Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Our Culturist Battle at the 9-11 Cordoba House Mosque Debate




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.


www.culturism.us

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Culturist History Lessons for Racist Historians

Was Manifest Destiny good? Manifest Destiny was the 19th century belief that the then Eastern bound United States was destined to expand to the west coast. Coined in 1836, the phrase and idea of Manifest Destiny was used to justify the annexation of the nation of Texas and the Mexican - American War from which Mexico ceded much of the US’s current southwestern land. This expansionist point of view’s merit rests on the assumption that the spread of American values meant the betterment of humanity.

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.

www.culturism.us

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Texas' Culturist Curriculum and National Solvency

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. 

In 1832 Mexico passed the first ever immigration law in North America.  This law made it illegal for more Anglo immigrants to enter into the Mexican state of Tejas.  This law was passed because Mexico understood the culturist truth that demographics are destiny.   In 1830 there were 4,000 - 5,000 people of Mexican descent in Tejas and approximately 25,000 Anglo-Americans.   

Mexico inherited “ownership” of Tejas when they got independence from Spain.  So legally they had held it for about a decade.  Spain got it when the Pope divided what they knew of the western hemisphere between them and Portugal in the late 15th century; Portugal got Brazil and Spain got the rest.  But, the Native Americans living on the land did not recognize ownership by the Pope, Spain or Portugal.  They had largely driven out all Catholic missionaries out of their territories.

Having no luck getting Mexicans to settle in what was called “Tejas” en masse, the Mexican President, Santa Anna, said Anglos could settle in the area if they would swear allegiance to Mexico, learn Spanish, and become Catholic.  But that only created paper loyalty.  In actuality settlers expected a say in their government (not a Mexican tradition), public schools to be built (not a Mexican tradition), freedom of religion (not a Mexican tradition), laws in English (not a Mexican tradition) and protection from Indians (the Mexican Army could not control this area).   Citizenship on paper and loyalty do not always coincide. 

It was when these assimilation policies failed that Santa Anna announced that no more Anglo settlers would be allowed in Tejas.   The Anglos petitioned for a right to have input into the process by which such laws were decided.  It was against such petitions, and in an attempt to enforce absolute Mexican rule over this territory, that Santa Anna came to fight the Anglo usurpers at the Alamo.  He lost the War and Tejas became Texas.  Demographics were destiny. 

As the late Samuel Huntington showed, and this piece of history illustrates, cleft nations – those with a population that doesn’t fit the borders - are dangerous.   World War One started because the population of the South – East of Austria-Hungary was Serb.  We are not immune.  And if we have civil strife in our South-West, on top of our financial crisis, our solvency will be diminished.  And, if America loses strength, the entire western world will lose an anchor of stability.

Mexican textbooks claim that Texas was stolen from Mexico.  Multicultural ethnic studies courses make the same claim, call America “oppressive” and so fight for “social justice.”  And, I am sure these educators have some valid points – there are two sides to every story.  But our schools’ job is not to be neutral reporters.  Our schools definitely should not teach that America is an oppressive thief.   It is a culturist truth that all schools serve to socialize youth with the values of the society they happen to have been born into.  Our schools should teach American history to Texas tells us, fomenting disaffection in a cleft nation is dangerous. 





Friday, May 21, 2010

The Tea Party is a Culturist Movement


   In what way is the Tea Party a Culturist movment?  What are the culturist implications of the Tea Party?  The answers circle around the concept of self-governance.

   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.

   On the largest scale, culturism advocates self-governance for the West.  Islamic nations realize they have a majority culture and have culturist policy.  So do Asian cultures.  In fact, that is the norm throughout the world and time.  The world is not getting more diverse, the West is.  Only the West has given up the culturist right to self-definition in the name of multiculturalism, globalism, and individualism. 

   The West has a core culture.  And, more than any other culture, it is based on the concept of self-governance.  If you ask Americans to describe their nation, what makes it special, they will reply, “It is a democracy.”  The Greeks invented democracy, the Roman republic is a golden age.  The Middle Ages, in part, get called the Dark Ages because people were not encouraged to lend their minds to rationally guiding their individual and collective fates. 

   Islamic cultures pride themselves on fidelity to their theocratic strictures.  Democracy, free speech, the separation of church and state, feminism, are not their values.  China has neither free speech, freedom of religion, or democracy.  That is not their value.  Just as they have a right to keep people out that do not have their values, we have a right to do the same.  The multiculturalists say we have no core culture.  The values they identify as “human” values are really just western values. 

   Within the American Federalist system, States and localities have the right to self-governance.  This right has been attacked by the Federal government.  Whether you favor or oppose abortion, for example, you should recognize that when the Supreme Court decides nationally, it takes away a reason for you to participate locally.  By definition, whatever is decided in Washington DC is not decided in your State or locality.  Smaller government means more participatory democracy, more self-governance.

   Culturism also gets undermined by a radical rights-based individualist framework.  In modern America, no traditional majority culture can protect, define and promote itself without the ACLU saying it makes an individual uncomfortable.   This undermines communities’ ability to exist and guide themselves.  Individuals exist within the context of cultures.  To smash individual rights would go against the tenure of western civilization.  But, communities and traditions cannot be kept from existing because one individual might have his feelings hurt.

   Finally, self-governance means that individuals govern themselves.  To do so sustainably, they must think about responsibility.  Negatively, when the government takes care of you it removes your motivation to be responsible.  Positively, we should behave with an eye to vindicating the western culture that believes in our ability to decide what we wish to do for ourselves.   Thus the Tea Party’s call for smaller government supports the western value of liberty through responsibility.

   The Tea Party ideal of self-governance is not only theoretical.  If the West falls, self-governance will cease to exist.  Militarism can take over.  Neither Islam nor China will fight for our rights to self-governance.  The Federal government has shown itself incapable of self-governance.  It has nearly bankrupted all of us.  Local communities without the right to set standards end up riddled with anti-social behavior.  And individuals that are not self-governing, are not truly free.  The Tea Party needs to stand for self-governance at the local level or the West will fall.

www.culturism.us

Saturday, May 15, 2010

The History of Education and Arizona’s Culturist Curriculum Laws

     Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a law outlawing ethnic studies programs in her state.  The law makes it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

     The history of education tells us why the multicultural ethnic studies and critical thinking approaches, held by the majority of current educators, is wrong and the culturist approach, embodied in this Arizona law, is correct.

      As Arizona’s State Superintendant of Public Instruction Tom Horne put it, "Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals.”  The most recent issue of the American Historical Association’s newsmagazine, Perspectives on History, condemns a recent Texas law that went against the multicultural and critical theory-oriented history in textbooks.  The history of education shows that the American Historical Association is wrong and the traditionalists are right.

     Bernard Bailyn’s seminal history of education text, Education in the Formation of American society, shows that the Puritans emphasized education because their distance from Europe made them fear their youth would not be civilized.  Ruth Elson’s masterful examination of 19th century textbooks, Guardians of Tradition, concludes, “The purpose of nineteenth – century American public schools was to train citizens in character and proper principles.”  These books taught that individual virtue maintains the republic via creating economic success and altruistic voters.

     Indeed our Founding Fathers often spoke of the importance of education in instilling the virtue necessary to maintaining a republic.   Noah Webster created his famous dictionary with American spellings of common words in order that we might separate ourselves from the dreaded British.  Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence included italics to make his point that, “Next to the duty which young men owe to their Creator, I wish to see a SUPREME REGARD TO THEIR COUNTRY inculcated upon them.”

     R. Freeman Butts, a classic historian of education, in his 1955 Cultural History of Western Education, tells us that “culture” holds the key to understanding education.  He defines it as “the whole way of life that is created, learned held in common, and passed on from one generation to another by the members of a particular society.”  He shows this to be the western theme in education since our origins in the “Eastern Mediterranean World.”   Indeed, historians of education in his generation routinely created global surveys going back to tribalism showing this to be the theme in education in all times and places.

     As the name of their newsmagazine, Perspectives, indicates, the professional historians feel that perspectives exist rather than truths.  Article after article in their May issue extols the virtue of teaching both sides of historical issues and letting students decide.  And these professional historians think by critically attacking issues they can help students understand the way “real” history is made and teach real “historical” thinking.  This critical approach, in the historian’s opinion, helps students see complexity, learn critical thinking skills, and, ironically, get closer to The Truth about issues.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Multiculturalist Speaking Disorder



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

NYC South Park Times Square Protest

See our culturist NYC Times Square protest about an Islamic attempt to end freedom of speech by BLOWING UP Viacom for showing Muhammed on its cartoon show South Park.


www.culturism.us

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Culturism, the Tea Party, and Foreign Policy

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.

www.culturism.us

Protest for Israel


There was a dinner to support the Israeli Defense Forces at the Waldorf Astoria. Many people showed to protest it. We counter protested their protest!!!