Culturist Jack Bucky, Culturist John Press and Audrey Russo, the final cut.

Please enjoy this edited interview by the great and enthusiastic host, Audrey Russo.  Jack Buckby is the other guest.  He has been a culturist leader for years.  He is the communications officer for Liberty Great Britain, who publishes so much of my stuff.   Audrey Russo is an audio warrior! Thanks to her hard work, this show - her show - gets broadcast on 7 or more terrestrial radio stations.

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 Lessons from Rio's Carnaval

I am in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for carnaval - the biggest party in the world. Drums and costumes, imagination and dance, pervade the megalopolis.  Taking part in this celebration has provided me with some valuable culturist insights. 

Culturism is the science and art by which nations protect, promote their traditional majority cultures.  It is the opposite, therefore, of multiculturalism, where nations are to deny they have a majority culture and promote other cultures within their borders.

Carnaval is a great culturist tool.  The costumed drum and dance troupes, usually including over 3,000 people, are largely drawn from poor neighborhoods; this creates community cohesion.  Ultimately, people of all races and classes get involved.  In the end, this televised explosion of light, color and fun, unites all Brazilians by making them proud of their vibrant culture.

Art can help bind a nation.  When possible, culturism should be fun!! And, to be effective, it should invite wide participation.

Walking home from one of the massive carnaval-related events tonight, I stopped at a food cart.  A 30-something brown-skinned woman took dough and cut it way too slowly, then she put meat on it, wrapped it, and dropped it in a frying vat.  While waiting I spoke with a local man in Spanish. 

He probed, “The US is very capitalistic, eh?”  “Well,” I replied, “you couldn’t just set up a stand like this in the US.  You’d need a business license and the food server would need certificates.  We couldn’t be drinking beers on the street like this.”

We regulate street-level economic activity far more than other nations.  Allowing more sidewalk shops and street food vending in the US would give people easy access to self-employment.  This would make the transition from welfare to work much more feasible. 

My walk home from the carnaval street party took me between neighboring wealthy homes and ghettoes called ‘favelas.’  Favelas consist of improvised brick mountainside homes stacked on top of each other.  In America building homes means adhering to byzantine codes. The favela homes can be rented and sold. Loosening building codes could raise levels of home ownership.

Rio’s favelas are safe now, but they used to be ruled by brutal drug gangs.  These same drug gangs launder money through supporting carnaval.  The police and military battled these forces and won.  Brazil’s heavily armed police still have a heavy presence in the favelas.

Governments must forcefully combat bad people for good people to have a decent quality of life.  Sometimes this requires armored cars and heavy artillery.

These culturist proposals run against our Protestant-Enlightenment culture, from which well-built homes, food served in proper restaurants, and self-policing naturally stem.  But, as we import millions who value babies much more than education, whose culture is rife with gangs, as we increasingly embrace carnaval-style commercialized sensuality, Rio offers culturist tools with which to soften the downfall.

Interview with 'culturist' John Kenneth Press - Spring 2014 Part 1

The Hindu Culturist RSS

British culturist should learn from Hindu culturists. Hindus have been promoting their traditional majority culture in India, as well as combating traitorous Muslims, since the 1890s.  In particular, we should emulate their organization named the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), meaning the ‘Association of National Volunteers.’  The RSS is said to be the largest voluntary organization in the world.

The RSS is a grassroots culturist educational organization. Culturism is the science that acknowledges, promotes, and defends traditional majority cultures. As such, culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism – which denies traditional majority cultures’ existence and status. Thus, as culturists, the RSS teaches about Hindu culture and promotes the fact that India is a Hindu nation.

The RSS was started by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925.  The occasion?  During the annual Ganesha festival, Muslims complained that restrictions against music in front of mosques were not being enforced.  In the face of Muslim intimidation, Hedgewar led troops of young men playing music in front of the mosques. 

Hedgewar noted that Hindus were too easily cowed by the Muslims.  The RSS was started to instill Hindu consciousness and strength into the timid Hindus.  Thus from the beginning the all-male RSS included physical exercise, military drills, marches and weapons training along side Hindu ideological inculcation.[i]  The youth wear uniforms. 5 – 6 million members of the current Indian population have been educated by the RSS. 

This video shows what the RSS looks like in action:

The RSS has some affiliated spin-off groups. The Rashtra Sevika Samiti is the RSS's women's group. It has 3,500 branches. The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad is the student wing. They combat leftist or 'polluting' influences in education. The Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram is the religious affiliate of the RSS. They help people convert back into Hinduism from Christianity and Islam. There is a teachers' council and an RSS affiliated organization dedicated to helping the poor.

Some detractors have likened the RSS to a fascist organization. For one thing, the RSS does not condone ethnic cleansing or genocide. Another difference is that the RSS is strictly non-political. Fascists wanted to control the state; the RSS does not even officially back candidates.²

Despite not engaging in politics, as the RSS was founded in 1925, many of its former and current members now promote Hindu culturism from positions of power. In fact, India's second largest political party, the BJP, came to power with tacit approval from the RSS, loaded with RSS members, and championing the RSS's culturist philosophy.

The RSS refrains from politics because politics corrupts organizations. Political parties have tried to use the massive RSS presence in India to get votes, and then turned their back on the RSS's culturist agenda. If the RSS became political, it too would have to dilute its pro-Hindu message. The RSS's founders understood that India needed to come to understand itself as a Hindu nation before culturist reform could happen via political channels.

India's government is aggressively multicultural. They call this position 'secularism.' But in practice, 'secularism' means that the government denies that Hinduism is India's majority religion and supports minorities rights – specifically in the form of subsidies for mosques and set-aside government seats for Muslims.

The 'secularist' (multicultural) Indian government calls the RSS 'communalists' – we would say 'culturists' – for promoting Hinduism and Hindu identity. As one book explained, "communalism is akin to racism and anti-Semitism."³ So the government calls Hindus, who wish to promote the traditional majority Hindu culture in India, "racist." Sound familiar?

The Indian government has banned the RSS several times, because they promote the idea that India's Muslims are a foreign and potentially dangerous group. Well, Islamic invaders ruled India – often with incredible brutality – for centuries before the British showed up. And Islamic terrorism intent on establishing Muslim dominance continues to this day in India. Cultural diversity is real! As such, it is neither unreasonable nor irrational to ask India to recognize Islam's violent propensities and basic historical facts.

The RSS calls Muslims foreign residents because the Muslim holy land is not in India. Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists, the RSS founders noted, are a part of the larger Hindu community, because their religions are indigenous to India, while Islam's "holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine."⁴ As culturists, the RSS wishes the Indian government would officially recognize that India is the one and only homeland of Hinduism and related religions.

Again, the RSS does not advocate ethnic cleansing or anything like it. The multiculturalists tactic of calling people a hate group for recognizing cultural diversity and noting traditional majority cultures is identical in India as it is in Britain.

Throughout many bans, the RSS has continued building character and Hindu identity with its educational programs. By coupling educational efforts with disaster relief, the RSS has won the hearts of many of the people. Thus, friends of the RSS win elections. And, as a result, the RSS, with its long-term educational vision, has assured that Indian culturists will continue to have a loud voice in India's multicultural government for the foreseeable future.

For those who worry that culturism promotes cultural relativism, please note that I am not advocating that British youth start promoting Hinduism. The RSS classes are run by men who take vows of celibacy and dedicate their entire lives to the RSS, based on the traditional Hindu Guru model. That would not work in Britain! However, indigenous western culturist youth groups, such as the English Defence League, might consider being better organized to promote their culturist agenda. In this regard, India's culturist RSS provides a very good model.

------

1. Bhatt, Chetan, Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths, (Oxford International Publishers, Ltd., Oxford, 2001), p. 119.

2. Jaffrelot, Christophe, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 58.

3. Mukherjee, Aditya, Mukherjee, Mridula, and Mahajan, Sucheta, RSS, School Texts and the Murder of Mahatma Gandhi, (Los Angeles: Sage, 2008), p. 19.

4. Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, (Bombay: Veer Savarkar Prakashan, 1923), p. 113.

---

[i] Bhatt, Chetan, Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths, (Oxford International Publishers, Ltd., Oxford, 2001), p. 119

Frances Kellor, Citizenship, and Me

I just finished writing my newest book, Founding Mother: Frances Kellor and the Quest for Progressive Democracy.  And the end of this book has occasioned some personal philosophical reflecting. You see, Frances Kellor argued that citizenship required political participation.  Personally, she dedicated her life to designing and implementing social reform.  And, I have lived by these precepts too. But my friends just want to have fun.  Is that okay?

In some ways circumstances call me to action.  If your neighbor’s house were on fire, would you not feel compelled to act?  Well, I believe the nation is going up in flames.  Therefore, I am compelled to act.  Kellor’s impoverished upbringing likely led to her making her first two books about defending exploited women.  My sense of emergency and her despair over injustice provide legitimate motives to social action.

Kellor implicitly denigrated domestic life.  She did not overtly say that women should leave their homes.  But she did descry domestic values that focused more on rumors of fidelity than those of tainted milk and immigrant exploitation.  She sought to shake women out of their private worlds via engaging them in basketball.  Women particularly needed to switch from the private to a public orientations to reach their potential and help America reach its.  

Kellor’s private life is partially obscured.  She lived with her girlfriend Mary Dreier for 47 years.  And they took vacations together.  But her private letters rarely mention activism and her activism only implicitly addressed her lesbian romance. Kellor founded the National Urban League and international arbitration, ran the Americanization program, two Presidential campaigns and more. She had no children as she dedicated her life to public service. And for that she deserves our respect.

But people in my life watch T.V. and never mention politics.  And, without engagement I personally feel useless and unimportant.  Perhaps my constant striving for a cause has a touch of insecurity attached to it; I want to matter.  Writing Founding Mother, and so sharing Frances Kellor, gave me a sense of doing something important for the public. With its completion questions about public life and identity come to the fore.

At what point do we, Kellor and I, let people rest and live as private citizens?  Television is passive. But do I consider all who watch it worthless? How much public activism must one mix with their meaningless private consumerism and family raising to be considered a good citizen? 

John Kenneth Press, Ph.D. is the author of Founding Mother: Frances Kellor and the Quest for Participatory Democracy.  www.franceskellor.com has more information.

Culturism in New York's Daily News

Culturism, Me, and the Tea Party got blended in this Sunday, June 13th article !  

If you are having trouble reading the article, double click the image for a larger version.

www.culturism.us