Culturism leans towards isolationism, but has a foreign policy. But. first culturism is situational and pragmatic. And reasonable culturists may disagree on roll back, containment or isolation. I will give specific culturist policies herein. We may disagree on particular situations. But, as a culturist, I hope you agree on the precepts.
First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can and should have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in the Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.
Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.
Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. They deserve our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.
If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.
Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes culture and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.
Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere. And, worse yet, remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. Then the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten neo-con dreams.