute, in Pakistan are willing to die for the imposition of repression we can barely imagine. Those displaced will include many of these numbers. Inviting them in means inviting in zealots for repression. These are not displaced persons. That is too generic. These are displaced Muslims.

Humanitarians will shriek at the idea that we recognize culture in times of crisis. “Humans are humans and have human rights!” they will declare. But, again, in rebuttal to these abstract idealists, culturists must point out the real world importance of culture. Diversity exists. Some people, the Taliban should make clear to you, do not embrace the specifically western values of freedom of religion, rights, democracy and freedom of speech. Many people do not believe women should be educated. And they are willing to die for this cause. They are called Muslims. And, therefore, if they are to be displaced they should be displaced within the Muslim world.

In international discussions humanitarians have a double standard. They are willing to acknowledge that there is a “Muslim world,” but not that there is a non-Muslim world. The west is not built upon Islamic foundations, we’ve been at war with Islam for nearly 1400 years. Our roots come from Jerusalem and Athens. Muslims do not allow diversity in their realm because they are culturist. They wish to exercise their right of protecting and promoting their Muslim vision. We have a corresponding right to protect and promote our vision. This requires knowing who we are. When we use “humanitarian” language, we lose sight of our specific past and cultural identity. We are members of the U.N. but we are not a world body. Muslim countries exist and we are not one of them. We, therefore, do not need to accept Muslim refugees.

In the end, a culturist refugee policy actually safeguards rights. We realize this when we see that “human rights” are really “western rights.” China, Iran and the Taliban, do not believe in our freedoms; only western nations do. To protect the vision of rights, you must protect the only nations that stand up for them. Importing folks with a disposition to fight against rights destabilizes us. If we descend into chaos, if we enjoy the division the Taliban Muslims have brought to Pakistan and Afghanistan, China will not follow our model. Watching such Muslim – inspired chaos spread would embolden the theocrats of Iran. If we want reform in Islamic nations we must let them deal with their own internally displaced populations. If we want reform in Islamic nations, we must make sure that we can solidly stand as a beacon of what stability and rights look like. To uphold our western vision, to uphold the western model of rights, we must be culturist.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Culturist Perspective: Islam Day

The resolution to make September 24th, ‘Islam Day’ in Hawaii is culturist blashphemy. The Senate is multiculturalist. That means they do not believe the West has a core traditional culture to promote. They think our land is a blank slate without history where random cultures meet. And, for the sake of equal representation, we must celebrate Islam for a day. Herein is the irony. Multiculturalists do not believe that cultural diversity exists. They think it is all about food, fashion and festivals. They have never heard of Jihad.

Shockingly, Hawaii’s Senate has no basic historical knowledge. The West and Islam have been at war for the vast majority of our 1400 year co-existence. After Islam was born it spread like an imperialist plague. It took a larger chunk of the world in 100 years than Rome did in eight hundred. Why did we have the Crusades? Islam had taken over the Middle East and what is now Israel. We had to fight to re-establish access to the Holy City. That is basic knowledge. Islam nearly toppled the West via the Eastern Europe. We only repelled them in the 1683, September 11th, battle of Vienna. Muslim’s who know basic history know significance of that date. But the Hawaiian Senate doesn’t know any history. If they did, they would not sing the praises of those who nearly destroyed our civilization.

Culturism knows about history and diversity. It knows that history has not ended and that struggles for survival are going on. Islam is expanding. The world is not getting more diverse. The West is getting more diverse. Not China. Not the Middle East. The West: European based nations. Culturism says we must choose immigrants based on what they bring the West and be aware that some cultures are odious to our customs and others are hostile to our survival. Multiculturalism does not want to look at real practice or history. Polygamy and honor killings exist. Acknowledging the importance of culture is not racist, it is culturist. Not all cultures celebrate ‘human rights.’ There is not global community. We have no right to move to Saudi Arabia or China. Only the West supports the idea of western rights. We must protect the West. Celebrating those who oppose our very values does not help.

We have to reassert that we have a specific culture to protect. Since we are a western nation with western values, we should only officially support western holidays. That sends a message concerning values. It tells the world that we have a specific culture. We believe in free speech, the relative separation of church and state, individual rights, female rights, and democracy.. China and Iran do not accept these values. Diversity exists. We have a past to celebrate. We have a triumph over the forces of darkness in our past. And, if we do not stand for this we will fall for anything. To celebrate Islam is to mock those who have died to protect us. It makes a mockery of both September 11ths. It belittles our freedoms to say that other cultures are just as free. We should commemorate 9-11 with a holiday. We should have a holiday for the original Martin Luther. We should have Pope day. But we should not celebrate things outside of our tradition. We should not have Islam Day.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Mexican Flu, Drop Out Rates, Our Culturist History and Culturism

We have a long history of culturist citizenship and immigration laws. Some were questionable. And some of them were good. All were unquestionably our right to enact and enforce. The Mexican Flu outbreak has killed at least 81 folks in Mexico City and infected many folks in the U.S. If we had a border fence it would allow us to screen out those with signs of disease. That, along with lunacy, likelihood to become a public charge, being an anarchist, illiteracy, criminal background, and eventually being from Eastern or Southern Europe were culturist grounds for exclusion from the country between 1890 and 1965. These immigration laws, along with Prohibition, Puritan Laws, the first and second Great Awakenings and the Abolition movement show our culturist historical tradition. We have long been a culturist nation. But the ability to exclude those with contagious diseases has long been a reason to have an immigrant inspection center like at Ellis Island.

The Mexican Flu is causing schools to be shut down in Mexico. Mexican President Felipe Calderone has arrogated powers to isolate those infected, perhaps a prudent move. When the Chinese had the SARS outbreak, they also isolate the inflicted. They quickly set up concrete quarantine buildings. They also restricted movement within the country to stop contagion. An authoritarian can do such things on a dime. And it worked. Sometimes individual rights considering the culturist rights of the larger population can have beneficial affects. SARS was whipped in China. We dod restrict immigration from China. This confirmed the culturist premise that you have no international right to be in America or an American citizen. Had the disease broken out in American populations, quarantine been imposed and movement restricted, the ACLU would sue because they think individual rights should override culturist rights. They misread the Constitution. And, as a result of their action, many more Americans would die.

Today I went to an Educational policy lecture. I saw two of the three panelists. They were good. They reminded me of what practice is. I haven’t taught in a public high school for a few years. And, it was, frankly, inspiring to hear one presenter passionately describe their after school program and another their personal intervention program. They showed results. But in 2007, NYC’s graduation rate had risen to 52.2%. As a culturist I have to notice only 23.5% of students learning the English language graduated. As above, we need to see what impact immigration has on key factors such as education levels, crime, terrorism, and engineering graduates. Engineering relates to education. As a historian of education, I realize that the drop out rate in the 1950s was 50% too. After the USSR launched the Sputnik Satellite, we emphasized science. As a culturist could argue that is what we need to grow economically. If we make schools harder and more drop out and more get higher skills by meeting the challenge, it might be worth it.

The casual use of the word “culturist” in the prior three paragraphs was exemplary. If we just drop the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ in to our conversation, they might spread. As you see above, they have analytical force. Culture comes up in conversation nearly all the time. Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. If we wish to challenge this underestimation of cultural impact, if we want to bring attention to the importance of culture, we need to start employing and spreading these words. I am a culturist. Someday I hope those in education will call themselves culturists. It would be amazing if someone called Lou Dobbs a racist, and he said, “I am a culturist, I believe in culturism not multiculturalism. Immigration laws are culturist not racist.” What if someone asked Obama the culturist question, “Do you take the culturist side and believe western civilization has a core traditional and historic cultural core to protect or are western nations just random collection of various cultures like multiculturalism says?” If you found this culturist analysis interesting, spread the word.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Obama’s Dangerously Multicultural Muslim Advisor: Dalia Mogahed.

Dalia Mogahed is Obama’s new representative to Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This advisory council should not exist. The previous person appointed to such a post for Obama was his Muslim Outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi. He resigned after being tied to funding terrorist-friendly groups and a radical mosque in Chicago. So Obama must have been under pressure to find a Muslim without terrorist ties. Mogahed is a personable and skillful apologist for Islam. In her book, Who Speaks for Islam? co-authored by John Esposito, she purports to scientifically use polling to tell us Islam is moderate. As such, she preaches the multicultural line that, ironically, argues that cultures are fundamentally equal. Yet, the prior resignation and even her data show alarming cultural data about Islam. But even if she were not an apologist for Islam, the very presence of this council should be cause for concern. Asking for culturism to replace multiculturalism, will help us stop this trend.

Moghahed’s book, Who Speaks for Islam? uses worldwide polling to discover the average Muslim’s thoughts. In a May 8th, 2008 interview concerning the book last year, Mogahed made the point that most Muslims have the same concerns as “people around the world.” She mentioned Jobs, food, education, etc. She preaches the multicultural line that little cultural diversity actually exists. On April 2nd of this year she compared terrorism to other violent crimes. She discounted the connection between Islam and terrorism saying, saying “Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of American’s general acceptance of murder.” Besides willfully ignoring worldwide celebrations of terrorism, this mixed metaphor normalizes terrorism. In the Los Angeles Times she wrote that the West's ignorance of Islam and Muslims has been the fatal flaw” in the war on terror. Eerily, She called this “dangerous” and blamed “right – wing call – in radio.” Apparently she speaks for all muslims and all reasonable people everywhere.

Magahed’s twists her own polling conclusions to press her point. She explains that Muslims do not view the West as monolithic. Muslims “view the United States as very differently than a country like France or Germany.” She goes on to explain that they love France but are “much more negative” about the United States and Britain. Since different perceptions exist within one religion, she reasons, it is not culture or religion that drives peoples’ sentiment. Rather “their perception of country’s policies” drive their disapproval of the US and Britain. Obviously her point is that terrorism and hatred for America do not stem from Islam, but from our foreign policy. First of all, her research does not remove the tie between Islam and hatred of significant portions of the West. The reason the dislike is so high is because it is an Islamic poll. Furthermore, most of the over 13,000 suicide bombers since 9-11 have said they are acting in the name of Islam. But she then goes on to explain that it is actually the more educated and affluent Muslims who hate American and Britain the most. It is very interesting that she fits into this category. We are tempted to ask Ms Magahed where her sentiments lie. But, regardless of her personal opinion, the implication of her spin on her poll is that awareness of, not ignorance of the United States, fuels hatred for it.

Frighteningly, even Magahed's study showed seven percent of Muslims worldwide are “politically radicalized.” This group answered five on a five-scale question when asked if they agree with the statement, “9-11 was completely justified.” This is seven percent of over a billion people. Herein we must literally wonder, because neither she nor her book answer the question, whether a four indicated the attacks were “largely” justified. And, this study included the area where the Muslims have the most favorable view of the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a place that supplies us very few immigrants to the US. Ominously, she reports the Muslims' percentage of 9-11 approval “France, . . . Germany and Saudi Arabia.”reaches into “double-digits in the low teens.” Thus her own figures should give us chills. For whatever reasons, a very large number of Muslims in the West wish to see it physically attacked! Herein we see complete refutation of the multicultural position that cultural diversity is only harmless fun. Magahed, as a multiculturalist, wants to keep us unaware of the significance of her own figures.

The premise of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is that we are all able to get along and solve conflicts via discussion. This position undermines our ability to equally confront nations that are firmly for violence against the West and her allies. Obama’s last Muslim advisor was found to have been against our nation. As Ann Coulter argued in Treason about McCarthyism, this is perilously close to having USSR advisors during the Cold War. Obama’s new advisor is dedicated to the multicultural position, despite her own evidence, that cultural diversity is relatively benign. Continuing this Council post would validate the view that all Presidents should have advisors telling them cultural diversity does not matter? Once accepted, this position means all mention of cultural diversity becomes irrational racism or Islamophobia. This means any culturist or President who notices cultural diversity cannot partake in political discussions. Furthermore, the existence of this Presidential council affirms the multicultural vision that we have no core culture. We are not, in fact, a Muslim nation. We are a western nation. We need to have laws that recognize our cultural and historical position in the world rather than the sentiments of the Islamic world. Being western, we have not previously had to have Islamic advisors to Presidents telling them to ignore diversity. As actual armed struggle between Islamic nations and ourselves exists, by affirming multiculturalism’s diminished understanding of cultural diversity and of our heritage, this Council jeopardizes our identity and our safety.

Culturism must replace multiculturalism. We need to know that cultural diversity is real and wide. Diversity even includes propensities towards terrorism. Being deadly, culture is a factor that must be acknowledged. To combat her appointment and all it stands for, we must start asking multiculturalists about the importance of diversity and if they really think it is real and important. We must combat their naïve position by popularizing the words “culturism” and “culturist.” Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. When people mention multiculturalism and appointments like this we must ask if the “culturist” position will also be aired or if there is to be no diversity of opinion. If they reply that pointing out cultural diversity is racist, we have to help them to see that race and culture are different. The overt reference to culture by the word ‘culturist’ will help clarify this distinction concisely. We must tell Islamic apologists and multiculturalists that though racism is dangerous and ignorant, we are not discussing race. Furthermore, since cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational and necessary. Thus, infusing these words will change the terms of the debate. And we are losing this public debate. People like Magahed are currently controlling the basis of discussion and have the ear of the President. Multiculturalists have silenced people with the fear of being called a ‘racist.’ We need to use the words “culturism” and “culturist” to defeat the multiculturalist propaganda of people like Ms. Magahed and her Council and reignite meaningful discussions about diversity.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Culturist Reactions to Somali Pirates

The Diversity Lottery must be stopped to combat multiculturalism and internationalism. This immigration mechanism provides visas to nations with low levels of immigration to the United States. This program’s multicultural logic ignores that we have a culture to protect and thereby flaunts our sovereignty. Somali immigration exemplifies the cultural and physical dangers of such a policy. It invite a foreign and hostile cultures onto our shores. We should, at very least, stop Somali immigration until their piracy of our ships stop. Such culturist immigration policies would remind us that we have a culture as well as a duty and right to protect it.

Multiculturalism is an unthinking philosophy. It blocks thought by asking us to celebrate all cultures. President Obama’s formulation says we must “respect” all cultures. This means that we have no judgment towards them. This limits the use of our reason. It means that considering values, in fact, becomes a thought crime as it might invoke choosing some and not others. Our immigration decisions should consider mores, language, and the cultural ability to honor our Founding Fathers and the principles for which they fought.

Our asylum laws allow people into our nation based upon the concept of international rights. These ignore our sovereignty. But no international right to be in America exists. I have no international right to immigrate to China or be Chinese. Muslim nations restrict the inflow of non-Muslims. We are a western nation. We too have the culturist right to define, guide and protect our national identity. Since these nations refuse entry to all who don’t blend with their cultures, supposedly international rights only violate our sovereignty. Culturist immigration laws would reassert our ability to make decisions based on our needs, safety and culture.

We should ban all Somali immigration until the piracy stops. Then we should make a review of Somali culture, its compatibility with western culture and the progress towards assimilation of Somalis currently in the U.S. This would protect us and punish the Somali pirates. The multicultural idea of not noticing the Somali tendency towards piracy, attacks on U.S. interests and affinity for Jihadi warlords is dangerous. Not recognizing their polygamy, treatment of women, and female genital mutilation lends credence to the multicultural vision of diversity not being important. Not recognizing the enormous financial costs of caring for such a culture reifies the ignoring of economic realities in the name of “international rights.”

Banning Somali immigration would codify culturism. That is, it would legally acknowledge and privilege our western cultural identity. Symbolically it would restore the values and cultural touchstones of honor we have sought to emulate and protect. It would affirm a cultural base into which immigrants could strive to assimilate. It would also discourage their Somali’s brazen refusal to assimilate. It would end our multicultural confusion about our being an international entity on the order of the United Nations. Even if the immediate impact were not great, symbolically, culturist immigration policy would realign our relationship with the world, our immigrants and ourselves in a very healthy way.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama's Multiculturalism Endangers the West

President Obama’s being a multiculturalist endangers the West. In a speech in Turkey he announced, “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He also called for Turkey to become a part of the EU. Both of these statements reflect a very poor understanding of history and cultural diversity. It is dangerous for our president to be multiculturalist instead of culturist.

His call to have Turkey join the EU shows that he does not respect the sovereignty of the Western world. His ability to do so stems from multiculturalists’ failure to recognize diversity. He announced his desire to join Islam in “rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject.” This statement indicates that all cultures are the same and hold the same basic values. None are different. Diversity does not exist. This multiculturalism needs to be challenged by culturism if the West is to survive.

Culturists know that diversity exists. Anyone with any familiarity with history knows that not all peoples are polite humanists. Obama carefully said we will never be at war with Islam and left out declaring that we have never been at war with Islam. Islam has been at war with Christendom in the name of cultural supremacy for most of the last 1300 years. Secular multicultural Europe has trouble understanding that Muslims really believe in Islam and its supremacy. Turkish entry into the EU would invite massive immigration of a non-western, different and hostile culture. Because diversity exists, we must be culturist.

Names are important. In Obama’s speech he spoke of the “Muslim community” and the “Muslim world.” Neither of these phrases implies borders. It signifies their cross-border unity. But, there is a non-Muslim world as well. We often speak of this space as Europe and call it multicultural. This indicates that it is just a geographic location with no particular tradition. We need a phrase that implies cultural content in the way that Christendom did for centuries. In a post-Enlightenment world, that phrase is “the West.” Using it implies Jerusalem and Athens, shows our cross-border unity, combats multiculturalism, and lets the world know that a non-Muslim world and community also exists.

Obama said, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.” But, again, as a multiculturalist he must flatten and lie about history. He cannot acknowledge that Islam has stood for a theocratic mode of governance as it still does. He thereby fails to acknowledge the struggle against theocracy and freedom of thought as a major theme of the West since Greece took on Persia. Since the Islamic world is not multiculturalist, this philosophy does not impact them. But it undermines our sense of self as it blinds us to diversity. Our sense of culturism must be dedicated to preserving “the West.”

If Obama is strategically flattening history in order to create global stability and cooperation, I am afraid his plan is doomed to failure. It is doomed because the Islamic world has not forgotten history and denied diversity in the name of multiculturalism. They are culturist. The current existence of theocracies should key us into the fact that secular humanism has not swept the planet and ended history. Diversity still exists. Obama says he wants to “strengthen opportunity for all people.” He is not President of all people. He is the President of a Western nation with a specific history, culture and agenda for which to fight. His not being clear on the fact that diversity exists is dangerous. We need our president to be a western culturist, not a multiculturalist.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Culturist Liberals Unite!!

Gays, feminists and the liberal intelligentsia should adopt “culturism” as their motto. There is a misconception that culturism is only a “right-wing” philosophy. And culturism does advocate immigration restriction and does seek to unify western citizens around an appreciation for western values. But culturism does this in order to secure the West. And western values include the acceptance of a relatively large separation of church and state as well as rights for gays and women. If you believe in these liberal values, you should support the West, call yourself a “culturist” and back the agenda of culturism.

Western civilization’s trajectory has sent it in the direction of protecting vulnerable groups such as women, gays and atheists. The Greeks fought two wars against the Persians in order to resist theocratic tyranny. Plato wanted society run by “philosopher – Kings,” but he held that women could occupy these positions. Jesus made the least among us sacrosanct. Martin Luther King died for the rights of Americans of African descent. And his Civil Rights efforts, in turn, inspired the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Just as liberals do, Culturism celebrates this progression.

Has the West been perfect? No. But herein we find a huge, giant and extremely large failure in the liberal perspective. Liberal academics tend to judge the West against abstract ideals of perfection. In Universities’ gay, lesbian, straight and transsexual as well as women’s studies departments, examine how sexual and gender roles get imagined and implemented. This is fascinating and important work. But the very fact that we explore such ideas shows the West’s extreme liberalism. In the real world, we can only make choices between different levels of limitations. No total freedom exists. Decrying the West because it does not deliver unbounded identity choices ironically leads liberals to identify with illiberal Islamic tyrants.

Gay rights activists and liberals might say "We don't have rights here!" Again, they search for ideals and miss the real. In Islamic nations homosexuals are hung. No rights movements are allowed in China. Women’s’ opportunities in Africa and Latin America pale in comparison to ours. In contrast to the alternate systems in the world, we represent liberal values and freedoms. An academic might say, third world oppression only reflects our having created a world of economic stratification. Again, we must deal with the real illiberal world, not postulated paradisiacal states. All societies have always had stratification; outside of the West no nations have been liberal. The West has flaws. But, after dismantling the West for not giving you all the rights you demand, regardless of public opinion, you'll become nostalgic about the right not to be hung for organizing.

Multiculturalism is based in idealistic and unrealistic thought. It holds that deep down all cultures are liberal. But in the real world, as Obama is finding in his “negotiations” with Iran, disagreement, diversity and evil exist. In this world, we must choose between existing options. Geopolitically, since they are in conflict, you can either side with Islam or the West. Standing up for liberal values requires standing up for western culture and its sovereignty. Multicultural academics that support Islamic immigration to the West imperil women’s rights and gay lives. Consistency demands that western academics, above all others, scrutinize our nations for flaws. Consistency also demands that liberal academics do not support those who would undermine our freedom of speech and thought. At the end of the day, the existence of liberalism requires a solvent West. To protect the rights of gays and women, all liberal academics should become fervent western culturists.