Culturist Policy Article # 4 – Repatriation

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.

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

There are three approaches to repatriation: racist; ‘absolute culturist,’ and ‘pragmatic culturist.’  This article will completely reject the racist model; explain the problems with the absolute culturist model and promote the pragmatic culturist model.

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

Racist repatriation policy:

Racist policy gets mentioned only to highlight its stupidity and vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation. 

Racists repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western areas.  Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multiethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy would lead to society collapsing into violence. 

Absolute culturist repatriation policy:

Absolute culturists want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their country of origin.  Note how much subtler this is than racist repatriation.  It does not cast Hindus, Asians, and all Africans into the same net.  It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.

The culturist profiling of Muslims is advocated on the basis the belief that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with and even hostile to, western civilization.  From a culturist perspective, this makes sense. However, it suffers from the same potential for civil unrest that the racist position does. 

Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to the West.  If we violate the rights of citizens, we set a precedent and take actions that intrinsically erode our sense of due process. 

Thus the absolute culturist policy, it seems to me, a road to civil disorder and, on a more philosophical level, immediately undermines the West’s view of itself by violating our laws and due process.

Pragmatic Culturist repatriation policy:

The pragmatic culturist policy relies on several measures aimed at stopping the Islamification of the West, while preserving the rule of law.

First of all, in terms of immigration, both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West.  And, to the extent legally possible, both would deny all pending residence permissions.  Neither of these measures compromises our system of law or rights.  Our Constitution protects our citizens.  If you are a foreigner, we have not compromised any rights to which you were entitled. 

This next measure is tailored to the United States, but pragmatic culturist would hope that a legal version pertains in your western nation. In our naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, “that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Furthermore, they “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.”

Sharia law violates our Constitution.  Having supported ISIS or Al Queda means you backed a foreign state. In other words, persons who have backed these terror groups perjured themselves during their naturalization process. As such, such a person is liable for prosecution. However, in the name of efficiency, simply rendering their naturalization null and void and repatriating them will do. 

Furthermore, if you donated to or actively participated in a mosque that is knowingly pro-Sharia and hostile to the West, your citizenship should be revoked.  If you engaged in any un-western practices such as polygamy, female genital mutilation, attending a Sharia court or defying our government proceedings in the name of Islam (for example, not removing your hijab for identification or demanding our schools are halal) repatriation proceedings must proceed immediately. 

Such a policy would allow us to target Muslims who have no intention of assimilating.  And, unlike the absolute culturist position, this policy recognizes the fact that many Muslims are passive in regards to their religion: they drink, smoke and watch football matches on Friday night. To the extent that these folks do not engage in hostile foreign activities, their rights should be protected. People whose rights are protected will not necessarily become antagonistic to their adopted nation. 

To help ‘secular Muslims’ support the West, as detailed in the culturist assimilation policy article, such secular Muslims would be exposed to our common assimilative pressures such as culturist public schools and events. And, ending the foreign funding of mosques on western soil would undercut our enemy’s culturist efforts to radicalize young Muslims. And, as above, fear of repatriation would keep first generation Muslim immigrants from outwardly advocating western culture be replaced.

One might ask, “If pragmatic culturists believe Muslims can be assimilated, why completely stop Islamic immigration?” First of all, large insular communities retard assimilation.  Small amounts of Muslims, neither replenished nor funded by foreign powers, will disperse. Secondly, we can never discount the possibility that the children of moderate Muslims will be radicalized.  We have a right to put the safety of our western citizens in front of the desires of any foreign population to move west.

With these pragmatic culturist repatriation policies, we can regain cultural control of our nations without compromising our sense of legal due process or fomenting civil unrest.