Culturist Policy Article # 2 – Foreign Policy

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

--   --   --   --   --   --   --   --  -- 

Culturist foreign policy in a nutshell: bomb those who hurt us (with an intent to inflict pain); aid our friends, not our enemies; and otherwise mind our own business. 

Globalists think the world agrees on fundamental values and thus all people can be united: Multiculturalists promote that idea domestically.  Culturists believe that cultures disagree on, and fight over, values and territory.   

--   --   --   --  --   --   --   --   --   -- 

- Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan -

The US is officially in Iraq and Afghanistan to turn them into western-style progressive democracies with freedom of speech, separation of church and state, women’s rights, etc., However, Islamic nations reject these values; cultural diversity dooms these nation-building missions. 

From a culturist perspective, what Muslims do to each other is not our business.  If China does not have a democracy or gay rights, that is not our business.  Our culturist job is to protect our own western traditional majority culture, not to go bankrupt undermining other nations’ sovereignty.

- Bomb when you bomb -

That is not to say that culturist foreign policy is strictly isolationist.  If nation attacks us, we should bomb so heavily and hard that they will remember it for a long time.  Then, the next time a terrorist group tries to set up camp in their nation, the country might put some effort into routing them out. 

- Iran cannot have the bomb -

Because they are our enemy, Iran cannot have the bomb.  If they do not dismantle their means of production voluntarily, we should use military force to eradicate their bomb-making potential. After that, we should leave Iran immediately: no trying to make them a democracy, no rebuilding aid. 

- Reject non-Western asylum seekers -

The above policies can only lead to domestic terrorism via Islamic sympathizers in our western nations. Multiculturalists tell us that Muslims are also western and they share our values: Neither is true.  We must stop all Islamic immigration into the West now.

- We have sides in international battles -

Our globalist western leaders see themselves as neutral mediators in the Israeli / Palestinian talks (and those with Muslims in India, Thailand, Nigeria, etc. ).  We are not neutral! Where practical, we must check Islamic expansion.  We should not be asking our allies to make concessions to our enemies.

- Our first duty is to protect ourselves -

If we fall, neither China nor Iran will promote ‘human rights;’ Such rights are, in fact, only ‘western rights.’  Therefore, if we want to protect ‘human rights,’ we must avoid bankruptcy.  We should drastically reduce foreign aid and give zero dollars to non-western nations.

The Culturist Battle in Ferguson

The U.S. is rightfully nervous about the battle in Ferguson: the shooting of Michael Brown, the retaliatory shooting of two police officers the shooter’s prosecution.  However, it is important that we know that the real battle is between two ways of defining America, because our nation’s fate depends upon which definition prevails. 

On one side we have the multicultural narrative.

Michael Brown’s supporters – and I include President Obama and his Administration in this category – see the Ferguson teenager’s death as proof that America is a racist nation that will never give “people of color” and other “historically under-represented minorities” a fair shake.  This narrative paints America as a source of oppression that must be fought.

On the other side, we have the patriotic narrative.

Our traditional patriotic narrative points to America as the New World, where innovation and freedom have led to the greatest expansion of wealth the planet has ever known. Here, with hard work, anyone can achieve their dreams. This narrative teaches us pride in our nation and challenges us to work hard in order to sustain and honor it.

If we continue to push the multicultural narrative, our nation will dissolve in race-based resentment.  If we can revive the patriotic narrative, we will be united, solvent and strong.

Since African-Americans are at the heart of the multicultural narrative, converting them to our narrative is key to winning this life-or-death debate.

First of all, to win the debate, we must aggressively criticize black-American culture.  Black - Americans are poor because their thug-life culture is violent, too sexualized, and hostile to education.  Black – on –black homicide is the cause of cheapening black lives, not police.  They are not victims of America, (America is great), they are the victims of themselves and their cultural degeneracy.

Using the term ‘culturist’ will allow us to make these necessary criticisms of black culture.    If we say it now, multiculturalists just call us ‘racist.’  Using the term ‘culturist’ points overtly to our concerns being about culture, not race. “If cultural diversity is real,” we can reply, “then we need to be able to talk about it.”  The discussion, we will note, is culturist, not racist.

Secondly, we must appeal to what the black – American author of the book Culturism calls “right – minded” blacks.[i]  They are sick of having their reputations tarnished by association with the black under-class, he tells us.  And, we must join them in celebrating great black-American patriots such as Crispus Attucks and Kobe Bryant.  If we can get African-Americans to again see themselves as a great part of a wonderful country, we will all win.  

Winning this debate will take discussing facts. But, it must also involve culturist public events and pressure.  Handing out American flags in Ferguson, and shaming all who do not treat the flags well, would be a great start.

The physical battle in Ferguson is terrible.  But, it is only a symptom of the real battle, the narrative battle.  If we lose that battle, I am afraid, we will lose the nation. 

---

[i] Hampton, Scott, Culturism: The Real Reasons People Dislike African-Americans - And Race Has Nothing to Do with It. Atlanta: Lehigh Press, 2014.

Culturist Policy Article # 1 - Islamic Immigration

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in or supports the art or science of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy. - adj.

--   --  --   --  --   --   --   --   --  --

Culturist immigration policy calls for an immediately halt all Muslim immigration into western nations.  Cultural differences, history, and recent events justify this position.  We must counter globalist and multiculturalists politicians’ culturally-neutral, open-borders agenda.

Western culture has its roots in Athens (the scientific / secular approach) and Jerusalem (our Judeo-Christian roots).   Both sources of western culture dovetail in esteeming the conscience of the individual.  Democracy and freedom of speech, for example, are rooted in respect for individual’s reasoning capacity.

Islam means ‘Submission.’  Submission herein is not just a matter of establishing a personal relationship with God as the individual sees fit. Muhammad ruled the government and religion at the same time, making theocracy an Islamic ideal.  Thus in Islamic nation after Islamic nation we find either full-blown theocracies or pressure for theocracy. 

Individual conscience and theocracy are incompatible.  Increasing the size of a population that holds values inimical to those of our traditional majority culture erodes and endangers the foundation of our culture.  History and recent events prove that this is not only a theoretical debate; It is a matter of life and death.

Historically, Islam has long been hostile to the West: They took Spain; They took Constantinople; Islam’s western attacks were stopped in France by Charles ‘the Hammer’ Martel in 732; Islam’s eastern advances were halted at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.   Culturists agree with Faulkner’s sentiment - the past is never dead and buried; in fact, it isn’t even past.

Recent terrorist attacks provide all-to-concrete evidence that the past is prologue. 9/11 in New York, the 7/7 London bus bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and the Charlie Hebdo attack are just the peaks of a sustained hum of terror coming from the West’s Islamic population.  We have a right to immigration laws that err on the side of physically protecting our populations.  Politicians who deny this have blood on their hands.

Prohibiting more Muslims from becoming citizens in western nations is not racist – it is culturist.  It would not depend upon whether the Muslim were black, Middle Eastern, white, Asian or Latino.  Religion is cultural, not racial. Cultural diversity is real, therefore culturist policy is rational and justified. Culturist will happily debate any politician who thinks cultural diversity is not real and important.

Those who say this immigration policy violates some ‘universal,’ ‘human rights’ norm are globalists, not culturists.  All non-western nations have culturist or racist immigration laws. Culturists need to ask globalist politicians why only western nations must be held to their ‘globalist,’ ‘human rights’ standard, why we cannot be culturist like other nations.   

Politicians who reject culturist immigration policy because western culture is grounded in religious tolerance must understand that our western Constitutions and laws only protect our western citizens’ freedom of religion.  Our laws are national, not international. A later culturist policy article will discuss domestic freedom of religion. But, our religious tolerance laws do not protect foreign Muslims’ right to immigrate to the West.

Lastly, multiculturalists will object to this proposed immigration policy with their defining beliefs: The West has no core culture to protect; It is a culturally neutral zone where random cultures happen to coincide; the West is just as Hindu and Muslim as it is Christian and secular; we cannot favor any culture or consider any cultural traits in our laws. Culturists affirm that the West is not Islamic; Islam is hostile to the West; and we have a legal right to protect ourselves. 

Because cultural diversity is real, history is important, conflict exists, and our citizens have been harmed, culturist immigration policy would immediately halt all Islamic immigration to western nations.

Culturist Lessons from Argentina's Border

Half of the Foz do Iguacu waterfall is in Argentina and half is in Brazil.  The Brazilian half is amazing.  But, the wife and I heard that the Argentinean side was even more spectacular.  Getting to the Argentinean side fueled the following explosive culturist rant!

Long story short, Americans must pay $160 to visit Argentina for a day.  Why?  Reciprocity.  We charge them for visas generally, so they charge us huge sums for one day.  They said it was fair?  Fair?!?!  I’ll tell you what fair is!

When nations get angry at the United States for not being fair and generous, remember that the West – largely the US – invented the ideas of being fair. 

We have endless nuclear weapons and Argentina has zero.  If we wanted to, we could easily tell them, “Tell you what, you drop the visa fee, and send us 4 billion dollars a month and we won’t nuke you!  Is that fair?”

If you think this policy suggestion is outlandish, think again. Historically, nations have gone to war to steal land and get slaves.  Even now, Iran just wants to nuke Israel to kill its people, with no eye to profit.  China is slowly retaking Asia via expanding its air and water borders because it can, not to spread fairness. 

So Argentina is using the “fairness” doctrine we created, with resentment, against us.  As always, of course, it is much worse than it seems.

In 2012 Argentina got 178.9 million dollars in aid.[i]  This is from the ‘global community.’  But the ‘global community’ always means the US is footing the majority of the bill.  This even though, Pew Global Attitude Survey shows Argentina’s population largely considers us, an “enemy.”[ii]

Of course, it is much worse than it seems.  In 2012, the West Bank and Gaza got 1.8 billion dollars in US aid.[iii]  This is the very same Gaza that is hurling missiles at our ally Israel every chance it gets.  Is that fair enough for you?

Of course, it is worse than it seems.  Afghanistan housed the terrorists that murderously attacked the US and the heart of the Western economy on September 11^th, 2001.  As a result, we are trying to rebuild their nation and are supporting its infrastructure.  Is that fair enough? 

China is kicking our butts economically.  And, though the amount is declining sharply, we gave China 28.3 million dollars in foreign assistance in 2012.[iv]  That may not sound like a lot.  But, compare it with the amount of financial assistance the world has given the West in the last 100 years: exactly ZERO dollars.

Aiding our enemies and competitors is more than fair.  It is insane.  This insanity stems from a combination of multiculturalism and globalism.  The multiculturalism means that we don’t judge any cultures – including our Islamic enemies. The globalist part means we don’t take sides.  Saudi Arabia only aids the Palestinians, but we aid the Palestinians and the Israelis because we’re ‘global citizens.’  We support everyone on the globe equally.  Globalism means never taking sides.

The culturist foreign policy position is that we take care of ourselves first!  And, if we must send money or military overseas, we aid our friends, not our enemies.  That may not be fair, but it isn’t insane either!

OK.  I have a proposal meant to clarify the parameters of the possible:  Argentina drops the fees on us and we make Argentineans pay huge fees to enter the US.  We do this until all of the foreign aid we have ever given them is paid back.  And, if they refuse?  We’ll show them what normal nations - with the imbalance of power our nukes provides – have normally done. 

That seems fair to me!

---

[i] List of Countries by Foreign Aid Received, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign_aid_received

[ii] The U.S. Gives the Most Aid to Countries that Hate It the Most, Vocative, http://www.vocativ.com/usa/us-politics/irony-alert-u-s-gives-aid-countries-hate-us/

[iii] West Bank and Gaza Strip, Global Humanitarian Assistance, http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/countryprofile/palestineopt

[iv] Aiding and Abetting: Why are the United States and Japan still giving Tens of Millions of Dollars in Aid to China? Foreign Policy Magazine, July 12, 2013, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/12/aiding-and-abetting/