Mexican Flu, Drop Out Rates, Our Culturist History and Culturism

We have a long history of culturist citizenship and immigration laws. Some were questionable. And some of them were good. All were unquestionably our right to enact and enforce. The Mexican Flu outbreak has killed at least 81 folks in Mexico City and infected many folks in the U.S. If we had a border fence it would allow us to screen out those with signs of disease. That, along with lunacy, likelihood to become a public charge, being an anarchist, illiteracy, criminal background, and eventually being from Eastern or Southern Europe were culturist grounds for exclusion from the country between 1890 and 1965. These immigration laws, along with Prohibition, Puritan Laws, the first and second Great Awakenings and the Abolition movement show our culturist historical tradition. We have long been a culturist nation. But the ability to exclude those with contagious diseases has long been a reason to have an immigrant inspection center like at Ellis Island.

The Mexican Flu is causing schools to be shut down in Mexico. Mexican President Felipe Calderone has arrogated powers to isolate those infected, perhaps a prudent move. When the Chinese had the SARS outbreak, they also isolate the inflicted. They quickly set up concrete quarantine buildings. They also restricted movement within the country to stop contagion. An authoritarian can do such things on a dime. And it worked. Sometimes individual rights considering the culturist rights of the larger population can have beneficial affects. SARS was whipped in China. We dod restrict immigration from China. This confirmed the culturist premise that you have no international right to be in America or an American citizen. Had the disease broken out in American populations, quarantine been imposed and movement restricted, the ACLU would sue because they think individual rights should override culturist rights. They misread the Constitution. And, as a result of their action, many more Americans would die.

Today I went to an Educational policy lecture. I saw two of the three panelists. They were good. They reminded me of what practice is. I haven’t taught in a public high school for a few years. And, it was, frankly, inspiring to hear one presenter passionately describe their after school program and another their personal intervention program. They showed results. But in 2007, NYC’s graduation rate had risen to 52.2%. As a culturist I have to notice only 23.5% of students learning the English language graduated. As above, we need to see what impact immigration has on key factors such as education levels, crime, terrorism, and engineering graduates. Engineering relates to education. As a historian of education, I realize that the drop out rate in the 1950s was 50% too. After the USSR launched the Sputnik Satellite, we emphasized science. As a culturist could argue that is what we need to grow economically. If we make schools harder and more drop out and more get higher skills by meeting the challenge, it might be worth it.

The casual use of the word “culturist” in the prior three paragraphs was exemplary. If we just drop the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ in to our conversation, they might spread. As you see above, they have analytical force. Culture comes up in conversation nearly all the time. Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. If we wish to challenge this underestimation of cultural impact, if we want to bring attention to the importance of culture, we need to start employing and spreading these words. I am a culturist. Someday I hope those in education will call themselves culturists. It would be amazing if someone called Lou Dobbs a racist, and he said, “I am a culturist, I believe in culturism not multiculturalism. Immigration laws are culturist not racist.” What if someone asked Obama the culturist question, “Do you take the culturist side and believe western civilization has a core traditional and historic cultural core to protect or are western nations just random collection of various cultures like multiculturalism says?” If you found this culturist analysis interesting, spread the word.

Obama’s Dangerously Multicultural Muslim Advisor: Dalia Mogahed.

Dalia Mogahed is Obama’s new representative to Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. This advisory council should not exist. The previous person appointed to such a post for Obama was his Muslim Outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi. He resigned after being tied to funding terrorist-friendly groups and a radical mosque in Chicago. So Obama must have been under pressure to find a Muslim without terrorist ties. Mogahed is a personable and skillful apologist for Islam. In her book, Who Speaks for Islam? co-authored by John Esposito, she purports to scientifically use polling to tell us Islam is moderate. As such, she preaches the multicultural line that, ironically, argues that cultures are fundamentally equal. Yet, the prior resignation and even her data show alarming cultural data about Islam. But even if she were not an apologist for Islam, the very presence of this council should be cause for concern. Asking for culturism to replace multiculturalism, will help us stop this trend.

Moghahed’s book, Who Speaks for Islam? uses worldwide polling to discover the average Muslim’s thoughts. In a May 8th, 2008 interview concerning the book last year, Mogahed made the point that most Muslims have the same concerns as “people around the world.” She mentioned Jobs, food, education, etc. She preaches the multicultural line that little cultural diversity actually exists. On April 2nd of this year she compared terrorism to other violent crimes. She discounted the connection between Islam and terrorism saying, saying “Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of American’s general acceptance of murder.” Besides willfully ignoring worldwide celebrations of terrorism, this mixed metaphor normalizes terrorism. In the Los Angeles Times she wrote that the West's ignorance of Islam and Muslims has been the fatal flaw” in the war on terror. Eerily, She called this “dangerous” and blamed “right – wing call – in radio.” Apparently she speaks for all muslims and all reasonable people everywhere.

Magahed’s twists her own polling conclusions to press her point. She explains that Muslims do not view the West as monolithic. Muslims “view the United States as very differently than a country like France or Germany.” She goes on to explain that they love France but are “much more negative” about the United States and Britain. Since different perceptions exist within one religion, she reasons, it is not culture or religion that drives peoples’ sentiment. Rather “their perception of country’s policies” drive their disapproval of the US and Britain. Obviously her point is that terrorism and hatred for America do not stem from Islam, but from our foreign policy. First of all, her research does not remove the tie between Islam and hatred of significant portions of the West. The reason the dislike is so high is because it is an Islamic poll. Furthermore, most of the over 13,000 suicide bombers since 9-11 have said they are acting in the name of Islam. But she then goes on to explain that it is actually the more educated and affluent Muslims who hate American and Britain the most. It is very interesting that she fits into this category. We are tempted to ask Ms Magahed where her sentiments lie. But, regardless of her personal opinion, the implication of her spin on her poll is that awareness of, not ignorance of the United States, fuels hatred for it.

Frighteningly, even Magahed's study showed seven percent of Muslims worldwide are “politically radicalized.” This group answered five on a five-scale question when asked if they agree with the statement, “9-11 was completely justified.” This is seven percent of over a billion people. Herein we must literally wonder, because neither she nor her book answer the question, whether a four indicated the attacks were “largely” justified. And, this study included the area where the Muslims have the most favorable view of the United States, Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a place that supplies us very few immigrants to the US. Ominously, she reports the Muslims' percentage of 9-11 approval “France, . . . Germany and Saudi Arabia.”reaches into “double-digits in the low teens.” Thus her own figures should give us chills. For whatever reasons, a very large number of Muslims in the West wish to see it physically attacked! Herein we see complete refutation of the multicultural position that cultural diversity is only harmless fun. Magahed, as a multiculturalist, wants to keep us unaware of the significance of her own figures.

The premise of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is that we are all able to get along and solve conflicts via discussion. This position undermines our ability to equally confront nations that are firmly for violence against the West and her allies. Obama’s last Muslim advisor was found to have been against our nation. As Ann Coulter argued in Treason about McCarthyism, this is perilously close to having USSR advisors during the Cold War. Obama’s new advisor is dedicated to the multicultural position, despite her own evidence, that cultural diversity is relatively benign. Continuing this Council post would validate the view that all Presidents should have advisors telling them cultural diversity does not matter? Once accepted, this position means all mention of cultural diversity becomes irrational racism or Islamophobia. This means any culturist or President who notices cultural diversity cannot partake in political discussions. Furthermore, the existence of this Presidential council affirms the multicultural vision that we have no core culture. We are not, in fact, a Muslim nation. We are a western nation. We need to have laws that recognize our cultural and historical position in the world rather than the sentiments of the Islamic world. Being western, we have not previously had to have Islamic advisors to Presidents telling them to ignore diversity. As actual armed struggle between Islamic nations and ourselves exists, by affirming multiculturalism’s diminished understanding of cultural diversity and of our heritage, this Council jeopardizes our identity and our safety.

Culturism must replace multiculturalism. We need to know that cultural diversity is real and wide. Diversity even includes propensities towards terrorism. Being deadly, culture is a factor that must be acknowledged. To combat her appointment and all it stands for, we must start asking multiculturalists about the importance of diversity and if they really think it is real and important. We must combat their naïve position by popularizing the words “culturism” and “culturist.” Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. When people mention multiculturalism and appointments like this we must ask if the “culturist” position will also be aired or if there is to be no diversity of opinion. If they reply that pointing out cultural diversity is racist, we have to help them to see that race and culture are different. The overt reference to culture by the word ‘culturist’ will help clarify this distinction concisely. We must tell Islamic apologists and multiculturalists that though racism is dangerous and ignorant, we are not discussing race. Furthermore, since cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational and necessary. Thus, infusing these words will change the terms of the debate. And we are losing this public debate. People like Magahed are currently controlling the basis of discussion and have the ear of the President. Multiculturalists have silenced people with the fear of being called a ‘racist.’ We need to use the words “culturism” and “culturist” to defeat the multiculturalist propaganda of people like Ms. Magahed and her Council and reignite meaningful discussions about diversity.

Culturist John in Korea

Culturist Reactions to Somali Pirates

The Diversity Lottery must be stopped to combat multiculturalism and internationalism. This immigration mechanism provides visas to nations with low levels of immigration to the United States. This program’s multicultural logic ignores that we have a culture to protect and thereby flaunts our sovereignty. Somali immigration exemplifies the cultural and physical dangers of such a policy. It invite a foreign and hostile cultures onto our shores. We should, at very least, stop Somali immigration until their piracy of our ships stop. Such culturist immigration policies would remind us that we have a culture as well as a duty and right to protect it.

Multiculturalism is an unthinking philosophy. It blocks thought by asking us to celebrate all cultures. President Obama’s formulation says we must “respect” all cultures. This means that we have no judgment towards them. This limits the use of our reason. It means that considering values, in fact, becomes a thought crime as it might invoke choosing some and not others. Our immigration decisions should consider mores, language, and the cultural ability to honor our Founding Fathers and the principles for which they fought.

Our asylum laws allow people into our nation based upon the concept of international rights. These ignore our sovereignty. But no international right to be in America exists. I have no international right to immigrate to China or be Chinese. Muslim nations restrict the inflow of non-Muslims. We are a western nation. We too have the culturist right to define, guide and protect our national identity. Since these nations refuse entry to all who don’t blend with their cultures, supposedly international rights only violate our sovereignty. Culturist immigration laws would reassert our ability to make decisions based on our needs, safety and culture.

We should ban all Somali immigration until the piracy stops. Then we should make a review of Somali culture, its compatibility with western culture and the progress towards assimilation of Somalis currently in the U.S. This would protect us and punish the Somali pirates. The multicultural idea of not noticing the Somali tendency towards piracy, attacks on U.S. interests and affinity for Jihadi warlords is dangerous. Not recognizing their polygamy, treatment of women, and female genital mutilation lends credence to the multicultural vision of diversity not being important. Not recognizing the enormous financial costs of caring for such a culture reifies the ignoring of economic realities in the name of “international rights.”

Banning Somali immigration would codify culturism. That is, it would legally acknowledge and privilege our western cultural identity. Symbolically it would restore the values and cultural touchstones of honor we have sought to emulate and protect. It would affirm a cultural base into which immigrants could strive to assimilate. It would also discourage their Somali’s brazen refusal to assimilate. It would end our multicultural confusion about our being an international entity on the order of the United Nations. Even if the immediate impact were not great, symbolically, culturist immigration policy would realign our relationship with the world, our immigrants and ourselves in a very healthy way.

Obama's Multiculturalism Endangers the West

President Obama’s being a multiculturalist endangers the West. In a speech in Turkey he announced, “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.” He also called for Turkey to become a part of the EU. Both of these statements reflect a very poor understanding of history and cultural diversity. It is dangerous for our president to be multiculturalist instead of culturist.

His call to have Turkey join the EU shows that he does not respect the sovereignty of the Western world. His ability to do so stems from multiculturalists’ failure to recognize diversity. He announced his desire to join Islam in “rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject.” This statement indicates that all cultures are the same and hold the same basic values. None are different. Diversity does not exist. This multiculturalism needs to be challenged by culturism if the West is to survive.

Culturists know that diversity exists. Anyone with any familiarity with history knows that not all peoples are polite humanists. Obama carefully said we will never be at war with Islam and left out declaring that we have never been at war with Islam. Islam has been at war with Christendom in the name of cultural supremacy for most of the last 1300 years. Secular multicultural Europe has trouble understanding that Muslims really believe in Islam and its supremacy. Turkish entry into the EU would invite massive immigration of a non-western, different and hostile culture. Because diversity exists, we must be culturist.

Names are important. In Obama’s speech he spoke of the “Muslim community” and the “Muslim world.” Neither of these phrases implies borders. It signifies their cross-border unity. But, there is a non-Muslim world as well. We often speak of this space as Europe and call it multicultural. This indicates that it is just a geographic location with no particular tradition. We need a phrase that implies cultural content in the way that Christendom did for centuries. In a post-Enlightenment world, that phrase is “the West.” Using it implies Jerusalem and Athens, shows our cross-border unity, combats multiculturalism, and lets the world know that a non-Muslim world and community also exists.

Obama said, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world.” But, again, as a multiculturalist he must flatten and lie about history. He cannot acknowledge that Islam has stood for a theocratic mode of governance as it still does. He thereby fails to acknowledge the struggle against theocracy and freedom of thought as a major theme of the West since Greece took on Persia. Since the Islamic world is not multiculturalist, this philosophy does not impact them. But it undermines our sense of self as it blinds us to diversity. Our sense of culturism must be dedicated to preserving “the West.”

If Obama is strategically flattening history in order to create global stability and cooperation, I am afraid his plan is doomed to failure. It is doomed because the Islamic world has not forgotten history and denied diversity in the name of multiculturalism. They are culturist. The current existence of theocracies should key us into the fact that secular humanism has not swept the planet and ended history. Diversity still exists. Obama says he wants to “strengthen opportunity for all people.” He is not President of all people. He is the President of a Western nation with a specific history, culture and agenda for which to fight. His not being clear on the fact that diversity exists is dangerous. We need our president to be a western culturist, not a multiculturalist.

Culturist Culture Wars Solution!!

Culturist Liberals Unite!!

Gays, feminists and the liberal intelligentsia should adopt “culturism” as their motto. There is a misconception that culturism is only a “right-wing” philosophy. And culturism does advocate immigration restriction and does seek to unify western citizens around an appreciation for western values. But culturism does this in order to secure the West. And western values include the acceptance of a relatively large separation of church and state as well as rights for gays and women. If you believe in these liberal values, you should support the West, call yourself a “culturist” and back the agenda of culturism.

Western civilization’s trajectory has sent it in the direction of protecting vulnerable groups such as women, gays and atheists. The Greeks fought two wars against the Persians in order to resist theocratic tyranny. Plato wanted society run by “philosopher – Kings,” but he held that women could occupy these positions. Jesus made the least among us sacrosanct. Martin Luther King died for the rights of Americans of African descent. And his Civil Rights efforts, in turn, inspired the gay liberation and women’s liberation movements. Just as liberals do, Culturism celebrates this progression.

Has the West been perfect? No. But herein we find a huge, giant and extremely large failure in the liberal perspective. Liberal academics tend to judge the West against abstract ideals of perfection. In Universities’ gay, lesbian, straight and transsexual as well as women’s studies departments, examine how sexual and gender roles get imagined and implemented. This is fascinating and important work. But the very fact that we explore such ideas shows the West’s extreme liberalism. In the real world, we can only make choices between different levels of limitations. No total freedom exists. Decrying the West because it does not deliver unbounded identity choices ironically leads liberals to identify with illiberal Islamic tyrants.

Gay rights activists and liberals might say "We don't have rights here!" Again, they search for ideals and miss the real. In Islamic nations homosexuals are hung. No rights movements are allowed in China. Women’s’ opportunities in Africa and Latin America pale in comparison to ours. In contrast to the alternate systems in the world, we represent liberal values and freedoms. An academic might say, third world oppression only reflects our having created a world of economic stratification. Again, we must deal with the real illiberal world, not postulated paradisiacal states. All societies have always had stratification; outside of the West no nations have been liberal. The West has flaws. But, after dismantling the West for not giving you all the rights you demand, regardless of public opinion, you'll become nostalgic about the right not to be hung for organizing.

Multiculturalism is based in idealistic and unrealistic thought. It holds that deep down all cultures are liberal. But in the real world, as Obama is finding in his “negotiations” with Iran, disagreement, diversity and evil exist. In this world, we must choose between existing options. Geopolitically, since they are in conflict, you can either side with Islam or the West. Standing up for liberal values requires standing up for western culture and its sovereignty. Multicultural academics that support Islamic immigration to the West imperil women’s rights and gay lives. Consistency demands that western academics, above all others, scrutinize our nations for flaws. Consistency also demands that liberal academics do not support those who would undermine our freedom of speech and thought. At the end of the day, the existence of liberalism requires a solvent West. To protect the rights of gays and women, all liberal academics should become fervent western culturists.

Culturist Economics

Culturism and economics intersect at several places. In fact, our culture has been very important to our economic development. And, a strong economy is important to our culture. We as a society are paying for our lack of culturist thought. Immigration and globalization are driven by multiculturalism. We must again become culturist to undo their damage.

Dropping out of school early and having several children is a formula for personal poverty. Statistics show that this is a cultural distinction of many cultures. In many cultures women are expected to do this. And, shy of that, there is no shame in it. In their home countries, such people are poor. In the first world West they lean on our social services. When you combine this fact with not having ever paid taxes, you have the perfect storm for the creation of a second or third world economy.

Welfare is cultural. All laws are culturist. Welfare only works if people are ashamed to take it. Once everyone thinks it is okay to take it, you get more people taking from the system than paying into it. Without a sense of responsibility and shame, welfare is unsustainable. Laws are culturist in that if you get rid of value judgments and encourage people to take free lunches you sap initiative and responsibility. Culture and social services are intimately intertwined.

We are now at the point where people think that handouts are a right. They do not beg with shame; they demand with all their self-worth. Notice that these attitudes towards social services result from ideas; they are cultural. One is based on Marxist thought that the rich are holding the wealth and we deserve ours. The other comes from the republican capitalist view that wealth comes from generating services or products. We need to teach about the ravages of communism and dangers of demagoguery.

Culturist problems do not only lay with the poor. The business class have taken our manufacturing industries and moved them overseas. This reflects globalist thinking. And this, like multiculturalism, stems from an inability to realize that we have a culture, a side, to be loyal to. This, in turn, has a double effect in that the understanding of factories and how things are made is also goes overseas with the factory; the idea of starting a machine shop to make a part your factory needs disappears. Thus businessmen’s lack of attachment to our nation has undermined our economy. On this note, they also do not seem to mind Sharia financing. They think they are post-modern, post-cultural beings. This is a dangerous fallacy.

Teaching American history is important to the economy. The Founding Fathers spoke often about the importance of self-reliance and the unique nature of our culture. Teaching about western civilization is important. When you do so you realize that cultivating our commitment to the individual took a long historical struggle. Businessmen need to be loyal to the West. Economics must be taught. We have forgotten that Keynesian stimulus requires local factories to be stimulated by purchases. We now are only stimulating China. And economics and history intertwine in the lessons about the evils of communism. A functioning economy requires basic cultural precepts. We need to teach our basic cultural precepts again.

A combination of multiculturalism and globalism has undermined our ability to teach about the importance of culture to an economy. Since multiculturalism teaches that all cultures are equally wonderful and businessmen have no side to be loyal to, we can no longer, as we used to, discuss the intersection of values and economics. This is dangerous. Economics undergird our being the land of opportunity. If the West falls our vision will fall with it. We are not the world. We have nowhere else to live. We are the West. Sustaining the West and its vision requires a realistic sense of responsibility towards it. It requires a sense of culturism.

Culturist Foreign Policy

Culturism leans towards isolationism, but has a foreign policy. But. first culturism is situational and pragmatic. And reasonable culturists may disagree on roll back, containment or isolation. I will give specific culturist policies herein. We may disagree on particular situations. But, as a culturist, I hope you agree on the precepts.

First of all, if we wish our ideas to spread, and not contract, we need to be strong domestically. If people see us as an example to emulate, they will be attracted to our model. If they see us as a bastion of debt, crime and chaos, they will run from our example. We can and should have rallies to show our distaste for, for example, the treatment of women in Pakistan. But, before worrying about people adhering to a different culture in the Swat valley, we must worry about solvency in the West.

Interfering to impose values violates culturist ethics. If we are to interfere we have to recognize the importance of culture; some cultures are more compatible with western values than others. Japan had a high regard for education and a strong sense of duty. Our imposing democracy there has been somewhat successful. Still their culture is very different than ours. Iran is much less likely to become a progressive democracy. Latin America and Russia have teetering democracies. Not all attempts to spread our values meet equal resistance.

Not only compatibility, but relevance to us comes into play. Countries that are geographically and culturally farther away from us are a lower priority. We should be more worried about Greece than Afghanistan. Australia means more to us than Zimbabwe. While India and Pakistan are equidistant from us, India is closer ideologically. They deserve our moral support. Because sides and competition exist there is no “global community.” We have to prioritize our friends and western brethren.

If we are to interfere, it has to be on the basis of pragmatism. We cannot afford to take on more debt in order to try to convert Nigeria into a progressive, rights affirming nation. Nigeria is not so strategically important to us. Even responses to “humanitarian” crisis have to be decided on a culturist basis. Do we have the money or inclination to help tsunami victims or “human rights” violations in Muslim nations? Culturism is against sending “humanitarian” aid to people who hate us. Right now we cannot afford to. Our strength should be our first priority.

Having announced precepts, I will venture some specific foreign policy recommendations. We made a big culturist mistake creating Kosovo, a Muslim majority enclave, in central Europe. We should help Russia with its Muslim lined borders rather than antagonize her. Afghanistan is never going to be our friend. We should kill the 9-11 terrorists, but not give them aid. Western support for Gaza has emboldened Hamas. The ideal of ‘humanitarian aid’ should be heavily tempered by one that recognizes culture and competition. Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. We should militarily destroy their nuclear facilities. But after that, culturism would predict failure in trying to nation build them into a progressive democracy. Besides we do not have the money for it. We have our own infrastructure to repair.

Lastly, culturism rejects the belief that there is a universal desire to be a free acting individual. Culturism not only rejects it metaphysically, but practically. Ruffians that want to bring a culture into bondage are often popular. Cultural diversity exists. If we find some regimes offensive, we can withhold trade, we can denounce their values on our street corners and in the UN. But we likely do not have the money to interfere. And, worse yet, remember that aggressive Islam may yet be able to topple us. Then the "universal desire to drive towards freedom" may only exist in forgotten neo-con dreams.

Culturist NYC Tea Party Protest