Friday, November 29, 2013

Culturists Versus Racists

Yes, culturists versus racists: we who fight to save Western Civilization have to choose.   And, I think, those leaning towards racism are taking the West towards doom.  Feel free to argue – it is important that we are clear as to whether we are culturist or racist.

Culturism says western nations have traditional majority cultures, and a right to guide, protect, and promote them.   Racism says the western nations are defined by being made of racially white people or groups of national races: The British race: the French race, etc.

Racists would like to make Britain white again.  The only way to do this is to deport non-whites.  But London, for example, is less than 50% white. As such racists will never win an election on the ‘deport non-whites’ platform.  As racists cannot push this policy democratically, their reasoning only leaves us the policy option of extra-legal violence that would devastate Britain: race war.   

Culturists would simply look to end Islamic immigration.  Hindus, a significant non-white minority population in Britain, have their own horrible history with Islam: as such they might vote to halt Islamic immigration.  Other minority victims of terrorism might also vote to limit Islamic immigration.  

Getting such votes would rely on proper education. Culturist curriculum would teach Hindus to love the Britain for modernizing India and Caribbean peoples to love Britain for stopping slavery.   Other minorities could get excited about belonging the nation that invented rights!    This could unite us, with pride, as we were before.  But we need culturist curriculum to reach this goal.  

Racists have no reason to promote this pro-western, educational assimilation agenda: After all, racists believe only whites make good Europeans and neither education, nor any other measure, can change peoples’ race.  No workable education policy stems from racism. 

Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism.  As such, culturism can win rhetorical arguments because it stands on the truth of cultural diversity.   People believe cultural diversity is real and culturists can use statistics to logically prove it.  While they really don’t think it is real or important, multiculturalists do hype cultural diversity.  Given honor killings, we can beat them on their own turf when forcing them to discuss the reality of cultural diversity. 

Using the reality of cultural diversity, we can argue for reasonable culturist profiling.  A majority of Brits (even some Muslims) could understand and support the need for culturist profiling at airports.  When multiculturalists say, “It’s racist,” we can say, ‘No, it’s culturist; (note the word) and cultural diversity is real, is it not?” This will bring us back to our strong suit: cultural diversity.  Racism offers no comparable logical profiling position or rhetoric.

If multiculturalists say, “culturism is just racism,” note that culturist thought critiques white social pathologies as well.  For example, in Victorian times, whites’ out-of-wedlock birth rate went as low as 4%. It is now over 47.3% in the UK.  Such historical precedents give us hope.  It goes beyond racists’ stupid argument: ‘whites are good; non-whites, bad.’  Culturism isn’t just about minorities. Is this discussion racist?

Racists might reply, “But, look at minority pathology!  It is about race!!”  Yes, in the U.S., blacks’ out of wedlock birth rate is 72.3%.  But, from the 1930s to the 1950s it was around 12%.[i]  Yes, racists, that is higher than it was for whites then; but it is much lower than it is for whites now.  We can all do better. But, our genes have not radically mutated since the 1960s: it is not about race.  It is about culture.  Racism offers no solutions or hope; culturism does.

In place of divisive multiculturalism, culturism provides a purely positive angle that can unite us: celebrating British culture.  When we praise British culture, politicians must agree or make statements that will alienate voters.  When we celebrate western culture with WW II film screenings, art exhibits, historical parades, and such, politicians must attend or go on the defensive.  Racist events only justify politicians’ PC censorship and sanctimonious treason.  

Culturism offers hope of democratically stopping Islamic immigration; education reform; rhetoric with which to win debates with multiculturalists; reasonable policies such as culturist profiling; a way to discuss lowering social pathologies across all races; and fun events - and this is only a partial list!  Racism offers zero positive policy solutions.  As people cannot change their race, racism only offers disunity and race wars.  

We who defend Western Civilization should be clear that we are culturists, not racists. We culturists agree that racism is stupid and dangerous.   We get angry when called racists!  We offer culturism in place of multiculturalism because we love Western Civilization and diversity is real.  As such, we politely demand reasonable public policy debates on Islamic immigration and other topics. 

If you think the culturist policies futile, I look forward to hearing your potentially workable policy suggestions.  If you don’t have any, get to work!  Denounce racists!  Get the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ in the media, politicians’ mouths and popular conversation: Spread the words today!   

[i] Marriage and Poverty in the U.S.: By the Numbers, The Heritage Foundation:

Saturday, November 23, 2013


Britain's Matthew Arnold (1822 – 1888) was the first person to be called a 'culturist.'  As codified in his masterpiece, Culture and Anarchy, the label referred to his wanting to avoid anarchy – and cultivate Britain and its morals – via honoring western culture.
In Arnold's time the word 'culturism' had not yet been invented. Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism: it defies multiculturalism by affirming that the West has a core culture to guide, protect, and promote; this would have been a truism in Arnold's time; he was a culturist with no need to fight multiculturalists.
Arnold was a Christian atheist of sorts. He noted that science was making literal belief in miracles difficult, but recognized that Christianity was western civilization's bedrock. So he taught the Bible as literature; he fought to unify Christians under the Church of England and to have the Bible taught in public schools.
Even though Arnold's mission concerned the domestic perfection of Britain, he discussed Islam once: in the piece, "A Persian Passion Play." For us modern culturists, who must fight multiculturalists – and thus consider Islam – this historical document has relevance.
Arnold's 1871 essay reviews the play that tells the story of Hussein, the grandson of Muhammad, who helped found the Shia sect with his martyrdom. This play is performed during the holiday Ashura, wherein Muslims beat themselves.
As you would expect from the premier literary critic of his age, Arnold reviews the casting, sets, acting and versions of the play. After the dazzlingly crafted review, Arnold moves on to comparing Islam and Christianity.
The Koran's "inferiority," Arnold divines, "may make the Koran, for certain purposes and for people at a low stage of mental growth, a more powerful instrument than the Bible;" it has an "intensely dogmatic character."
As is the Koran, the Old Testament was also harsh in its righteousness, but "Christianity renewed it, carrying into those hard waters ... a sort of warm gulf-stream of tender emotion," modeled by Jesus's "mildness and sweet reasonableness."  
"Mohomatenism," we read, "had no such renewing." With only harsh righteousness, the more it developed, "the more the faults of its original narrow basis because visible, more and more it became fierce and militant."
Arnold thinks the story of Hussein – the Passion Play – is an attempt to instill some lighter qualities into the harsh religion. After all, the "main confirmation of a religion [is] in its intrinsic correspondence with urgent wants of human nature." But, even with Hussein's story, Islam does not fulfill human needs and so, "the more mankind grows and gains light, the more [Islam] will be felt to have no fellows."  
Blissfully ignorant, Arnold believes, since Europe is solidly Christian, the play will likely be the last time western audiences hear the names "Hussein" and "Ali." And so, coupled with his belief that people will leave the narrow religion for Christianity, he doesn't write about Islam again.
Unfortunately, our 'growth' and 'gains' have not led Muslims to largely convert to Christianity. Unfortunately, the names Hussein and Ali are not foreign to us (and Muhammad is the number one baby name in Britain).
Were Arnold to come back to life, he would, undoubtedly continue his 'culturist' mission of using our cultural heritage to cultivate British beauty, unity, and morals. But he would realize that Islam is currently more of a threat than the anarchy he feared. As such, this founding culturist would denounce Islam more than he did – repudiating multiculturalism in favor of culturism.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Culturist Sex Positions


Sorry! This article will not show sexual positions; it will consider culturist positions on sex! It will tackle the problem that 41% of American, 47.3% of UK and 39.5% of EU births happen out of wedlock. But keep reading, Miley Cyrus's licking will come up later.


"Conservatives are unrealistic if they think people will stop having sex. It's impossible." To these defeatists I say, "Let me reassure you: I am not trying to stop people having from having sex. But out-of-wedlock childbirth is a problem we must tackle." They agree.
For the "it is impossible" crowd, I note that this problem almost doesn't exist in Korea and Japan; a mild racist reply usually follows. But, a culturist public values campaign in Victorian England dropped the out-of-wedlock rate from 7% to 3%. Yes, it was 3%! White people have managed reproduction responsibly.


"Western civilization holds the mind in higher esteem than the body," is a phrase to popularize. Plato gave us platonic love. He did not think sex a sin, but a sad use of our human potential. Jesus taught that lust overpowering the soul was a sin.
Television undermined western virtues. To get advertisers, it promotes fun without consequences. Thus it promotes irresponsible sex, without showing that the resultant out-of-wedlock birth leads to povertycrime, academic failure, and emotional problems.



We need to censor television again, not to mention Internet porn (as Asian nations do). Strip clubs have exploded across America. Zoning laws need to, again, push this flesh-peddling out to the margins of society.
Don't worry sex addicts, you'll be able to get your pound of flesh on cable and illegally on the web. You'll be free to drive to the town's outskirts to spasm; but needing to drive will teach you that you're doing something of which society does not approve.
Rich people make television. Rich people absorb the damage of out-of-wedlock birth better than those in the inner-city, where it is devastating communities. During the Victorian era, the wealthy specifically thought of the impact of their actions on the morals of the poor. We do live in the same society.


America heavily subsidies out-of-wedlock birth when it gives financial support to unwed mothers – in fact, under our welfare laws, women lose benefits if they get married. If we cut benefits off, women with children will be on the streets – some will need to give their children to orphanages.
In America, if a teenager gets pregnant she cannot be penalized. She is given extra accommodations (such as alternative assignments) and extra time to graduate. In Korea such girls are expelled from school immediately. We need to expel pregnant teens.
In order to reinstitute morals, natural consequences need to be felt. If we end subsidies to out-of-wedlock parents and expel pregnant teens from public school, we will see a rise of homeless women with children. After the very real consequences of irresponsible parenting become public, the rate will plummet.
As a corollary, the Victorian era also saw an explosion in charitable organizations. Unfortunately, these got taken over by government programs, which sapped our sense of community responsibility and hid the consequences of such irresponsible behavior. We must not repeat this mistake.
In the modern, bureaucratic, post-Judeo-Christian, multicultural, commercial era, we have moved to the idea that government is to be neutral in regards to values. We need once again to think of ourselves as a western, Judeo-Christian civilization that needs to be sustainable, and so neither promotes nor subsidizes vice.



So, what about sex prior to marriage? Yes, worried modern, Christians would call that a sin. But let's not worry about them right now because they already have a solution that works. What of us more secular culturists?
Premarital is okay. But, if you make a baby, you need to stay with the mother through adulthood. So, if you cannot agree to that, don't take the risk with her. When you have sex with a stranger – whose hotness will soon drain – know that you flirt with disaster.
And, I would ask you to be brave. I agree with the prescription James Twitchell put forward in his book For Shame: we must be willing to tell people their creating an out-of-wedlock child was bad and even shun them and lose them as friends.
What Miley Cyrus did – especially as an ex-Mousketeer – hurt us collectively. We need to be able to tell people why. Basically, as Aristotle said, our minds separate us from animals. We are elevated when we honor intellects; her animalistic depiction of us as licking machines, degrades us as it – materially – perpetuates out-of-wedlock birth.
Ultimately, yes, you can have sex when not married and still be a good culturist. But that stops with the first child. And you can disentangle yourself from the constant testosterone-elevating advertisements and ask yourself if you see no elevating nobility, if you can take no pride, in the West's traditional elevation of the mind over the body?


Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. As such, it says that the West has a particular, wonderful – yet fragile – culture to promote, defend, and guide. It takes pride in western civilization; as such it suggests we revere our past and protect our future.
Culturism also counterbalances individualism: when we tell a child, "If you don't study, it will hurt your future," it simply becomes their business whether or not they do so. Culturism frames virtues in the context of a duty to society. This is a more solid basis of virtues.
'Culturism' and 'culturist' are also good words in that they outline common ground between Christians and secular conservatives. Plato and Jesus, again, both esteemed the mind over the body. And, both understood the connection between immorality and social decay.
The West needs a moral counter-revolution. The words 'culturism' and 'culturist' can spread quickly, succinctly expressing a non-narcissistic point of view that considers our collective cultural welfare.  Use the words 'culturism' and 'culturist' daily!


In our sex-saturated era, we have traded virtues and values for mindless immediate gratification. Loving people for their minds, rather than their skin, shows a higher regard for their whole being; it elevates all of us.
The Victorian ethos was one of spiritual equality. Both the poor and the rich could take pride in being upright; mutual respect – when earned – resulted. When people live up to civic ideals, they feel pride. Communal pride and dignity are not to be underrated.
When out-of-wedlock birth goes down, poverty goes down, education goes up, and fewer people go to jail. (The Victorian ethos was one of material equality too.) An educated culture produces more inventions. Wealth leads to opportunities and increased hope for the future.
Families are a joy. Children love having fathers. Fathers feel tremendous pride in being caregivers and respected and loved.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013


'Data mining' – the computational extraction of meaningful information from large data sets – includes a technique wherein you count how many times a word appears in a book or a set of books.  From it we learn that 19th-century American authors mentioned 'Europe' more than we realized; so, critics can reposition these writers as a part of a cosmopolitan discourse. But, as Stanley Fish asked, what if the word 'Europe' comes after the words 'never been to'? Such scientific readings ignore literature's actual wonderful stories and meanings. We must act to stop it.
There are other ways literary academics have perverted our reading. Academics frequently look at a work's relationship to colonialism. Thus, Shakespeare's The Tempest is now about the Caribbean in the European imagination. Beyond this thematic hijacking, esteeming Shakespeare itself is seen as complicity in Euro-centric dominance. Western students are told they must abandon their own literature for that of 'the other' in the name of post-colonial social justice. In fact, literature isn't even called literature any more, it is just a 'text,' meaning a socio-cultural artifact. Really!
Largely anti-western, some academics claim that the global spread of the web has now made national boundaries obsolete. But westerners do not go online to read Chinese news in Chinese. We read about our own nations and cultures in our own languages. The nation has not disappeared into cyberspace. What the Internet has done is diminish our attention spans. Thus, rather than use the Internet as an excuse to undermine attention to our national literary classics, academics must uphold cultural standards by modeling attention to our substantial works.
It is wonderful that academics have made us aware of the political implications of the western canon as well as the impact of the Internet on readers' sense of belonging. But, as a pro-western culturist, I draw opposite conclusions from said realizations: we must emphasize our canon because it binds us, because it glorifies the West, because it makes me proud to be from a civilization that created such treasures. And no matter the frequency of the word 'blog' online, we need to esteem longer traditional classics over blog posts to uphold morals, cultivate cultural pride, and raise intellectual standards.
People love stories; we love being a part of the western story. Teaching that literature is a quantifiable tool of imperialist oppression in a post-national world is worse than anti-humanistic, it is anti-western. And, as such, it hurts us collectively and personally. Culturist students must challenge their professors' quasi-scientific, anti-western agendas in reading 'texts.' They must announce their pride in doing the hard work of reading long literature classics in the Internet age. We need to cultivate a generation of tough, literature-loving, pro-western scholars in order to foster a much-needed western cultural renaissance.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Alice in Terrorland

The humor in Alice in Wonderland comes from her being unfailingly polite no matter what the situation. A somewhat hostile giant caterpillar on a mushroom? A surly talking egg? Oh, Dear! But, we mustn't forget our well-worn Victorian manners.
In the final week of the terrorism and counterterrorism course I am taking, we discussed "fear and impact management" – what authorities must do after an attack. We learned that, much like Alice, you must stay unfailingly polite to Muslims no matter what.
Immediately after an attack, our professor told us, we must establish partnerships with "spokespersons of ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities," to avoid, "distrust and stereotyping of certain groups in society," which could lead to "polarization, tension between groups."
Like Oscar Wilde's "love that dare not speak its name," even in the course, in presenting imagined scenarios, our professor, Dr Edwin Bakker, Director of the Centre for Terrorism and Counterterrorism (CTC) at Leiden University, could not specify which minority group might be causing terror.
Could it be the Hindus? Might it be the Mormons? It would be impolite to point fingers.
Dr Bakker warned that not following his rules of etiquette could lead to "Simple explanations for terrorism" that, in turn, could "lead to polarization of society", that could lead to "a negative spiral in which fear of terrorism leads to more terrorism."
This is the Franklin D. Roosevelt, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself," defense against terrorism. But terrorism is not a delusional phobia, that feeds on itself, which we can ignore out of existence. Many Muslims aiming for world domination use terror, Jihad, as a tool to achieve our submission. These are facts. We have more to fear than fear itself.  
We are not in Wonderland, this is the real world.   
Israel has created an anti-terror wall, at which they can screen Muslim commuters. They will not allow uninhibited Islamic immigration into Israel – they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. After being polite while rockets fell for years, they launched an all-out assault on Gaza. That alone slowed the inflow of rockets.
I agree Dr Bakker, we do not want innocent Muslims to undergo unlawful attacks or excessive discomfort. But culturism is not vile racism. And to not screen Muslims at airports or to allow them to have airport jobs because we don't want to be rude is to implement a policy that is only fit for Wonderland.