Thursday, May 15, 2014


Ali G. is the proto-typical 'whigger,' (a white pretending he is an inner-city black gangster
 type): tough and swaggering. He is also a comic creation of Sacha Baron Cohen. The 
comedian mocks society by playing this part to a tee and enjoying the fact that no one is 
brave enough to call him on it. But, one great culturist did: the late American editorialist, 
Andy Rooney.

The heroic culturist moment starts when Ali G asks Rooney, "Does you think the media has changed since you first got in it?" Rooney corrects him, "'Does you think the media has changed?' Do you think the media has changed?" Rooney confronts this Ebonics bastardization of our language head-on, insisting on adherence to basic rules of English grammar.
When Ali G. attributes the linguistic error to a difference between the British and American vernacular, Rooney snidely refutes his attempt at relativism saying, "The English language is very clear. I have fifty books on the English language if you'd like to borrow one." Rather than pander or ignore Ali G's destruction of language, Rooney refutes and rejects it, saying, "I can't waste my time."
This may seem like a small act of defiance. But, in fact, it conforms well to the 'broken windows' technique that drastically reduced crime in New York City. That is, by not allowing small crimes to go unpunished, by locking people up for small infractions, you dissuade people from even contemplating undertaking larger crimes. Every time we fail to confront whigger gangsters' small improprieties, we enable the downfall of western civilization.
Proving the aged American culturist was over the target when he confronted Ali G., the comic accused Rooney of "racialism." We all know that any assertion of linguistic or behavior standards is met with this defiant, but empty, accusation. Having none of it, Rooney informed him that the word is "racist;" and promptly left. This confrontation revealed Ali G. as the foolish, overgrown infant that he is – small and pouty.
Liberalism's cowardly failure to judge a person for poor English, being degenerate, or even criminality, emboldens anti-social behavior. Our governments need to stop supporting people who have babies with no means of paying for them; our schools must fail those who can only write in Ebonics. We must affirm that we have a language with standards and that culture matters.
But, before our institutions will take up the torch – as uncomfortable as it is – culturists must individually emulate Rooney's confrontation of Ali G. If a person has ghetto English, confront them on it. Otherwise, you must know that Baron Cohen's joke is on you.

Interview with Me, JKP, About Culturism

Sunday, May 11, 2014

To Whom Does the "our" in #BringBackOurGirls Refer?

This week America's First Lady, Michelle Obama, joined the ever growing #Bring Back Our Girls campaign that aims to rescue kidnapped Nigerian girls. The culturist instinct is to say 'NO!' to intervention in any part of the world that isn't western. But, this is somewhat dependent on to whom the 'our' in #Bring Back Our Girls refers.

The girls being kidnapped are largely Christian. Their abductors are Muslims. If the pronoun 'our' in #Bring Back Our Girls refers to saving 'our' Christian girls from Muslims, I might have some enthusiasm for this cause. If Mrs Obama wishes to go on a crusade saving Christians worldwide, I would have some sympathy – maybe even enthusiasm – for the project. But, since the West has eschewed any culturist Clash of Civilizationsconsciousness for decades, I doubt that is what the pronoun stands for. 

Rather, I would assume that the 'our' refers to the global 'our' of the "we are the world," "all people are on the same side" variety. The appeal is to a globalist 'our' vision wherein we are responsible for all people around the world with no reference to culture or opposition to us. This is the thinking that got us to create a Muslim stronghold in Kosovo, has us sending billions to Afghanistan and Iraq, and facilitates mass Muslim immigration into the West. 

We are not all the same. We are not all on the same side. We have our 'ours,' they have theirs. The little jihadis-in-training Palestinian boys are not 'our' boys. They are 'our' enemies. I don't want to give scholarships to deserving Saudi Arabian students. The Saudis support terrorism and the destruction of the West. I want to help our children, but not my enemy's children. This is basic culturist logic.

Even if the 'our' in #Bring Back Our Girls refers to the Nigerian girls as 'ours' because they are Christians, I am dubious about saving them. Nigeria is not a core western nation. If we want to save 'our' girls I suggest we start by pursuing and severely prosecuting Muslim 'grooming' gangs who target British girls for gang rape and prostitution. Britain is a core western nation. Rescuing grooming gang victims would keep our money in the West, and promote culturist thinking at home.John K. Press, Ph.D. Namseoul University

Wednesday, May 7, 2014


One evening recently, my literature group dove into Seeds, by Sherwood Anderson. This short story explores the Freudian, sexual dynamics within a young woman. Largely raised without a father figure, she craves sex, and yet, simultaneously, is entirely repelled by it. At the end of this article, I will discuss how such art can add to vital culturist discussions.
This young woman who is repelled by sex exudes it in other ways; she routinely keeps the door ajar when showering and lays around the boarding house in seductive poses. Near the end of Anderson’s story, her landlady tries to evict her for this inappropriate behavior.
Facing her imminent eviction, the young woman runs into the room of a poor painter who has a facility for words. Among the men, this painting intellectual had taken the least notice of her. While asking the painter to "take her," she drops to her knees. When the trailing landlady enters the room and sees this, she pulls the wanton woman up to her feet and both women begin berating the painter. This reaction seems counter-intuitive, until we consider Seeds as a Freudian analogy.
Positing Freudian symbolism, I told my literature group that the sex-obsessed woman is the id: that is, the primal sexual drive postulated by Freud; the landlady represents the super-ego (that is, what society demands of you – in this instance keeping your sexual urges contained); and the man, the painter, represents the ego. Our egos are the attempt to balance the two opposed forces, to satisfy our sexual drive within the limits of social propriety.
In the literature group I defended Anderson's main supposition, the idea that unresolved issues from our family upbringing impact who we love and what we do for a living. I know that, in my own case, I have followed in my father's profession of being a professor, partially out of competition. And, my battle for acknowledgement – this very article in fact – in some ways comes from an urge to be acknowledged, to make up for love I lacked as a child.
But, then I took a leap of faith – I postulated that Koreans (I live and work in Korea) have fewer subconscious traumas than westerners. Koreans feel less individual strife as they do what their families and nation tell them to do. Being collectivists, they live with a much stronger sense of super-ego and very repressed ids. My friends disagreed: Korea is very strict around virginity prior to marriage, yes, but it has – as a result – more prostitution than other nations. I cannot confirm that assertion. But, this brings up the idea of psychoanalyzing nations.
Nations have different psychologies. The id has been let loose in the West. We have forgotten that sexual force needs to be controlled and constrained by the super-ego. And this is disastrous. If our young women are all pregnant by seventeen with no sense of social responsibility, their generation will not get educated. This dismissal of the super-ego, calling society's restraints 'artificial,' will lead to the West's end as a first-world civilization. On the other hand, Korea is not making babies. It is turning into a first-world ghost town. Balance is required.
In Anderson's Seeds, the painter offers to marry the sexually driven woman. He sees this as a way to resolve her issues. But, he then realizes that she will still be a mess of untidy subconscious drives (he realizes this because he sees such never-ending drives in himself and realizes marriage will not solve them). He thinks undertaking a marriage in the hopes of quieting the subconscious is dishonest and shallow. Perhaps fearing he'll lose inspiration for his paintings, he abandons the young woman.
I agree that we will never stop the battle between rationality and irrationality – individually or collectively. But, I disagree that this means we throw out institutions such as marriage. In fact, I take our inability to resolve subconscious struggles to mean we can keep marriage without fear of mental sterility. Thus, in fighting over Anderson's short story, my literature group hit upon some fundamental realizations about our selves individually and our society. 
We need to debate the balance (or imbalance) of the id and super-ego in our culture. We need to understand the impact of our considering limitations 'artificial' and 'inauthentic.' Literature groups and engrossing psychoanalytic stories such as Anderson's Seeds can provide a great springboard for such discussions. That's why, as a culturist, I implore you to start a literature group, read Anderson's Seeds, and disseminate cultural psychoanalysis.