CNN LIES BOLDLY on CULTURIST 9-11 MOSQUE SENTIMENT

CNN is such a shameless group of liars it is completely unbelievable!  WOW !!  

Read the text in this screenshot.  It says the supporters of the mosque numbered 250.  The screenshot shows CNN video of the rally supporting the 9 - 11 Victory Mosque available on the same page.  Do you count 250?  I count 6.  And please note the second sign which reads "google: U.S. Jewish Billionaires."  Yes, this is one of the supporters of tolerance that they champion.  

In truth, there were way over a thousand out in opposition to the mosque.  The video CNN included did not show ANY FOOTAGE from the opposition rally.  They just interviewed a few hardhats in isolation.  Why didn't they show our opposition rally??  Because any image of the rally would have shown a much, much greater number than 450.   

See that footage for yourself . . . here

No wonder culturists call these shameless propagandizing liars the 

                                  CRESCENT NEWS NETWORK.

www.culturism.us

An NYC Anti-Israeli Protest's Culturist Lessons

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!!!

The Armenian Genocide and Culturism

President Obama's refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide and his willingness to apologize to Muslim nations for our transgressions shows his poor grasp of culturist realities.

Ron Paul, Pamela Geller, and Culturism at CPAC

At CPAC three positions on Islam were apparent. One was represented by Pamela Geller’s “Freedom Defense Initiative” conference. The second came from the Ron Paul followers. And the third appeared in the conference’s otherwise deafening silence on Islam. Culturism has a lot to say about all three positions.

Ron Paul’s followers believe that Islamic terrorist attacks result from our overbearing presence in the Middle East. Therefore, they recommend pulling our troops out of that region. As a culturist, I agree that we should not be nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a culturist I believe the project of turning these nations into progressive democracies with respect for individual rights will fail because their cultures will not support such changes. And I agree with Ron Paul’s argument for disengagement based on our inability to afford these nation-building enterprises. Western culturists know that if the West is not solvent our values will die globally.

But none of Paul’s followers could explain why the Jihad in Thailand and India exist. Neither nation has military bases outside of their own borders. As multiculturalists do, the followers of Paul fail to appreciate that diversity is real and important. Diversity is not just about food, festivals, and fashion. Some cultures drop out of school early and think teen pregnancy is not so bad. Other cultures think our way of life is a blasphemous affront to God. Diversity is real and important. Overlooking the cultural aspects of Jihad will not safeguard us.

Geller’s event explained domestic Jihad initiatives. Whereas Paul could not believe that an aggressive Islam for Islam’s sake exists, Geller’s speakers clearly showed that it can and does exist. As a culturist, I agreed with their domestic solution. We need culturist profiling at airports. We need to limit Islamic immigration. That is not, by the way, racist - it is culturist. And, we need to recognize that western cultural practices and laws are the norm and standard in western nations. We should not recognize Sharia courts or allow, for example, veils in photo Identification. Unlike multiculturalists, culturists recognize that the West has a culture to protect and promote. Domestically Geller’s group was very culturist.

Culturism and Geller diverge on foreign policy. Culturism believes in national cultural sovereignty. Allen West said we should seek to defeat Islam, not Muslims. I am unclear how the two are to be separated. Quoting Ronald Reagan, he said victory means “we win, they lose.” That statement holds too little nuance for me. We all agree on bombing Iran’s nuclear sites and being aggressive in regions of Afghanistan that harbor terrorist. But culturists do not believe we will convert Islamic nations by the sword. If we want the sovereignty to pursue culturist policies domestically, we must also grant that right to other nations. We are not the world. We are the West. The idea that we will convert Islam nations by the sword is, as Ron Paul says, a dangerous proposition we cannot afford.

At CPAC the third position on Islam, and the largest, was overwhelming silence. Outside of Ron Paul’s “Why real conservatives don’t support the war on terror” meeting and Geller’s event, few deemed Islam worth discussing. Ron Paul at least wants to debate our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Geller schooled the conference on domestic threats. We conservatives, as Americans and as Westerners, need to accept culturist position that our culture is not that of the world. Diversity exists internationally. Furthermore, we must shake off the multicultural position that the West has no core culture to protect. Geller and Paul have done us a great service in making conservatives think about the West’s relationship to Islam.

Where are They Now? Culturist John

Culturist John is now Dr. John K. Press. My dissertation on Frances Kellor and the Americanization movement is done. And, now that I am free to attack, sans concern about PC, mulituculturalism and all of its splendors, I am out of gas. I would say that I am defeated, but exhausted is kinder. But I am exhausted from fighting on a couple of text-based fronts.

I have some fun with text. I continue to revise my Frances Kellor project. Two agents were interested, and one said she was excited, wanted more, and will accept a rewrite. After ruminating for a few days, i recognized the problem. My doctorate advisor's advice made my work more academic. That is, it made it focus on my argument that the literature had mischaracterized the Americanization movement. Thus all France's actions, and Frances herself, faded into the background. In making it pointed, my dissertation lost its passion for Kellor for Kellor's sake. It lost its broad range of speculation and inquiry. I pledge, in the New Year, to revise the versions that first excited me.

And, I find myself, these days, fighting with text in another arena. I am writing history of education curriculum for a local branch of the State University of New York system. I put my soul into this work. It is beautiful and an accumulation of all of my culturist wisdom, teaching wisdom, and history of education wisdom distilled into 40 pages on a 12 week, three and a half our per class, curriculum. But dweebs, for reasons totally inexplicable to me, wanna mess with it. As this may make me sound uncoachable, I will will show below that it is ridiculous.

The text is and is not the issue. The curriculum is built upon a reader comprised of 400 hand-picked pages of handouts. Every week has full instructions and supplemental question handouts to guide the discussion. Each week is both chronological in presentation and represents a different theme. They sought to replace this noble construction with a book on co-ed education. They did not know it was such a focused book because they read neither my syllabus nor the work before trying to impose. This labor union university higher-up just wants to prove something to themselves. I may lose here, but I'll always have that curriculum.

And the sum total of my life dedicated to cause, mission, and meaning; now with my Ph.D I am qualified to do no work. I should have been a dentist. I would like to think the university martyrs and tortures me for my political stances. They haven't read the curriculum. The content doesn't matter and the results are intangible at best. And as the futility of my five books, many CDs, and various political actions to the landlord become clear I despair of the value of all but the buck.

The last poetic irony follows. When I was young I did telephone sales for a coked up British con-artist. When out of his mind he would pace the room and shout, "Stay with the pitch." His con written his way, was the best way. Now after devoting my life to creating meaning, my new real estate position will - for the sake of money - require me to "stay with the pitch." And, as such, word oppress me. Wittgenstein should know they go straight from the system to the heart.

Feminism, culturism and group rights

The late Susan Moller Okin was an academic who argued that multiculturalism hurts feminism. This was great. In doing so she largely argued against Will Kymlicka’s arguments for legally protecting minority’s cultural rights such as that to have polygamy. Some of the points Okin makes are useful to culturists in their arguments. And, from a culturist perspective Okin makes some major missteps. But, overall, her pointing out that multiculturalism is bad for women constitutes a significant contribution to culturist literature.

Kymlicka argues that we should protect liberal non-western minority cultures inside the West. Kymlicka supports Sharia law. Astoundingly, for an academic, Okin, notes that no other cultures are as liberal to women as the West. From women’s vantage point, every granting of indigenous rights is a slap in the face of feminism. Okin notes the slippery slope from valuing cultures in education to granting group rights. And she successfully argues the culturist point that Kymlicka and multiculturalists underestimate diversity and the West’s uniqueness.

Kymlicka wants traditional cultures to be able to have separate cultural laws and autonomy within the West. He would, however, still allow violations of individual liberties to still be taken to State courts. This is how he proposes to square western rights with illiberal cultures’ practices. Okin counters that Kymlicka underestimates the division between the private and the public. A culture indeed may not discriminate against a woman’s ability to vote, but much of her oppression takes place in the private sphere. A Muslim girl being pressured to leave 10th grade in order to marry her cousin may not have the wherewithal to go to the majority cultures’ court. If we note that not all rights are public, we understand that public law may not protect the individual rights of women in illiberal subcultures. This will be doubly true if we grant the diverse cultures group rights protections.

Within the debate we hear about girls torn between the demeaning and limiting messages they get at home and the feminist messages at school. Okin implies, but does not state, that feminist teaching could be a great wedge by which to attack multiculturalism. But she wants to use feminism to undermine all cultural restrictions, western and non-western alike. She argues that we need a universal sisterhood to attack multiculturalism. Kymlicka argues for cultural rights due to the uses the psychological benefits of having a “rich and secure cultural structure, with special language and history.” Neither he nor Okin consider using the advanced condition of women in the West as a source of common identity and meaning. This would be the culturist strategy.

Culturism does not advocate basing our actions on the universal ideal of humans liberated from their context in the way that Okin does. She decries Orthodox Jews for typecasting boys and girls. But having studied Jewish history will increase these youths ability to communicate with other westerners. Some subcultures are more compatible with western culture than others. And, more importantly, we live in a particular western culture that has been cultivated for well over two thousand years. We should not strive to release people from our own cultural limits and guidance in the name of universal ideals. The desire to go universal leads to the alienation in the West that feeds multiculturalism. Feminists should not attack the West for having had cultural ideals, they should celebrate feminist history as western and western history as feminist.

Okin has done a great job in attacking the fallacies of multiculturalism and highlighting a how feminist the West is. But her desire to protect refugees of gender discrimination undermines our sovereignty. It fails to recognize how real cultural diversity is. Her idea of universal sisterhood fails to take the viability of illiberal cultures seriously. It also overestimates our viability. If people in other nations want to become more feminist, I welcome it. But in the meantime, we can better protect feminism by celebrating and protecting the West than by undermining our pride and culture by arguing for universal sisterhoods’ war on all cultural structures. But, besides having taken a universalist stance that erodes our group pride and sovereignty, Okin has done a great service by pointing out that multiculturalism can be bad for feminism.

FIght multiculturalism, spread the words culturism and culturist

Secular Culturist not Secular Humanist

Coulter, Jews and Culturism

I saw Ann Coulter last night. Not surprisingly, she made some shocking remarks. Amongst them was the claim that liberals hate Jews. A liberal audience member hated the fact that she used the word hate! She responded by arguing that between covering for Palestinian atrocities, blaming Jews for infractions, protecting Ahmadinejad and other policies enabling the annihilation of Israel, it seemed like hate.

Then the liberal asked her a very interesting question, “If liberals hate Jews, why did the vast majority vote for Obama?” Coulter said she was personally dumbfounded by the phenomenon. She didn’t know. But she guessed it had to do with Jews once having been the “popular victims” and not having realized they’d lost the status. She has the instincts of a lightening rod! Her answer did not satisfy me.

Herein it gets personal. I am Jewish. And, though I do not identify as such, as thinker I must ask, “would it be anti-culturism if I did identify as a Jew?“ The answer is no. That is because Judaism is integral to Western history. We share values with the West. To be Jewish is to be a part of the West.

That said, culturists being culturists they must acknowledge Judaism has distinct cultural propensities. When the Jews came to America, like others, they brought their own history, tradition and ideologies with them. The largest influx of Jews to come to our shores was escaping tyranny and oppression at the hands of the Russian czar. A large faction was also embracing socialism as they rejected the faith of their fathers.

Jews' leading roles in the Civil Rights movement likely reflect this history. This Jewish orientation, magnified by a propensity for being lawyers inherited from Talmudic traditions, definitely sped up the rise of civil rights, multiculturalism and open borders. For better or worse, history impacts culture. And the entry of particular cultures into mainstream culture also has an impact.

Blindly using laws to assist all victims hurts Jews. We do not benefit when protecting the rights of anti-semites to enter the nation and spread theocratic ideals. Doing so puts Jews at odds with the protection of western culture. Insanely enough, many Jews even ride this cultural trajectory into positions where they fight for the rights of those who would destroy Israel. Rather than automatically siding with the underdog, due to our broader roots and heritage, we should just fight for the West.

Many Jews are Democrats because their parents were Democrats. Their parents were Democrats for the same reason. Ultimately, we fight for underdogs because of our treatment in Russia. Culturist explanations teach us that people naturally and without much scrutiny absorb the cultures that nurture them. By recognizing this trend we can diffuse it. We can start to ask ourselves why we Jews, of all people, would be so enthusiastic about a disciple of Farrakhan’s friend, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who wants to have discussions with Ahmadinejad.