Geert Wilders, a Dutch parliamentarian, was refused entry into the UK. The Muslim community threatened to riot if his film FITNA screened in parliament. Ironically, the Muslims objected to the film’s portrayal of them as intolerant! And since freedom of speech is so central to a functioning democracy, this censorship threatens the continuance of western civilization. In appreciation of Wilder’s efforts, I would like to offer him the intellectual gifts of ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist.‘ Using them will ease and hasten his victory over multiculturalism.
On his website, www.geertwilders.nl, Mr. Wilders posted the speech he was going to read to parliament had he cleared customs. At the end of the speech he blamed “the multicultural project” for undermining western civilization. As a culturist I agree. But the best he can offer is a condemnation of multiculturalism. We need solutions. Culturism provides lots and spreads them cheaply and easily. If he does not use these words, few will remember the ideas in his speech. They will be spun by media and read by few. His ideas will spread quickly if he announces, “I am a culturist and believe in culturism!”
Because multiculturalism is already a household word, citizens of Britain would instantly know what he means by culturism and culturist when he used them. Multiculturalism holds western nations have no core traditional cultures to prefer, promote and protect. Intuitively understanding the opposite of multiculturalism, the Brits would say “Yes,” we do have a core traditional culture and a right to protect it.” They would recognize that all nations are culturist and that our schools and our laws should reflect and protect our traditional cultures. And they would be able to communicate this sentiment as easily as multiculturalists now do theirs.
Wilders’ ban from Britain was partially justified by his being prosecuted for racism. He now has to repeatedly announce that he does not hate all Muslims and that he is not a racist. And this is fine and good, but he would be better off advocating a positive program than defensively refuting what others say he is. He can do this by simply saying he is “culturist” not “racist.” He could help people make important distinctions by explaining that while racism is stupid and dangerous, because cultural diversity is real, culturism is necessary. Then the multiculturalists could defensively explain why diversity is not important. The multicultural lefts’ flip abuse of the word racism would diminish immediately.
Then, once the distracting charges of racism were diminished he can focus on the positive culturist agenda. He can explain that western schools should teach western virtues and history. He can convey that western nations should only recognize western legal systems. Culturism’s taking diversity seriously will give him a basis upon which to argue that freedom of speech is a western value that needs protection. Culturist logic will give him a rational basis upon which to discuss border regulations. He can affirm his language. Rather than just be against multiculturalism, Wilder’s using the word culturism will teach people about the positive western agenda and history he promotes.
Geert Wilders has risked his life for the West. Yet his own western governments vilify him as a racist. He is a hero whose case should be celebrated by all western culturists. In the speech he was not allowed to give, he identified multicultural ideology as the enemy of the West. In gratitude and solidarity I offer him the use of the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism.’ As a culturist I encourage you to help Wilders in his fight by also identifying yourself as a culturist. When someone mentions multiculturalism, tell them you prefer culturism. When they brand those who discuss diversity as racist, tell them the discussion is culturist. These are politically correct and assertive ways to fight our destruction. Back Wilders. Back his mission for the West. Help him spread the words.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Celebrate Diversity!!!
Those who take our values for granted, those who claim that we have no culture, need to watch this video. In nature, mankind is brutal. Honor killing is not an aberration it is normal. Most cultures throughout history have considered killing and pillaging a source of honor. The West's enshrinement of rights, democracy, relative separation of church and state, freedom of speech and the valuing of human life ARE NOT universal traits. They are unique and rare in world history and in the world today.
Multiculturalism is wrong; diversity is real. We must be culturist. We have traditionally considered our culture to be special and delicate and therefore in need of protection via education and immigration laws. Since the Puritans designated us as a city upon a hill, we have been a culturist nation. We are special. And if we do not practice culturism, if we do not protect, guide and promote Western civilization, we will continue to look more and more like Mexico.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Sting of replacing Hail to the Chief is no laughing matter
There has been a lot of chuckling about Obama’s replacing Hail to the Chief with a rotation of songs that includes Sting’s “Desert Rose.” The laughing has come from people that consider it ironic that we move towards a song with Arabic content during the War on Terror. But this is no laughing matter. It is a matter of life and death. We do not see this because of the illusion of progress.
History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.
Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.
The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.
Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.
The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.
During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.
Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.
History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.
Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.
The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.
Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.
The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.
During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.
Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Culturist Philosophy!!!
Please comment!! As I post this I am off to the Obama inauguration with the Hindu Jewish Alliance to promote awareness of Islamic aggression. I'll be back Wednesday and respond to your comments then. Enjoy!!!
Our 20 Arguments Against Multiculturalism
Readers of this blog DAMIEN, EMPEDOCLES,DUCKY, Z and I came up with a list of arguments against multicultural education (ME). The list below makes it clear that we must stop multiculturalism and replace it with culturism. These arguments provide important intellectual weapons in this battle.
#1 – ME is offered as the cure for America’s having been an especially racist nation. Our accomplishments far outweigh our sins. ME slanders our good name.
#2 – ME greatly diminishes critical thought by greatly distorting global history and underplaying the lack of cohesion in western history.
#3 - ME has us sloppily making amends to people who we never discriminated against in any meaningful sense. We need not feel guilty to cultures that were not here to be discriminated against.
#4 – ME doesn’t really believe diversity is real. Multiculturalism teaches that, deep down, all cultures basically advocate variations of secular humanism.
#5 – ME allows Islam to use the schools to inculcate our children with their doctrine.
#6 – ME teaches that total equality is the natural state. ME then uses our inequality to argue for “social justice.” This implies we are unjust and need redistribution of wealth to correct for all existing inequality.
#7 – By teaching that our society is racist and unjust, ME turns resistance to participating in our society into a virtue. It thus especially hinders the education of minorities.
#8 – In a desire to create ethnic pride, ME falsifies the anthropological record. Early cultures were very violent. This misreading makes us cynical about progress and America’s historical mission.
#9 – ME blinds us to real evils in the world. It says that since all cultures are equally worthy of praise, attempts to distinguish between cultures is irrational racism.
#10 – ME becomes hypocritical the minute it makes any judgments. It thus undermines attempts to teach values.
#11 – Because western civilization has had an enormous influence on the world, ME teaches our culture is uniquely bad for disturbing indigenous cultures. Supporting western culture then becomes synonymous with advocating white supremacy.
#12 – ME denies that we have a core culture and thus undermines teaching western history. This makes us vulnerable to having no common cultural language to draw upon and encourages the forgetting of our heritage.
#13 – ME actually only acknowledges liberal values. Christian disagreement with gay marriage cannot be celebrated.
#14 – Undercuts schools’ universal and historic mission of socializing youth into the society in which they will live their lives. Schools thus lose their purpose.
#15 – Undermining our pride in our culture decreases our citizens’ desire to protect it. ME thereby puts us in a weak position in competition with cultures that create fanatical pride in their culture.
#16 - ME teaches that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views. It thus diminishes freedom.
#17 – ME routinely confuses culture and race. It thus inhibits frank and realistic discussions about diversity.
#18 – ME divides us.
#19 - ME undermines critical thought by telling us we must celebrate all cultural attributes.
#20 – For all of the above reasons, multiculturalism threatens the survival of western civilization.
Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. It counters all of these grave evils. We need to identify as culturists to save western civilization.
PLEASE GO TO ISI's AMAZING LECTURE COLLECTION AND WATCH THEIR DEBATE OVER MULTICULTURALISM at http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
#1 – ME is offered as the cure for America’s having been an especially racist nation. Our accomplishments far outweigh our sins. ME slanders our good name.
#2 – ME greatly diminishes critical thought by greatly distorting global history and underplaying the lack of cohesion in western history.
#3 - ME has us sloppily making amends to people who we never discriminated against in any meaningful sense. We need not feel guilty to cultures that were not here to be discriminated against.
#4 – ME doesn’t really believe diversity is real. Multiculturalism teaches that, deep down, all cultures basically advocate variations of secular humanism.
#5 – ME allows Islam to use the schools to inculcate our children with their doctrine.
#6 – ME teaches that total equality is the natural state. ME then uses our inequality to argue for “social justice.” This implies we are unjust and need redistribution of wealth to correct for all existing inequality.
#7 – By teaching that our society is racist and unjust, ME turns resistance to participating in our society into a virtue. It thus especially hinders the education of minorities.
#8 – In a desire to create ethnic pride, ME falsifies the anthropological record. Early cultures were very violent. This misreading makes us cynical about progress and America’s historical mission.
#9 – ME blinds us to real evils in the world. It says that since all cultures are equally worthy of praise, attempts to distinguish between cultures is irrational racism.
#10 – ME becomes hypocritical the minute it makes any judgments. It thus undermines attempts to teach values.
#11 – Because western civilization has had an enormous influence on the world, ME teaches our culture is uniquely bad for disturbing indigenous cultures. Supporting western culture then becomes synonymous with advocating white supremacy.
#12 – ME denies that we have a core culture and thus undermines teaching western history. This makes us vulnerable to having no common cultural language to draw upon and encourages the forgetting of our heritage.
#13 – ME actually only acknowledges liberal values. Christian disagreement with gay marriage cannot be celebrated.
#14 – Undercuts schools’ universal and historic mission of socializing youth into the society in which they will live their lives. Schools thus lose their purpose.
#15 – Undermining our pride in our culture decreases our citizens’ desire to protect it. ME thereby puts us in a weak position in competition with cultures that create fanatical pride in their culture.
#16 - ME teaches that your ancestors' culture determines your identity and views. It thus diminishes freedom.
#17 – ME routinely confuses culture and race. It thus inhibits frank and realistic discussions about diversity.
#18 – ME divides us.
#19 - ME undermines critical thought by telling us we must celebrate all cultural attributes.
#20 – For all of the above reasons, multiculturalism threatens the survival of western civilization.
Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. It counters all of these grave evils. We need to identify as culturists to save western civilization.
PLEASE GO TO ISI's AMAZING LECTURE COLLECTION AND WATCH THEIR DEBATE OVER MULTICULTURALISM at http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Culturism Versus Multiculturalism in Education
Resolved, multiculturalism is good for higher education. I just watched a terrific debate on this resolution at the amazing Intercollegiate Studies Institute website - http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx
Dr. Patricia Bode of Tufts University argues for the affirmative. First, she summarizes the goals of multicultural education (ME).
1) ME tackles inequality and promotes access to education.
2) ME raises the achievement of all students and provides them with an equitable and high quality education.
3) ME it gives students an apprenticeship and an opportunity to become productive members of a democratic society.
Dr. Bode undergirds the assertions with the five dimensions, identified by James Banks, of institutional change necessary for there to be true ME. She does this so we can understand the "socio-political view" of ME.
1) A knowledge construction process by which faculty engage students to investigate frames of reference in order to uncover bias and determine what counts as knowledge.
2) Curriculum integration deals with the extent to which different cultures are used as examples.
3) Equity pedagogy draw from Paolo Friere to facilitate the achievement of all students.
4) Prejudice reduction focuses on racial attitudes and attitudes about bias against ethnic groups, races, sexual orientation, religion and languages and other identities.
5) An empowering school school structure. This includes admission strategies and recognizing that admissions start with grouping and labeling practices in K - 12 and differences in achievement between racial groups there. This is done to ensure all are achieving highly.
ME includes seven characteristics because we are not yet a democratic society with equal access.
1) It is anti-racist education. It comes from the Civil Rights movement and so expands to anti-bias education.
2) It is basic education. It is about all people being able to read and write well.
3) It is especially important for people in dominant groups to undergo this training. It is not just access, it is a pervasive frame of mind that must be inculcated.
4) It is education for social justice. It looks at power structures and how those influence student achievement. ME doesn't just affirm identity and language, it address and confronts issues of difference, power and privilege in school practices and in society by challenging racism and other biases. Affirming identity can help minorities become successful learners, but unless it engages power structures it is unlikely to have a lasting impact or lead to equity and social justice. Socioeconomic structures and "access to things" must be addressed and that must be seen as part of the educational process.
5) It needs to take into account our history of immigration (both voluntary and forced), as well as inequality and exclusion that have characterized our past and present and our educational record.
(I counted five, though Dr. Bode listed it as seven)
Giving us the full list she quickly says, "Identity is important but it is not everything. Race, ethnicity, social class, language use, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and other social and human differences, are a major aspect of the socio-political context. It begins with the assumption that Identity frames how one views the world, but does not necessarily determine it."
This is Dr. Bode's closing argument:
"ME is misnamed when said to only refer to studying other cultures or focusing solely on peoples' fixed identities. When ME grounds its practice in strong analysis in relationships among unequal groups in the US, and contextualizes schools and colleges and universities in the broader socio-cultural environment in the US, recognizes the implications of the social construction of race [ME] does not reify identity, does not essentialize culture as a fixed notion and recognizes also the embedded structure of white supremacy in US history and that different political positions that race, ethnicity and class hold in the current social framework regarding influences on academic achievement, when ME addresses social class through analysis of poverty and its causes, proposes strategies to eliminate it, critiques the growing wealth of the few at the expense and impoverishment of the many, and develops a comprehensive analysis of oppression, then ME is good for higher education. Then it is working toward participation in a democratic society for all students."
ANY THOUGHTS? HOW MANY WAYS CAN WE LIST IN WHICH ME IS WRONG?
Dr. Patricia Bode of Tufts University argues for the affirmative. First, she summarizes the goals of multicultural education (ME).
1) ME tackles inequality and promotes access to education.
2) ME raises the achievement of all students and provides them with an equitable and high quality education.
3) ME it gives students an apprenticeship and an opportunity to become productive members of a democratic society.
Dr. Bode undergirds the assertions with the five dimensions, identified by James Banks, of institutional change necessary for there to be true ME. She does this so we can understand the "socio-political view" of ME.
1) A knowledge construction process by which faculty engage students to investigate frames of reference in order to uncover bias and determine what counts as knowledge.
2) Curriculum integration deals with the extent to which different cultures are used as examples.
3) Equity pedagogy draw from Paolo Friere to facilitate the achievement of all students.
4) Prejudice reduction focuses on racial attitudes and attitudes about bias against ethnic groups, races, sexual orientation, religion and languages and other identities.
5) An empowering school school structure. This includes admission strategies and recognizing that admissions start with grouping and labeling practices in K - 12 and differences in achievement between racial groups there. This is done to ensure all are achieving highly.
ME includes seven characteristics because we are not yet a democratic society with equal access.
1) It is anti-racist education. It comes from the Civil Rights movement and so expands to anti-bias education.
2) It is basic education. It is about all people being able to read and write well.
3) It is especially important for people in dominant groups to undergo this training. It is not just access, it is a pervasive frame of mind that must be inculcated.
4) It is education for social justice. It looks at power structures and how those influence student achievement. ME doesn't just affirm identity and language, it address and confronts issues of difference, power and privilege in school practices and in society by challenging racism and other biases. Affirming identity can help minorities become successful learners, but unless it engages power structures it is unlikely to have a lasting impact or lead to equity and social justice. Socioeconomic structures and "access to things" must be addressed and that must be seen as part of the educational process.
5) It needs to take into account our history of immigration (both voluntary and forced), as well as inequality and exclusion that have characterized our past and present and our educational record.
(I counted five, though Dr. Bode listed it as seven)
Giving us the full list she quickly says, "Identity is important but it is not everything. Race, ethnicity, social class, language use, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ability and other social and human differences, are a major aspect of the socio-political context. It begins with the assumption that Identity frames how one views the world, but does not necessarily determine it."
This is Dr. Bode's closing argument:
"ME is misnamed when said to only refer to studying other cultures or focusing solely on peoples' fixed identities. When ME grounds its practice in strong analysis in relationships among unequal groups in the US, and contextualizes schools and colleges and universities in the broader socio-cultural environment in the US, recognizes the implications of the social construction of race [ME] does not reify identity, does not essentialize culture as a fixed notion and recognizes also the embedded structure of white supremacy in US history and that different political positions that race, ethnicity and class hold in the current social framework regarding influences on academic achievement, when ME addresses social class through analysis of poverty and its causes, proposes strategies to eliminate it, critiques the growing wealth of the few at the expense and impoverishment of the many, and develops a comprehensive analysis of oppression, then ME is good for higher education. Then it is working toward participation in a democratic society for all students."
ANY THOUGHTS? HOW MANY WAYS CAN WE LIST IN WHICH ME IS WRONG?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Culturist Interview by Paleo
Enjoy the graphics and listen in as Paleo interviews John K. Press about culturism.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Hamas Versus Israel in NYC
“Support the West Not Islam,” were the highly contentious words on my sign. These words got me in constant, interesting and vital arguments with those on my side. Cordoned off by police barricades, my side was the one supporting Israel's retaliation for constant rocket attacks. The video relates this battle quicker, but the text below has much more detail.
I made the sign as none of the ones our organizers distributed mentioned Islam. The signs simply addressed Israel and Hamas. Our signs failed to educate people about the clash of civilizations. They gave no reason for supporting Israel. If the conflict is just one nation against another, the West has no stake in this fight. Obviously, the Israelis’ cultural roots and values align them with the West. The Islamic world backs Palestine. Sides exist.
Two young ladies gave me an interesting challenge. They claimed their Muslim friends were not against the West and I was alienating and defaming their friends by carrying the sign. I also have a nominally Muslim friend from whom I fear no terrorism. But she supports the West precisely because she does not take Islam seriously. The vast majority of Muslims do no harm. But that reflects laziness, not fidelity to their faith.
Someone barged in to our conversation, “Then why aren’t they here?” It was a rhetorical question, but one that packed a punch. When push comes to shove, even my good friend is on the Palestinian side. Subtly, culturism does not posit that one side is right and the other wrong. Obviously both groups believe in their side. It is actually pathological for people not to believe in their side. With rare exceptions, Muslims will support Muslims and westerners should support westerners. Love it or hate it, this is just the culturist nature of the world. Sides exist.
Another argued, “Your sign makes us look intolerant.” I replied that ‘not supporting” is not intolerance. Multiculturalists tell must “celebrate diversity” and we have no core culture. This means that we have no western cultural standards by which to judge and must embrace everything. This globalist, human rights, multicultural idea that we have no special cultural traits and that every one around the world agrees on fundamental values is incorrect. Other cultures do not prize tolerance. Other cultures have harems and circumcise women. Our values do not dominate outside of the West. If we tolerate or support such behaviors in the West, they will disappear.
And so we get to the very reason for my sign. Islam does not believe in women’s rights, individual scrutiny of life, democracy, freedom of speech, or the relative separation of church and state. I do not begrudge their protecting their culture on their lands - I expect it. But we need to protect western lands and allies; our land, our side. If, after 1300 years of battle with Islam we lose, western style rights will disappear. The Muslim goal is not Israel, India, New York’s twin towers, Spain's trains or London’s busses. Islam is aggressive in the name of theocracy. Muslim powers believe in theocracy. Diversity is real.
The video illustrates these points. Notice that their organizers distributed anti-American signs. They want to "defeat" western presence in the world. They are very clear about having a side. Note that the protesters chant “Allah Akbar.” Notice that the Israeli side has no anti-American slogans. One Israeli sign even acknowledges western pain over 9-11. Israel is on our side. They are a democracy with freedom of speech. America must not conceive of itself as a multicultural, global, neutral space. The West has a culture to lose. Muslims know they are on the Islamic side and so support it. Our duty is to "Support the West, not Islam."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)