Culturism, Affirmative Action, Marxism and Sotomayor

The Supreme Court overruled a decision by President Obama’s choice for that Court, Sonia Sotomayor. To get a promotion as a firefighter in New Haven Connecticut, you must pass a test. In one round of testing few Hispanics and no African Americans passed. As New Haven was afraid of a Federal lawsuit, they tore up the test results. White applicants sued. Sotomayer ruled against them.

The Court decided on the grounds of whether or not potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another. This 5 – 4 decision was a blow against Affirmative Action. And thus, liberals contended, knocks the legs out from the Civic Rights Act. Is this racial discrimination or not? Unfortunately, none considered the possibility that it might be culturist discrimination.

Culturism notes that some cultures study more. Thus some cultures have higher literacy rates. Thus some groups do better in school. Affirmative Action assumes that cultural differences do not exist and, therefore, all distinctions in academic and economic achievement are irrational and due to race. Using this logic America is unfair and racist. Social justice chants echo these sentiments. These lead to lawsuits, resentment, racial discord and – most importantly, no incentive for African – Americans to study harder. Taking a culturist view that black applicants need to study harder, would serve all concerned better.

Liberals claim that the tests are culturally biased. I am not familiar with the details of the test, but it seems that knowledge concerning fire-fighting procedures would likely be fairly objective. If ebonics versus standard English were the issue, black people should take this as proof that they need to master standard English. To expect China, the international business community and the majority of Americans to write tests in ebonics is silly. Refusal to acknowledge this fact does not provide a way forward. If pandered to, ebonics can only lead to ghetto-ization.

Marxism uses the same culturally neutral logic as Affirmative Action. In assuming that all differences in achievement are due to unreasonable bias, it also undermines values. Rather than hard work, anger at injustice becomes the way forward. It also undermines motivation. In the USSR the failure to understand human nature cost tens of millions of lives. In America it seeks to create equality from the bench rather than individual effort. The laziness of the human who has been given excuses undermined the USSR. Freedom leads to disparity. If we crush initiative in the name of equality we may follow the direction of the USSR.

In failing to consider the impact of cultural diversity, Sotomayer and her potential colleagues on the Court become dangerous. Following their logic, they will not stop blaming America until all people achieve at equal rates. As this culturally neutral outcome is impossible, such a stance can only lead to permanent discontent, resentment, and grievance. If Asians are beating whites in college admissions, or whites are beating blacks in passing fire-fighting tests, the answer is personal or cultural responsibility. Those groups need to study harder. This is the way to productivity. Equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcome. Culture is important. Replacing the lefts constant reliance on racist and Marxist thought with culturist thought is vital.

Michael Jackson, Super Culturist

Michael Jackson’s passing has changed our world forever. He took all of the insanity of the world - the phony, the commercial - and distilled it. He strove to embody our nation’s, nay our world’s, sense of beauty. He personified all the trash that we swallow daily and gave us a target to mock. Now that he has gone, we are alone, profoundly alone.

The world no longer has hope. Around the world, the one thing all humans shared was a love for Michael. He was popular in Korea, Nigeria and India. Now that he is gone, nothing positive can unite us. The world is forever splintered. If the people of Iran wanted us to understand them, they’d suspend the protests for a day in honor of Michael. As it is there is no hope of world unity now. In despair, I keep expecting him to reappear in the sky as our redeemer. This is existentialism.

Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer. Flesh destroyed her. Michael transcended flesh. He incarnated and morphed into a surreal sense of beauty. Farrah, God bless her, was an icon that became human. Her tragic downfall brought her down to earth. Michael was an icon that became more of an icon. He was not humanized. Lisa Presley once said, “Michael is an artist. He changes his face for us everyday.” Michael was a great artist. He embodied our dreams. He died for our sins.

Some people will say that his wonderland ranch represented predation. To me, his ranch represented our collective sense of innocence in a violent, sexualized world. It was the silhouette of our existence. We asked for a priest; we basked in his faithfulness to Bubbles. We asked him to not grow up. We looked the other way as he courted Emmanuel Lewis. He gave us our childhood back. He tried to restore our innocence.

The world is in denial. The BBC, CNN, nor MTV will admit just how crappy his post – Jackson Five music was. That would reveal that all of us who drink the cool-aid of pop culture are insane. Michael Jackson was a prophet. He revealed our generation to us as John Lennon had reflected the prior generation. And, so he is gone. We have a big hole where he revenged himself by gouging at our collective hearts. We could laugh at his insanity. But we no longer have anywhere to absorb our tears.

RIP Michael Jackson. RIP Farrah Fawcett.

Wilders Controversy

Western rights exist on a spectrum. It is not a matter of having all of our rights intact or having none at all. Reasonable culturists can disagree as to what the local situation requires. But let's not get polarized over this issue.

Kobe for Culturist MVP!!!

The following is a revised version of a 5/08 post. It is updated and timely!

Kobe Bryant deserves the MVP award from the National Basketball Association for numerous culturist reasons. He also deserves the second annual Culturist of the Year Award. Before writing on this, however, I must confess that I am a HUGE and PROUD lifelong fan of the Los Angeles Lakers. Culturism does not believe in objectivity. Be warned that I have long loved, rooted for and admired Kobe Bryant. That said, there are legitimate and important culturist reasons to celebrate Kobe's being awarded the MVP award.

Kobe's work ethic provides a culturist standard towards which we should all aspire. Kobe answers nearly all questions on bad nights, "We have to work harder, we have failings that we need to address and we have not reached our potential or personal goals." More impressively, Kobe answers questions on winning nights the same way. Kobe's poor personal relationship with Shaq O'Neil led to the dismembering of their three-time championship team. They were winning, but Kobe did not respect Shaq's poor work ethic. If more people consistently valued the work ethic, as Kobe does, we'd be a better nation.

During last year's Olympics, do you remember Kobe - Gate? During the Olympics Kobe repeatedly said what an honor it would be for him to bring the gold to America and how proud he was to represent his country. The media was incensed. An incredulous Chris Collinsworth of NBC interrogated Kobe about this asking "Where does the patriotism come from indie of you? Historically, what is it?" Kobe gave an excellent culturist answer, "It's just our country, it's . . . we believe is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities." After Kobe reiterated that "our country is the best" Collinsworth asked, "Is that the cool thing to do? . . . it seems sort of like a day gone by. Kobe said, "No, it's a cool thing for me to say. I feel great honor about, and I'm not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor."

People have criticized Kobe for being egotistical. This comes from an expectation of entertainment and clown like behavior in celebrities. Kobe smiles often, but he does not show up at parties and provide scandal. His public persona and answers to questions reflect seriousness. He has been accused of not helping his teammates and hogging the ball. His decisions all have to do with winning. Would you call Michelangelo conceited for not making small talk with the Pope? Was it selfish of Einstein to not teach much? Kobe has had harsh words and criticized teammates who do not work. This reflects his taking his craft seriously. Those who want a populist should not watch competitive endeavors. To call Kobe ungenerous is to misunderstand greatness.

The League has ignored Kobe due to the rape charges in Colorado. Kobe deserves some blame for this. But, our sick society deserves more. The woman who accused him had semen from several men in her underwear when the police came. She sought fame or infamy and did not mind the difference. We know where she got these values. Kobe was found not guilty. Since that time, four years ago, Kobe has been - as far as we can tell - totally dedicated to his wife, children and craft. How many NBA players do interviews with their children on their laps? Where Kobe finishes a game and his interview, in the exit tunnel he kisses his two daughters on the way to the locker room. Very few people daily display the devotion and dedication that Kobe displays. I am glad the league cares about morality. Yet they are long overdue in recognizing that Kobe has long been a role model for hard work, dedication, respect and good morals.

Kobe received a lot of flack for his anger at management a couple years ago. And he made flack about being disloyal to his Lakers. But Kobe has only a limited number of years to dominate and he is competitive. Management was surrounding him with players who were not of his caliber. Kobe is not a socialist. His dedication is to excellence and winning. His pronouncements likely led to management getting off their duffs and trading aggressively. His complaining reflected real reasons for worry and showed leadership that has likely made our playoff success possible. Complacency in the face of mediocrity is not a culturist virtue.

Kobe Bryant deserves the MVP award. All who honor achievement, dedication, the work ethic, excellence, patriotism and competitiveness should congratulate him. Sports provide one of the only mass media areas where we actually still have the joy of seeing people dedicated to craft. Basketball has teams that are small enough to see the results of seriousness in individuals pay off. Actor's success comes via agents, lucky breaks and despite themselves. Interviews with important people do not discuss the work they put in to get that way. When we celebrate Kobe Bryant we celebrate the ethics that have made America a top competitor on the world stage. Kobe Bryant has earned the MVP award. He deserves a great culturist congratulation from all of America. Congratulations to Kobe Bryant, the 2007 - 2008 NBA MVP! I know you are sentimental about your Olympic Gold. Now bring in another Lakers' O' Brian trophy.

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

Culturist Solutions, Vlaams Belang, the BNP and the USA

Blogs and political parties focus on the spread of Islam. They have made us aware – if terrorism did not – of the danger Islam can pose to western civilization. But, what solutions can be had? Many worry that right – leaning political parties such as the BNP and Vlaams Belang will, for lack of positive options, move towards advocating ethnic cleansing. Such actions would completely undermine our values and cause major civil unrest. This policy could destroy the West. Culturism relies on history. American history provides lots of positive, legal solutions to the fear of Islamic law growing in western nations.

We have long taken culturist action based upon an appreciation for our culture and its fragility. Puritans, the two Great Awakenings, the Freeman's bureau and Beecher's spreading of women's schools, Abolition and Prohibition, our naturalization and immigration laws, progressivism, the FCC and the Americanization movement all illustrate that we have a culturist heritage. Culturist mass movements of concerned citizens provided the impetus for many of these culturist episodes and mechanisms. We must again come to see ourselves as a culturist nation.

Our culturist immigration laws provide an example of solutions from our history. The 1921 and 1924 immigration laws capped thirty years of culturist agitation. These excluded Southern and Eastern Europeans. The quotas were based on the 1890 census. Right or wrong, culturist immigration laws fall within the scope of our traditions. We also have many other immigration court cases to draw upon. The obvious application is having another culturist law aimed at restricting immigration from Islamic nations. This is not racist, it is culturist. If such laws cannot now pass legal muster, you'd get the same effect by outlawing immigration from terrorist nations. Certainly this is within the rights of our nation.

We also have the right to take our naturalization laws seriously. There is a language component. Besides this, there is a loyalty clause; becoming an American citizen means disavowing allegiance to foreign potentates. We have tossed out folks who advocated the overthrow of our government for violating the loyalty clause before. Another legal tool is ending of monetary remittance to the home country. This would stop American funding of Jihad. People who then stayed here would be clearer that they were working towards the betterment of this nation. We can also stand up for our legal system as a component of our culture. That means saying no to Islamic or Sharia law. That means no polygamy, etc. Taking these culturist stances in law would help

Without invoking legal changes we can insist that schools once again recognize their traditional culturist mission. These need to teach our historical western narrative as a progressive one. One also based on values of duty and responsibility. You teach this by teaching the culturist history mentioned above. The schools of all nations are culturist. They transmit the dominant culture. We should enlarge the scope of our national holidays. We should have thematic parades, etc. This does not mean that those who do not want to partake must, but we have a right to celebrate our majority culture. When it is a good culture, like ours, it is good to do so and serves important culturist purposes.

We must welcome foreign investment, but we cannot allow culturist imperialism in the form of Saudi Funded Whabbi Mosques. Obviously, because of the 1st Amendment, citizens may build whatever religious complexes they like. But, just as we have no international right to build churches in Saudi Arabia or China, there is no international right to build mosques in America. And, herein, demographics are important; we live in a democracy. That means, in part, the majority gets to direct the community via votes. That is self-government. If we wish to vote in such restrictions we may.

The ACLU needs to be counterbalanced by recognizing the legal standing of the majority culture. This is also a tradition. Read the first and second Supreme Court cases concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. The need for a community to perpetuate itself has traditionally had standing. And throughout most of our history the law has assumed the existence of culturist rights exist and balance out individual rights. The modern idea that one individual's sensitivities overrule the entire community's right to perpetuate traditions should be questioned. You do not have the right to build a porn shop next to an elementary school. Self-governance is our tradition.

We must also remember that culturist profiling is not racist profiling. And that while racist profiling would be bad, culturist profiling - because diversity is real - is rational and necessary. Splitting the two allows rational dialogue. This allows you to explain to Muslim citizens of America, that only strongly anti-American mosques and their members will be watched. You can get some in the Muslim community to acknowledge that this is necessary. And then we must scrupulously avoid keeping an eye on anyone for whom there is no probable cause. This way you can have legal, rational security, without violating the rights of Americans. If we violate the rights of people with no sensitivity, resentment will be justified. We have no need to, and should not, antagonize any good Muslim citizens.

Were the demographics frozen as they are now, were Muslims to get no adverse treatment, were radical mosques to stop spreading, were remittance and western cultural laws used to remove the incentive for radicals to move to America, the remaining Muslim population would likely become fairly content and moderate. Remember that rising populations and intimidation feed terrorism. If we praise our culture in our schools and in our discussions, if we provide fun holidays, most every citizen will more enjoy being an American. This is a positive program. It will reap more rewards than pure negativity and unjust discrimination.

We also need to change our international outlook. We must replace the globalist vision with a culturist vision. We have a side in international disputes. Despite what multiculturalists say, we have a core culture. We are the West. We are not the world. Since other nations do not accept refugees we need not. Other nations are culturist, we be so too. We should support Israel and other western nations because they are western. We should not send aid to Muslim countries. Muslim countries do not help us out. We should not be the only non-culturist civilization.

To initiate any of this, we need a shift in public discourse. Right now we would dismiss many of the above solutions as 'racist.' These culturst policies have nothing to do with race. We must recognize them as culturist. This will allow us to discuss such policies rationally on the basis of cultural diversity being real. And, we must embrace this fact. Multiculturalism needs to be counterbalanced. We will always have diversity. But we must stress our unity. We must avoid the extremes of both those who only wish to blindly celebrate diversity and those who preach hatred of Muslims, but provide no positive solutions. The West must acknowledge cultural diversity and start talking about legal and reasonable culturist solutions.

We can help foster culturist awareness and policies by using the terms culturism and culturist. When we use the word culturism we challenge multiculturalism. In every education school in America, students should demand culturst courses counterbalance the multiculturalist ones. When we use the word culturist we help silence those who abuse the word racism to stop conversations. When invoking the words, we stop being the only globalists on the planet and counterbalance the anti-social use of individual rights in the Courts. Finally, using the terms culturism and culturist help us remember our culturist traditions. Unlike multiculturalism, unlike the hysteria of racists, culturism and culturists point to many positive solutions.

Culturist Perspective: The Taliban Spreading

We should not accept refugees from Pakistan. That nation is descending into turmoil. In Pakistan the government is fighting an extremely important fight. The government gave the Islamic group, the Taliban, parts of the Swat Valley region in exchange for peace. Shortly thereafter, the Taliban showed what appeasement does and pushed to expand outside of the agreed upon borders. And their implementation of Islamic law, called Sharia, has been brutal. Beheading and the destruction of hundreds of girls’ schools exemplify the terror the Taliban Muslims seek to expand. 1.3 million people have been internally displaced by this struggle. As culturists we demand that all refugees be sent to Islamic nations, not western ones.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, has called for aid. We can send some aid, but had better not grant anyone from the region asylum. Why not? Well the brutality of the Taliban and their expansion tell us why not.
Multicultural globalists, take a generic view of humanity. They speak of “displaced persons.” But, culturists understand the importance of culture. If a significant percentage of those fighting in Pakistan did not believe in Islam and Sharia law, the war would have never reached this pique. Many people, without dispute, in Pakistan are willing to die for the imposition of repression we can barely imagine. Those displaced will include many of these numbers. Inviting them in means inviting in zealots for repression. These are not displaced persons. That is too generic. These are displaced Muslims.

Humanitarians will shriek at the idea that we recognize culture in times of crisis. “Humans are humans and have human rights!” they will declare. But, again, in rebuttal to these abstract idealists, culturists must point out the real world importance of culture. Diversity exists. Some people, the Taliban should make clear to you, do not embrace the specifically western values of freedom of religion, rights, democracy and freedom of speech. Many people do not believe women should be educated. And they are willing to die for this cause. They are called Muslims. And, therefore, if they are to be displaced they should be displaced within the Muslim world.

In international discussions humanitarians have a double standard. They are willing to acknowledge that there is a “Muslim world,” but not that there is a non-Muslim world. The west is not built upon Islamic foundations, we’ve been at war with Islam for nearly 1400 years. Our roots come from Jerusalem and Athens. Muslims do not allow diversity in their realm because they are culturist. They wish to exercise their right of protecting and promoting their Muslim vision. We have a corresponding right to protect and promote our vision. This requires knowing who we are. When we use “humanitarian” language, we lose sight of our specific past and cultural identity. We are members of the U.N. but we are not a world body. Muslim countries exist and we are not one of them. We, therefore, do not need to accept Muslim refugees.

In the end, a culturist refugee policy actually safeguards rights. We realize this when we see that “human rights” are really “western rights.” China, Iran and the Taliban, do not believe in our freedoms; only western nations do. To protect the vision of rights, you must protect the only nations that stand up for them. Importing folks with a disposition to fight against rights destabilizes us. If we descend into chaos, if we enjoy the division the Taliban Muslims have brought to Pakistan and Afghanistan, China will not follow our model. Watching such Muslim – inspired chaos spread would embolden the theocrats of Iran. If we want reform in Islamic nations we must let them deal with their own internally displaced populations. If we want reform in Islamic nations, we must make sure that we can solidly stand as a beacon of what stability and rights look like. To uphold our western vision, to uphold the western model of rights, we must be culturist.

Culturist Perspective: Islam Day

The resolution to make September 24th, ‘Islam Day’ in Hawaii is culturist blashphemy. The Senate is multiculturalist. That means they do not believe the West has a core traditional culture to promote. They think our land is a blank slate without history where random cultures meet. And, for the sake of equal representation, we must celebrate Islam for a day. Herein is the irony. Multiculturalists do not believe that cultural diversity exists. They think it is all about food, fashion and festivals. They have never heard of Jihad.

Shockingly, Hawaii’s Senate has no basic historical knowledge. The West and Islam have been at war for the vast majority of our 1400 year co-existence. After Islam was born it spread like an imperialist plague. It took a larger chunk of the world in 100 years than Rome did in eight hundred. Why did we have the Crusades? Islam had taken over the Middle East and what is now Israel. We had to fight to re-establish access to the Holy City. That is basic knowledge. Islam nearly toppled the West via the Eastern Europe. We only repelled them in the 1683, September 11th, battle of Vienna. Muslim’s who know basic history know significance of that date. But the Hawaiian Senate doesn’t know any history. If they did, they would not sing the praises of those who nearly destroyed our civilization.

Culturism knows about history and diversity. It knows that history has not ended and that struggles for survival are going on. Islam is expanding. The world is not getting more diverse. The West is getting more diverse. Not China. Not the Middle East. The West: European based nations. Culturism says we must choose immigrants based on what they bring the West and be aware that some cultures are odious to our customs and others are hostile to our survival. Multiculturalism does not want to look at real practice or history. Polygamy and honor killings exist. Acknowledging the importance of culture is not racist, it is culturist. Not all cultures celebrate ‘human rights.’ There is not global community. We have no right to move to Saudi Arabia or China. Only the West supports the idea of western rights. We must protect the West. Celebrating those who oppose our very values does not help.

We have to reassert that we have a specific culture to protect. Since we are a western nation with western values, we should only officially support western holidays. That sends a message concerning values. It tells the world that we have a specific culture. We believe in free speech, the relative separation of church and state, individual rights, female rights, and democracy.. China and Iran do not accept these values. Diversity exists. We have a past to celebrate. We have a triumph over the forces of darkness in our past. And, if we do not stand for this we will fall for anything. To celebrate Islam is to mock those who have died to protect us. It makes a mockery of both September 11ths. It belittles our freedoms to say that other cultures are just as free. We should commemorate 9-11 with a holiday. We should have a holiday for the original Martin Luther. We should have Pope day. But we should not celebrate things outside of our tradition. We should not have Islam Day.

Culturism or Multiculturalism for Korea?