Wednesday, May 26, 2010
On May 25th, 2010 we battled with the Lower Manhattan, Community Board 1 meeting over the building of a Mega - Mosque at Ground Zero ! What our speakers and the commission failed to recognize is that Islam is not just another benign multicultural reason to celebrate diversity. This mosque is a flag of conquest. It is an insult added to injury. It will stir pride in Jihadis all over the world.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Today historians many denounce Manifest Destiny as a racist forerunner of imperialism. These historian's racist interpretation lays on a failure to understand how importantly our forerunners took culture. Conflating culture and race causes today’s historians to misunderstand their subjects and seriously distorts America’s sense of self. Racist historians should consider the culturist historical perspective.
Manifest Destiny rested on assumptions that race-obsessed academia finds completely taboo. For example, believers in manifest destiny assumed that our republican form of government, in which people governed themselves, individually and collectively, was very special. People of the time contrasted our way with monarchy in which others governed you.
Less PC yet, it was held that this expansion of republicanism under the banner of Manifest Destiny had to have, in the parlance of the time, Anglo-Saxon roots. Those who formulated Manifest Destiny thought republican government required a culture of rational machismo, a love of work and self-government, an active stance towards taking one’s destiny into their own hands, only found in the cultural descendants of the Germanic tribes who conquered England. Therefore, the Anglo – Americans, and not the Mexicans, had to populate the remaining continental territory for republicanism to spread.
Up until and during the time of Manifest Destiny nearly all of the world, and indeed Mexico, had been impoverished and despotic. Had there not been America inventing electricity, fomenting industry, and developing the idea of democracy, Mexico would undoubtedly still be medieval. And, had Mexico controlled and populated Texas and the Southwest of America, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these areas would be different than the rest of Mexico. In other words, the spread of Anglo – American culture from sea to shining sea did enlarge the area of the world that was wealthy, democratic, rights recognizing, religiously free, and with free speech.
The idea that America is a special nation gets routinely laughed at in academia. Multiculturalism teaches today’s academics that our nation is no better than any other. Therefore, belief in our being better can only be interpreted as racist. Manifest Destiny, from this academic perspective, was simply a justification for an irrational, racist power grab. But, if we accept the culturist position that culture can impact outcomes, we have a great explanation for the difference between what the southwest became and what it would have been under Mexican rule. Appreciating Manifest Destiny is not, thereby, irrational racism, it is rational culturism.
The culturist historical perspective provides valuable insight to our understanding of “Manifest Destiny,” American thought, and our future. Without taking culture seriously, we can only see the distinction between Mexicans and Anglo-Saxons culture as racist. As race has no inherent meaning or impact, historian’s purely racial analysis makes America look stupid and mean. Multiculturalists, again, bolster the view of us as irrational and mean as they celebrate all cultures equally and thus minimize the possibility that culture could really be a meaningful factor in policy or outcome.
Culturism and culturist interpretations of history assume that culture can actually impact academic and economic achievement. Ultimately, as history and research such as Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Survey and Robert Putnam’s work on Italy have shown, culture can even impact the sort of government a nation can have. When historians collapse cultural and racist arguments under the banner “racist,” they misrepresent the logic of our predecessors and shrink our tools for analysis concerning the present.
By adopting a culturist perspective, by taking culture seriously, historians would derive a much clearer vision of our history. The Puritans were very culturist; they considered hard work and education central to their survival. Prohibition provides another example of our nation being very worried about cultural decline. Sometimes, policies make no sense without a culturist lens; the 1924 Immigration Act’s justifications largely concerned culture, not race. The WW II Japanese Relocation happened on a culturist basis. Without a culturist perspective, relying only on multiculturalism, we undermine our status as a special nation that requires responsible behavior; If all nations are equally great, progress has not happened, and no values are better than any others. When historians only invoke racist interpretations of history, our progenitors’ sense of themselves and our nation’s current sense of itself both get mangled.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The Texas school board’s setting patriotic curriculum standards for their school textbooks could actually impact the solvency of the western world. This may sound like hyperbole. And, of course, debt and other issues also impact the solvency of the West. But the Texas – American War shows the importance of loyalty to ones’ nation. Rather than promoting the multicultural ethnic studies vision in our textbooks, national safety requires that we embrace common sense culturism and promote America in our schools.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Culturism holds that the traditional majority culture has the right to define, promote, and protect themselves. This is self-governance as the Founding Fathers meant it, as a community.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
THIS VIDEO IS SO CLASSIC!! The Attorney General of the United States is such a multiculturalist that he cannot admit that a culture could have a negative effect (they are all the same and should be celebrated)! We cannot expect any culturist profiling or culturist immigration policies out of him soon! We must replace multiculturalism with culturism!! www.culturism.us
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Tea Party is in danger of being torn between the Ron Paul’s constrictive and Sarah Palin’s expansive foreign policy wings. Culturism can help us move past both of these hurdles.
Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. Culturism is defined as “the philosophy which holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect, and promote themselves domestically.” This philosophy supports sovereignty.
On foreign policy culturism provides a third path between Palin and Paul. From a culturist point of view, both sides are misled by avoiding the subject of culture.
Paul’s view that Jihad is a backlash against an expansive foreign policy ignores culture. Islam is an expansive theocratic thought-system that has been at war with the West for 1400 years. Withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and apologizing for America’s behavior will not win us friends and allies in that region.
Palin’s Neo-Con friends take the view hat we can turn Muslim nations into believers in western values. This also ignores culture. Islam is fundamentally hostile to the solely western values of freedom of speech, any separation of church and state, women’s rights, and democracy. From a culturist perspective, nation building in that region is doomed to failure.
Two foreign examples will outline culturist foreign policy towards Islam.
Using Iran as an example, culturists believe that we need to militarily destroy their nuclear weapons making ability. Culturism believes in cultural sovereignty, but nuclear weapons are not a part of Iran’s traditional majority culture and they are developing these weapons to attack western nations. We cannot allow them to have nuclear weapons. Yet, after destroying their weapons building infrastructure, we should not try to rebuild their civic and political infrastructure with the hopes of turning them into an America-loving democracy.
Afghanistan hit us by harboring the terrorists that did such tremendous damage on 9 – 11 that we have a right and duty to inflict pain upon them in self-defense; thus teaching them -and the world - a lesson. The perpetrators’ being killed cannot be so pretty, but the al Qaeda forces attacked us and we must be done, that is war. But after we inflict pain in Afghanistan and kill those who attacked us, culturists insist that we let Afghanistan be the nation it wants to be, even though we realize they will not uphold western values or be strong western ally.
From a Tea Party consistent vantage, wanting smaller government and expanding American dominion to an entire other hemisphere lacks consistency. “Smaller” and “world” government are near opposites. And every penny put into the Afghani and Iraqi economy, does not go into ours.
Thus the culturist point of view combines the hawk message of protecting the US with the anti-expansionist view of the doves by including cultural information. If a nation harbors terrorist that hurt us, we must inflict serious pain on them and then leave. This policy is fiscally conservative. This policy protects us from terrorism. This policy is compatible with smaller government. This culturist foreign policy should be the Tea Party position.