Sunday, December 30, 2007

Steven Baskerville - Family law, culturist emergency

Since yesterday's blog concerned Latino and general American familial patterns, this follow - up will too. It is too short. For more information you should click the title of this blog.

Dr. Steven Baskerville's work shows that much of the huge increase in single parent homes can be traced to the amazingly draconian divorce laws and the industry that surrounds them. His work is very, very important. Though I have not read it, I am sure his book Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family is wonderful. That is based on my assesment of reading lengthy articles by him, including the one the title of this blog links to.

Dr. Baskerville's work shows that no-fault divorces essentially encourage women to seek divorces unilaterally. They are nearly always granted the children and child support. If they claim abuse, an automatic restraining order is put on the man. If he falls behind in child support, he can go to jail. All of these things can happen to him - the loss of his children, garnishing of his wages, criminilazation, and possible arrest - without any due process. The Georgia Superior Court held that, “The presumptive award leaves the non-custodial parent in poverty while the custodial parent enjoys a notably higher standard of living." Matching grants from the Federal government to the state means the courts have a stake in separating fathers from homes.

My single caution for Dr. Baskerville would stem from his Chronicles Magazine, January 2008 article. He notes that cultural decay, family values, and culture wars overlook the role of family law in the creation of fatherless families. Economic and legal pressures by the "child support industry" are important. But cultures are different and cultural influences are important. The single mothers of whom I posted yesterday were not doing so due their ability to get custody and child support. For some cultures not having a father is just a cultural norm.

We cannot ignore cultural diversity when making law. Not all educational policies fit all cultural groups, for example, equally well. Culturism, the book, also urges us to remember that - as Plato repeatedly stated - laws teach. Laws have cultural and moral impact. It would show poor culturist savvy to ignore the impact of family law on culture. Culturism means we must define, protect, and promote our culture; this is a legitimate policy interest. Culture does not exist independently of policy or government; laws must take culture into account.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Culturist Thought of the Day - Hispanic Family Values

Multiculturalists tell us to "celebrate diversity." Culturism, the book, shows that cultures can include headhunting and psychedelic drug use as normal. Culturism says that this is okay, in the countries in which this is the majority culture. But it is no NO WAY okay here. Multiculturalists would have to accept these behaviors domestically or qualify their celbratory stance. That would make them culturists. Instead they just chant slogans and ignore the breadth of diversity.

Culturism's taking diversity seriously, understanding the breadth of behaviors that can be norms, accepts that culture can have tremendously important impacts. If you do not see cultures as fundamentally different - as multiculturalists - you see all differences of economic and educational attainment as the result of racism. The Heather MacDonald article you can access by clicking the title of this blog provides statistics that should make multiculturalists and those who attribute achievement gaps to the racist nature of America think twice.

MacDonald relays that out-of-wedlock births per unmarried hispanics happen at the rate of 92 per 1000. That compares with 28 per white women and 22 for Americans of Asian descent. This alone can account for poor educational and environmental attainment of Hispanics. Ditto for blacks who have 68 per 1000. The teen birth rate is 93 per 1000 (nearly one in ten) for Americans of Mexican descent and 27 per 1000 for whites. These stats account for poverty. When one considers that it is a competitive world, we must compare it to Japan's teen pregnancy rate of 3.9 per 1000 and be worried about anyone in America, no matter their background, competing.

The culturist bottom line is that cultural norms are flexible. The real problem behind the Hispanic family breakdown is that it is considered normal. Having a baby as a teen without a father is a point of pride for all involved. If multiculturalists want to celebrate teen preganancy out of wedlock and low educational expectations in our country they are nihilists. Culturists hold that such behavior may be fine in Mexico. But preserving our way of life requires we education and write laws to show that our culture says no to such cultural norms domestically.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Remember the Alamo

Voice of The People announced a July 4th, 2008 rally to be held at the Alamo this week. More information can be found by clicking the title of this blog. The reason for having a rally about Rembering the Alamo is to reaffirm our sovereignty. It is a good idea because it reminds us of the importance of demographics. Texas fought for independence because the culture was Anglo, not Mexican. Being ruled by the Mexican government under such circumstances did not make sense. Demographics are very important. We must remember this lesson of history and so remember the Alamo.

To have the full effect we seek to have by remembering the Alamo, we must also remember the Gadsden Purchase. Many people of Mexican descent in our land think the South West was subsequently "stolen" by the U.S. in the Mexican American War. Such a sentiment is not likely to lead to loyalty on their behalf or American stability. To counter act this we must remember that Santa Anna, who was defeated in the Texan War for independence, sold us what is now Southern Arizona and New Mexico for $10 million.

The Gadsden Purchase is the best proof we have that the land was not "stolen." First of all, the Southern portion of these states were out and out sold. It was a legal transaction five years after the end of hostilities. No pressure was applied. Secondly, to say that you stole my land, but afterwards I sold you the rest does not make any sense. It is as if to tell police, "He stole my computer, but later I sold him the mouse and keyboard." Even if the land won in the Mexican American war was "stolen" (and it was not) the Gadsden Purchase land, the Southern portion of the southwest states, was undeniably sold. It is ours fair and square; no historical controversy.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Merry Culturist Christmas

In all of your letters and when you meet people, remember to tell them Merry Christmas. Christmas contains the name of Christ. I am not a Christian as a matter of faith. Yet when I view world history, I am so glad that Christ was born. Our nation has Christianity at its core. When I think of Christ's influence on creating these United States, I give thanks. When you celebrate Christmas you celebrate that which has made our culture, traditions, and nation so strong and vibrant; simultaneously, you announce that you find love and redemption possible in the persons with whom you celebrate.

And, as to lead by example,


Thursday, December 20, 2007

Culturist Thought of the Day - South Korean Election

Lee pounded Roh in the Korean election. We can learn from others.

Lee swept to victory over Roh's successor due to domestic concerns. Roh ran a populist government. His message was tax the rich and give to the poor. One of his taxes was a 60% tax on profit from selling homes. He also disallowed loans to people who had 3 or more properties. These stopped construction and sales. People wouldn't sell and home prices soared.

Furthermore, Roh's tax increases were arbitrary. When people wouldn't sell because of taxes, he introduced a tax that penalized people for not selling. They had to pay a tax on potential profit! Few people wanted to do business in such a radical and unpredicatble atmosphere. The economy was tanking.

Populist politicians are dangerous. We should not take it for granted that we have a system that limits the president's ability to make law. In a multi-ethnic nation such as ours, populist leaders can be even more destabilizing. Korea not having diversity, they rode this one out. Cultural unity is not always a bad thing. Even the poor ended up voting against Roh's successor. Roh eneded up, for all the wrong reasons, being a uniter and not divider.

Culturist Thought of the Day - Language in the Post Office

Today I mailed a complimentary copy of culturism to ANTI-CAIR. The nearest post office is in a Chinese area of New York, and the workers there speak to their clients in Chinese and English. This is not a great evil, but it has destructive implications.

I have spent years of my life in countries where English was not the Lingua Franca. Learning a second language is efficiently motivated and fostered by the need to do small tasks. Were I in another country - where there would never be a translator - I would practice my words related to mail room situations before entering. That was easy because textbook chapters usually reflect some common situation and the words associated with it. One chapter will be about airports, another schools, another post offices, etc. Sending one even if you don't have to is an excellent way to practice the chapter lessons.

The implications of this post-office policy can be seen in the Los Angeles Unified School District. In that district it is difficult for a monolingual English speaker to get work as a teacher. It is very difficult to become a monolingual Principal. This causes resentment among people who see language stipulations as a "gringos need not apply" policy. Cultural maintanence programs that do not encourage learning English further balkanize our nation. I understand that it helps Principals and teachers communicate with their students and parents. But it also lessons the pressure for immigrants to learn English. Not requiring Spanish skills to teach in America would teach the very real lesson that to fully participate in the American system and economy, you need to learn English. Our unity, and quicker learning, are better fostered by making sure learning English is the target.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Culturist Thought of the Day - A Culturist Strategy Exemplified

Monday was the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first powered airplane flight. About 1,000 people gathered to celebrate at their museum. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a culturist 11. Communities should celebrate their local heroes.

Kitty Hawk, N.C.'s museum and monument have brought them tourists. It has economic benefits. This museum surely employes some local people and fills hotels. This museum teaches children about industry and creation. It teaches them what great looks like. It provides a model to compete with that of musicians. This museum and monument also creates social capital; that is it connects people to others. Those involved in the celebration will have a memory in common and be more likely to trust eachother. Robert Putnam teaches us that this has health benefits, law and order benefits, economic benefits and more. Lastly, it is a teacher and source of social capital for all those in the Kitty Hawk and greater North Carolina area. The event is on their quarter. Certainly it must give them a great, deserved, sense of pride.

Culturism advocates that local communities find someone to celebrate and do so. Incorportate them into your existing parades. Build a statue; the statue should have a sign that fully explains what great achievements they did that are meritorious. Murals are great. Museums too! These activities give local artists, youths and citizens a sense of civic pride.

In conjunction with these local activities, the Federal government should create a "Statue of Responsibility." This statue would balance out the Statue of Liberty. This would teach all Americans an important civics lesson; liberty requires responsibility. This statue should be on the West coast, to bookend the other statue. There should be a design contest. The construction should be Federal is because of the cost involved in creating such a grand statue. This will bring great tourist dollars to a local economy. It will also teach a valuable culturist lesson to our nation and sense of cohesion for Americans.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Culturist Post of the Day - Affirmative Action

Hey All!!!

This is the first culturist post of the day. Notice how cleverly I avoid saying it is a daily post! : ) If you have a question that you'd like addressed in a culturist post of the day, find my contact info via and send it. Yesterday, Mr. Pope, (who I met via up affirmative action. Mr. Pope, you get the dubious honor of having inspired the first ever culturist post of the day! Thanks.

Culturism does not have anything against Federal Legislation aimed at fairness or perceptions of fairness. For example, in 1972 the Federal government passed Title Nine. This Act gave females equal access in sports. Years down the line, females playing sports does not seem unwomanly to us. It is a healthy and accepted part of being a girl. Male sports do not seem to be hurting. This was a great piece of legislation.

Affirmative Action is, however, problematic. It is based on the idea that society is racist or has been. It may have even been helpful at one point. But we are much better off, at this point, promoting a culturist message. That is to say, if an achievement gap exists cultural attributes of the group lagging likely account for it. Taking a culturist perspective offers more hope for closing the achievement gap than Affirmative Action does.

I have taught in inner-city schools. The outrageous behavior that transpires in some of them shames us all. Doing schoolwork is acting white and being tough precludes study anyways. We are at fault in that we have let the sort of chip-on-the-shoulder, tough guy mentality go unchallenged. We need to fight that sort of reasoning if we are going to see schools that are not war zones. Discipline and culturist messages are needed. These youth must be taught proper behavior. More importantly, they must be told that they should comply and not defy becaue they are investing in their own potential and that of the civilization they and their anscestors have helped to build.

Affirmative Action reinforces the understanding that society is racist. Since racism only explains a very small portion of the achievement gap, this focus cannot help much. Focusing on race is futile and also dangerous. Their is a lot more to be gained by modifying cultural attitudes than blaming others. Scholarships going to people, based on need and merit, is not a problem. But, equal schools require equal attitudes towards schools. Affirmative Action does tremendous damage because it diminishes subcultures' willingness to investigate their own culturist practices.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

Culturism and Education

Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect, and promote themselves. Multiculturalism says we have no core culture. If you look at international diversity, that is absurd. If you study history, that is absurd. The Western nations developed from Greece, to Rome, to Jesus, through the Dark Ages, the Englightenment and the Age of Revolutions, to now. We have a progressive coherent story in which the individual comes to the fore. Education in all nations socializes you into the culture into which you will live. We need to provide guidance to our young people. Multiculturalism does not provide guidance. Culturism gives us permission to do so.

Individualism, in excess, can also hurt education. When we have no core cultural mission all becomes about the individual. If you do not do your homework, it is only your own future and business. This does not enoble or inspire. Individualism means that everyone who does not get their individual needs met can sue the school system. Culturism holds that protecting majority culrue is a legitimate policy concern. Protecting the flexibility and solvency of schools is too.

Culturism also helps people distinguish race issues and cultural issues. Does the achievement gap show that society is racist or that cultural diversity matters? Multiculturalists do not really take diversity seriously. They are right that race is not a factor. But refuse to think cultural diversity seriously enough to consider that it might impact something as important as educational achievement. Culturism can make those who intimidate with abuse of the word racism, think twice.

In society culturism can also help us balance out the corrive affects the words multiculturalism, individualism, and racism have on discussions.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Lessons from a culturist Teddy bear in Sudan

Culturism's definition includes majority cultures having a right to define, protect, and promote themselves. This means Sudan and Britain both do. (Genocide is not part of Sudanese traditional culture - but that argument is not so relevant here). This blog concerns the British teacher who was nearly whipped for naming a Teddy Bear "Muhammed" in Sudan.

Why was this Western teacher in Sudan? Was she trying to win hearts and minds? If so, she was following the multiculturalists refusal to acknowledge diversity. Deep down, multiculturalists say that we are all the same; if she explains the merits of our nuance and they explain the merits of theirs, we can all agree. But because cultural diversity really exists, her attempt to reach common ground did not work. Multiculturalists think diversity is epiphenomenal. Culturism takes diversity seriously.

Sudan is an Islamic nation. Islam has no separation of church and state. It is, as Forest Gump said of Vietnam, this whole other culture. Even if she is just teaching supposedly neutral language skills, does she not realize that literacy in Islamic countries is taught out of the Koran? The purposes and understanding of language are different? Naming a bear Muhammad is not just neutral and cute to them. Cultural differences are real. She should know what side she belongs on. She had no business teaching Muslim children in Sudan.

The Western world has a distinct core culture and tradition. Hopefully you are aware that the Greeks fought the theocratic Persians to safeguard their individualist orientation. Rome spread this vision. Jesus promoted individual salvation. There were the Dark Ages. Christianity helped make the individual conscience sacrosanct. We thus followed Jesus’ “rendering unto Caesar” line to have separation of Church and State. We instituted liberal democracies based on the cultural ideal of the reasoning, conscientious individual. This is not humanity’s historical lineage. It is not the Islamic or Asian vision. It is the Western vision. If you don't believe me click this post's title and think about asking the thousands of Muslims who now want the Teddy teacher killed.

Just as Sudan protects their culture, we need to protect ours. Protecting ours must be done in a way that does not undermine ours. We cannot start killing unbelievers or whipping them as Sudan does; that would destroy our traditions not save them. But not allowing more Muslim immigrants in, as they represent this whole other culture, would not undermine our culture. Muslim countries don’t let us bring in our people or ways. Non-Japanese cannot become Japanese citizens. Other countries use culturist principles to protect their cultural traditions and identity. We also have a right to protect ours. Letting in those who want the Teddy teacher killed may not be a good idea.

Multiculturalists will tell us that the West has no core culture. Britain is a multicultural state with no particular history. While Britain did not fight Muslims as long as the Spanish, they must be aware that Europe and Islam have been combatants for 1400 years. Certainly Britain has some diversity, but it is a Western country. It is not an Islamic nation.

The next time this teacher wants to teach children about Western culture and visions concerning the function of literacy, she should get a job in a Western nation. It will not upset an Islamic nation. It will not blur the lines of sovereignty. Her teaching will be culturally appropriate. She will be investing in the perpetuation of her own culture. And, if she stays out of Sudan, peaceful co-existence will not have to give way to strained international relations.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Culturism, the New Word

Culturism is a new word and book. It can disarm those who abuse the word racism in order to silence political opponents. It counterbalances multiculturalism's undermining of values and the ACLU's abuse of individualism to undermine our country's rights.

This is how culturism responds to the words racism, multiculturalism and individualism.

Racism, as you know, is used to silence all of those who would talk about the negative parts of cultural diversity. There is merit to concerns about racism. But we need a word that addresses cultural diversity and clearly does not refer to race. We must use the word culturism in order to have polite, meaningful, and rational policy discussions again.

Multiculturalists say they believe in diversity; culturists don't think they take it seriously enough. At heart multiculturalists think all cultures are interchangable and only refer to food, fiestas and fashion. Culturism, the book, looks at the Aztecs and headhunters to show how diverse cultures can be. But 9/11 should have put us on notice that all cultures do not prize democracy, individualism, female rights and other parts of Western culture. The word culturism indicates a person who thinks culture and cultural diversity are real and significant.

Individualism is the third word. Culturism seeks to promote individualism realistically. If our culture does not survive, individualism and individual rights will be discontinued. Individual rights being used to protect anti-social behavior can go to destructive extremes. The culturism chapter on U.S. history shows that morally guiding and safeguarding our society is a tradition of ours. Our safety is enhanced by remembering our culturist traditions.

Culturism's definition holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. Islamic and Asian nations already do. The question here is if Western cultures have the right to define, protect and promote themselves.

Fight abuse of the word racism, question multiculturalism, safeguard individualism, USE CULTURISM - TELL PEOPLE YOU ARE A CULTURIST!!

Sunday, December 2, 2007

How to Debate a Multiculturalist, If You Must

My cleaned up responses to a typical multiculturist are below. You can figure out what his concerns were from my replies. My responses show how a reasonable culturist can respond to an outraged multiculturalist.


You define racism as structural oppression and so say America is racist. Your concerns have merit. We should make sure that economic and educational opportunity are as available to everyone as possible. If we find an bank that does not lend money to people simply due to their race, that bank should - in my opinion - be fined. Racism can divide us, creates bitterness and is dangerous. We need to do what we can to combat racism.

However, you greatly underestimate the power of culture. I live in America. Here, the lower academic achievement rates of Latinos and Blacks often gets cited to boslter your claim that ours is a "structurally racist and oppresive" society. This conclusion is partially based on the correct idea that differing levels of achievement don't have anything to do with race. But people who then conclude that America is racist and oppressive routinely fail to consider the possiblity that culture is important.

Culture is important and can account for different levels of achievement. Kids in Tapei do much more homework than white kids in Minessota (Harold Stevenson's work). Individuals vary, but some cultures value educaton more than others. That can be seen objectively in statistics on drop-out and teen pregnancy rates as well as hours spent doing homework. Even if there was no racism anywhere in the world, cultural diversity would result in very different levels of educational and economic achievement. Acts of individual racism exist, but the achievement gaps are almost entirely the result of cultural diversity.

Multiculturalists say that they believe in diversity. They think it relates to food, fashion and festivals. But they don't think cultural diversity could possibly account for something as important as economic or educational achievement. Multiculturalists think diversity is shallow. Culturists know that cultural diversity is not only cute and inconsequential.

Culturism's anthropology chapter and looking at world events show us that not all cultures value individualism, female rights, fighting racism, the separation of church and state, an achievement ethic or even democracy. You say embracing humanism is the way to get out of wars. If all other cultures were to stop competing, I'd be happy to. The fact is that Islam is competing with us ideologically and China is competing with us economically. Our values are not universal norms and so cannot be taken for granted. Because diversity is real, culturism is necessary.

Sometimes a group's statistics do cause innocent individuals to be singled out. That is unfortunate. But denying that cultures have traits that should be addressed and calling society racist does not help. When statistics show muslim terrorism has stopped, we can stop profiling at airports. When Latinos do better in school, we can stop having programs designed to help them. Unfairly stereotyping individuals is a legitimate concern, but ignoring cultural diversity doesn't help subcultures and endangers Western nations.

Finally, culturism and nationalism are not the same thing. Nationalism is content-free. Western culturism relies on Western cultural traditions through the ages to ground itself. Nationalism coud be used to advocate actions, such as genocide, which violate our cultural traditions. Culturism has deep philsophical and historical traditions, achievements and standards to uphold and honor. Nationalism is shallow and sometimes dangerous. Culturism provides ethical guidelines and is necessary for our safety and success. Nationalism and culturism are not synonymous.

Muslim Assets Purchases

This post is in response to a report of Dubai buying American assets. It can help illuminate some of the uses of a culturist perspective.

We have to be able to use culturist common sense concerning foreign purchases of our assets. Cultures are important. They affect action. In our salutary concern about being racist we have dedicated ourselves to being blind to culture. This is dangerous.

If Muslim countries or citizens of those countries want to buy shoe stores we should have no problem with that. If they want to invest in our real estate market we should have no problem with that either. Neither of these involve national security risks. But we should NOT allow Muslims to have anything to do with the airline industry or our ports. Muslims should not be allowed to work at nuclear facilities. They should not be border agents. This is not racist, it is culturist. Racism is evil, culturism is necessary.

If Muslim countries or people from them want to invest in America we should not have a problem with it. But building mosques is not an investment. Just as Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations forbid building churches, we have a right to forbid foregin funding of building mosques. If local people want to build one it should be allowed. Forbidding citizens to practice the religion of their choice would run counter to our traditions. But the foreign funding of mosques in our nation is not an investment, it is an act of cultural aggression. We are not a neutral place. We have a core culture to protect. Just like Saudi Arabia, we have a right to protect our culture.

This is not racism. It is culturism. We have wisely decided to try to eradicate racism in our country. But this effort, combined with our idea that rights are without context and universal, has led us to not be willing to discriminate on the basis of national origin, religion or political affiliation. We are committed to being blind to a host of very important variables based on the idea that culture is not important. All people do not believe in Western ideals of democracy and rights, hard work and respect for women. Because cultural diversity is real, culturism is necessary.

There are areas where the cultural background of the investor is not important. But where national security is at stake we must be permitted to employ culturist common sense.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Citizenship and Culturism

Technorati Profile

This long blog lays out basic culturist precepts the understanding of which is necessitated by the third night of rioting in France. It also addresses Atlas' related report of massive Muslim immigration to North America. Throughout the blog the theme is this: citizenship involves the love of the country it is exercised in. Diversity, despite multiculturalists' pronouncements to the contrary, includes people that are hostile to the Western project. Giving such people the legal status of citizens cheapens the meaning of citizenship and endangers Western civilization. When Western civilization goes rights go. We won't stop the destruction of France until we understand and implement culturist precepts. Please read the entire blog.

The youths rioting in France are not only rioting because they are Muslim. They are rioting because they have been fed the warmed over Marxism that equates Western civilization and oppression. In this vision the underclass need to be liberated and destruction is noble. The anthropology chapter in culturism shows, however, were Western civilization to fall the natural alternatives that would assert themselves are not progressive and egalitarian. The rioters' burning of libraries and destruction of property also give an indication of what a post-Western world would look like.

Many of the youths rioting are Muslims as well as disaffected by bad ideology. Either way, the question we must ask is "Are their sympathies with the success of France and Western civilization?" If their sypathies were, they would not be rioting out of hatred for France and oppressive Western civilization. As culturism tries to explain, citizenship is not just about paperwork. If you root against the Lakers basketball team, you are not a lakers fan. If you root against America, you are not an American. We desparately need to reconnect citizenship with its proper meaning.

The relocation of Somali villages into heartland America and Canada is done on the basis of international rights. Culturist philosophy dispels the existence of international rights. Rights only exist in cultures that believe in them and can afford them. Without America there are no American rights. When we bring in people who are likely traumatized by war, illiterate, extremely different in assumptions about life and anti-American it does not strengthen America. China and Muslim nations do not let random traumatized refugees in. We are the only ones who believe in the concept of international rights and it undermines our sovereignty, solvency and sense of the importance of citizenship.

Cultures are diverse and they have rights. We have a right to ask if those wanting to immigrate are pro-American and willing to show it in cultural assimilation and positive behavior. We do not violate their human rights by having sovereignty. Not allowing immigration does not violate your rights as an American unless you are one. Only people who love America and are willing to show this by living and working in ways that uphold and perpetuate our valuable traditions should be allowed to immigrate or be named citizens.

Until the rioting and terrorism stops the United States and France must stop immigration from all countries whose culture predisposes their emmigrants to rioting. All others must be put on a tight leash. Being a French citizenship is an honor and a responsibility. If you dishonor France and seek to destroy it there should be no hesitation over repatriation. You cannot have your rights as a French person violated unless you are one. This does not mean you cannot criticize France; that would run counter to Western traditions. But, being French means working in positive ways to improve France. Cultural diversity and the fragility of Western civilization necessitate culturist immigration policies.

While France is showing it respects itself by protecting itself, people must be taught that France is a good project. People must know that France's history, ideals and future are positive for all French citizens. Such culturist affirmations explanations should go along with expelling non-citizens and long term jailings of those involved in rioting to destroy France. France cannot take citizenship or people trying to destroy it lightly if it wants to be respected or survive.

If Western nations go under rights and progress will cease to exist. Believing in universal human rights instead of culturist rights makes us complacent and undermines our sovereignty and solvency. Only by changing cultural precepts and understanding of what it means to be a citizen can France and other Western nations be secured. We must adopt culturist principles to secure Western nations. If we do not define, protect and promote Western civilization the rioting may never stop. This is the culturist creed. Please call yourself a culturist. Our civilization's survival depends on Western nations remembering the culturist truths inherent in the word.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

A culturist double negative - Madrassa ex-Principal Sues School System

Technorati Profile

Think of children throwing rocks at Western aligned soldiers, and Debbie Almontaser should come to mind. Almontaser is the ex-near Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy (a newly opened arabic language and culture school in New York). She is suing the New York school system for discrimination. She lost the chance to lead American children because the public did not buy her claim that the "Intifada" on the T-shirts she was selling stood for generic struggle against injustice without reference to any particular situation. We know the Indifda was a specific Palistinian uprising which sent children to throw stones at Israeli soldiers.

Culturism is leery of metaphysical concepts. The claim that intifada or any term refers to a generic sense of struggle should raise doubts. In reality, there are sides. In general there is a Muslim side and a Western side. Over there, the Western outpost is Israel. Only Western leaders want to be fair and impartial brokers. The pose of neutrality is suspect. In war it is dangerous. Intifada should cease to be generic when a rock hits your head.

The first negative concerning Debbie Almontaser is the idea that we should have "international" academies in our public school system. Schools, in all cultures and all times outside of the modern West, have been for teaching the youth about the culture into which they were born. We are not a neutral space. We should not confuse Western culture with universal culture. We have a specific culture to teach and so should teach it. Arab culture schools belong in Arab countries. International schools belong nowhere.

The second negative coming from Ms. Almontaser is suing the school system. Culturism wants to contextualize individualism. Culturism's definition includes the precept that the perpetuation of the majority culture should be a legitimate policy consideration. If destruction Debbie gets her way, she will be enriched. The money she receives will have to be drained from the public school system and childrens' educations. Culturism shows that individuals live in a cultural context. Culturism contextualizes individualism. The judge should be allowed to consider the fiscal sustainability of the public school system, a culturist value, when adjudicating. Just the fact that she would assert her individual "rights" at the expense of the school system should disqualifier her from being a steward in the public school system.

Ms. Almontaser's intifada is not neutral, it is destructive of our national and institutional sustainability. Ms. Almontaser either has no culturist awareness or has too much and is on the wrong side. Her first concern is not the bolstering of Western civilization here or abroad. Her first concern is not the health of the public schools or the children in it. Destruction Debbie is a one woman intifada against public schools and America. She is a double negative. Intifada is a foreign word of hatred for a Western outpost. Intifada is not neutral and neither is culturism. We cannot be the only non-culturist civilization and survive. We need to prioritize the survival of our institutions and civilization. If you do not hold pro-American principles, you should not be an American principal.

Get active at

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Culturism and Feminism

Technorati Profile

Today I heard the feminist leader Carol Gilligan talk about her adaptation of The Scarlet Letter at the American Moral Education conference. Gilligan wants us to recognize the Scarlet Letter as a feminist novel. Feminism, women having rights, being one of the precious parts of our culture, I applaud her work.

Culturism is meant to foster disscussion and, unfortunately, the tone of Gilligan's rhetoric only led to polarization. She kept speaking of fighting the New Puritanism. A man from the audience said his children were exposed to much more raw sexuality than he was as a child. He wondered where she saw this threatening movement. She said in abstinence programs and anti-gay marriage initiatives. She then went on to express her disgust for the overly sexualized nature of our culture. But Gilligan stuck with the theme that patriarchy and the religious right constituted a menace that she could typify as the New Puritanism. Furthermore, she made it clear that the New Puritans were a tyrannical force that needs to be stopped.

Reading culturism could help Gilligan realize that she and the patriarchal New Puritans have much in common. Both are concerned about a utilitarian view of people that does not recognize their souls. Culturism argues that feminists and religious people share a view that the soul should be more highly regarded than the body. This understanding creates a basis upon which feminists and religious folks can have cooperative outlooks and programs. But Gilligan's demonizing of abstinence promoters does not foster mutual understanding or discussion of important cultural issues.

Gilligan's version of the Scarlet Letter portrayed Puritans as purely evil. We have no sympathy for them as they try to get the imprisoned Hester Prynn to name the father. Colonial governments did this in order to collect child support (a Clinton agenda item) and enable girls, like the novel's Pearl, to have fathers. Certainly the Puritan's use of "A"s for public shaming, not to mention whipping, went too far. But there is room for common ground and I would hope that Gilligan could find some merit in Puritan and religious values.

Lastly, Gilligan defined feminism as "democracy liberated from patriarchy." Culturism teaches that describing ideals as abstractions is harmful. The West is feminist in the sense that women have more rights here than in any other existing culture. We can only be derided as patriarchal and anti-feminist in comparison with an ideal that does not exist any where in the world and may not be attainable. When you undermine Western civilization you undermine the best bastion of feminism in the world. I would hope that Gilligan declare herself a culturist (I hope everyone does :) and work with - not against - her religious brethren in fostering a more caring culture.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Why we need to use the word "CULTURISM" NOW!!!!

Technorati Profile

Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!

The Washington Times reports, "A group of Iraqi Pentagon contractors is suing American Airlines claiming racial discrimination for delaying its flight, but a police report shows that some of the men might have been intoxicated, behaved in a frightening and belligerent manner and scared one family off the plane."

This is exactly why we need the term "culturism." Racism is stupid, but culturism is logical. If diversity exists and culture matters then where you come from will logically condition your attitudes.

The word "culturism" helps us clearly distinguish racial profiling from cultural profiling. This is not racist at all, it is culturist. Racism is evil, but culturism is necessary. If we do not have a separate and logically substantiated alternative term they will just keep attacking our ability to defend ourselves with the word "racist." Not using the word culturism is literally endangering our national security!

Monday, November 5, 2007

Majority culture and culturism

Technorati Profile

Culturism holds that the interests of the majority culture should be a legitimate interest in policy concerns. In this regard, culturism balances out the extremes of individualism. Using culturism also benefits us because it fosters discussions of what majority culture means.

A practical application of this aspect of culturism can be seen in displays of the Ten Commandments. Even though I am not religious, I recognize - as any honest scholar would - the centrality of Christianity to the rise of America and its culture. Recently (I mean only recently) individualism and individual rights have attacked our ability to promote our majority culture. The Ten Commandments have been taken down because they offend certain individuals. We must be sensitive to individual rights in this country as they are fundamental to our cultural mission. But culturism says that we cannot allow individualism to eviscerate our public life and cultural traditions. We cannot become unable to say anything because a single individual might be hurt emotionally.

Parenthetically, a woman who showed up to protest enforcement of immigration laws because they might hurt her daughter's relationship with her illegal alien father also needed a lesson in culturism. We cannot throw out our national sovereignty because an individual baby might be hurt. That doesn't mean we should be insensitive, but the culture must be taken as a legitimate interest too.

But back to our main discussion of majorities . . . Recently (guess when) Muslims agitated to have Halloween banned from schools. Again, individuals and their rights are being used to stop our culture from promoting itself. But what if they were the majority in the school district? Majority refers to majority writ large. Ours is a decidedly Western nation. Halloween is a Western tradition. It should have legal consideration as such. Culturism provides us a moral compass to define, promote and protect ourselves.

Lessons From Pakistan

Technorati Profile

Pakistan is falling into martial law and threatened with becoming an Islamic state as I write this. Many are shocked and outraged. As a culturist, I am not shocked. I expected this. This lack of surprise separates culturists from many others that worry about immigration and attacks by muslims.

Culturists take culture seriously and so do not hold out much hope for making other nations progressive liberal democracies. My allies in fear of Islam may say that there are many who are for liberal democracy in Pakistan and hate the Taliban. That is likely true. But there are many in the country that are attracted to the Taliban's message and many sit on the fence. In America the Taliban's vision wouldn't even make sense as we are not muslim and hold the separation of church and state sacred. That is not to say that muslim terrorists could not destroy our ability to uphold our values (after all they have already foisted the Patriot Act on us). But what would emerge would not be an Islamic state, but military rule or chaos. Pakistan is a muslim state and therefore full of muslims. The populace will thus have a natural antipathy to liberal democracy. An Islamic state will take hold there. The few elections that Pakistan have had were an aberration, not a new norm.

Culturist hold as fundamental the idea that diversity exists. Here we share common ground with others that worry about Islamic fascism. Not all people make great Americans. We should bar people from Muslim countries from immigrating to the United States and gaining citizenship. Islam is not just another version of liberal democratic culture. Diversity is real. Certain values are needed for democracy to thrive. And, as we saw in Pakistan, no universal rights or norms prevent democracy and the appreciation of individual rights from disappearing.

The shock when Pakistan goes Islamic results from a failure to appreciate that there are fundamental differences between cultures. This shock reflects a denial of diversity which assumes it natural that all peoples value equality, feminism, individual rights and democracy by nature. It is the same thinking that justifies massive immigration from nations that are hostile to America and the values that made it a first world bastion of free conscience. Culturists, would be willing to take out Iran's nukes, but not rebuild their nation. Culturists recognize diversity is real and are not outraged or shocked when it manifests itself. We say pull up the drawbridge and do not fight the cultural wind outside of our sphere.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Culturist Historical Re-Write

Technorati Profile

Culturism works!!! That was the message I took from Clare Lyons' Sex Among the Rablle - An intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, Philadelphia, 1730 - 1830. The intended take away message from this work is that pre-revolutionary Philadelphia's "pleasure culture" was shut down by patriarchy and quashed female liberation. But, inadvertently, from a culturist perspective it provided a very different set of lessons.

Bastardy or out-of-wedlock births, Lyons argues, were accepted in pre-revolutionary America's culture. She demonstrates this by showing that no punishment was attached to single mothers in poor houses as the organizers searched for the "fathers" and wrest support from them. Bastardy and prostitution being allowed gave women options and so made them more free from patriarchal restraint. Alas, she tells us, when levels soared to 6.6 percent, Quaker organizations such as "The Association of the District of Southwark for the suppression of Vice and Immorality" and the "Magdalen Society" were formed to combat women's freedom.

The punitive organization to suppress vice and immorality did not meet with success. But the Magdalen Society provided shelter for prostitutes who would reform and had many takers. The Guardians of the Poor, the group that sheltered pregnant single women, started taking a more punitive outlook. Men had to be identified for support, housing was limited, children could be made servants in other's homes to pay for the upkeep, and care was given in an alms house. In the meantime, public prostitution was driven indoors, the ideal of virtuous women was pushed, and print was somehow cleaned up. This combination of helpful, moral and punitive measures lovered the rate of out of wedlock children from 1 in 101 to 1 in 149 between 1814 and 1822!

Lyons paints this effort as punitive and mean. But it is hard to see why single motherhood is liberating. Prostitution was an additional choice for women. But would you see the wide proliferation of whorehouses as good for women? If they were in your neighborhood, and you had kids, wouldn't you move out or fight them? Lyons' documentation of the widespread venereal disease did not sound too pleasant or liberating. Single mothererhood and childhood poverty go hand in hand. Lyons' focusing on personal pleasure and ignoring of the needs of children and society are symptomatic of the pervasive individualism that necessitates culturism.

If we were to lower the out of wedlock rate by 50% it would help our society and children. But Lyons is right, it would be at the expense of lessening public support for the "pleasure culture." Reducing out-of-wedlock births would require affirming that we consider it an undesirable practice and applying modern versions of our culturist traditions. The question is if we still have the will, legal right, desire and spine to be at all culturist or if individual rights and pleasure now trump any social considerations and assertions. Despite herself, Lyons shows that the Founding Fathers created a system of self-governance, not of anarchy; she showed that we have a long culturist tradition and it works!

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Long Panic Blog with Foreign Policy Considerations

Technorati Profile

Culturism will temporarily take longer for Amazon to ship when you order it. This perhaps boring blog will tell you all the gory details concerning why that is so. If you want a shorter and more controversial blog go to the one below this now!!!

The delay results from a last minute panic over the definition of culturism. In writing the book, it didn’t occur to me that my original idea had taken on another nuance: that of having a right to define and defend majority cultures. I mentally tossed and turned for days over whether or not to add this right to the philosophy and practice of culturism already in the definition.

It meant that I really had to ask myself if I believe in culturism all the way down. I got to this question by way of the use of the word “right” in the possible definition amendment. As culturism, the book, explains, rights only exist in countries that believe in them and can afford them. Having “right” in the definition seemed to undermine this nuance. It seemed to create a metaphysical obligation. The problem is that it implies that there is a universal value that we have to defend. That is very unculturistic.

Worse, this meant that the definition gave sanction to some completely unsavory behaviors. If there is a right to defend cultural majority behaviors we have to say that at some level honor killings and female genital mutilation have the sanction of culturist rights. This impass caused deep soul searching and remembering of arguments.

In fact, the people who do honor killings and female genital mutilation think they are upholding morality. We have fundamentally different morality. As a secular progressive American, I cannot stomach such things. But that is due to my cultural programming. YES! I reaffirm that they have a right to do such things IN THEIR COUNTRY. NOT HERE. Yes, deep down and all the way, I recognize that there are others, there is diversity, and no one has a metaphysical hold on who is right.

But saying they have a right to defend such behaviors still means that I could be called upon to defend them. This brings us to international relations and Iraq. Does giving people the right to defend and define themselves give aid and comfort to those who are currently attacking our soldiers in Iraq? For many hours I thought about whether I could write anything that implied that I would ever root for our enemies or against the U.S. Mercifully, two solutions came to mind.

First of all, for clarification, we are not at war in Iraq, we are on a peace keeping mission. They are bombing each other and we are trying to stop them. That said, honestly, I do not hold up much hope of Iraq’s stabilizing as a democracy. Yes, to be honest, I think isolation is the culturist way and we should not have gone. I am willing to try and hope that I am wrong. But, as a culturist, I feel they hold too many values that run counter to the ideal of peaceful co-existence for it to work. If I pull punches on that now it won't help us to understand this culturist lesson in the future.

Secondly, my saying you have a right to define and defend yourself does NOT MEAN YOU DO NOT KICK ASS. If part of your culture is preparing and carrying out Jihad, our defining and defending ourselves means stopping you. Also, stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is part of defining and defending ourselves. Nukes are not a part of Iranian culture. But, here the culturist message is that a strike (ala Israel on Syria) is enough. We do not need to go and reform your culture. Apart from having nukes and training camps, culturism says go ahead and do what you will with your country.

Pragmatism was the final reason I decided to include the right to define and defend yourself in the definition of culturism. Other countries already believe they have a right to define and defend themselves. We do not. Ultimately, I am not concerned with what is happening internationally. I worry about America and other Western nations. We, of all cultures and nations, need to realize that we have a right to define and defend ourselves. This book is for America. We will be safer if we have a value that makes us pause before we try to reform others AND makes it clear to us that we have a right to define and defend ourseles! Nuances concerning rights aside, changing the definition serves a pragmatic purpose.

Anyhow, that is why Amazon shipping now takes longer. When the book arrives it will have the newest version of the definition and - hopefully - have more impact.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

What is a good American?

Technorati Profile

In speaking about culturism I’m asked what is an American – what is the majority culture of which you speak? This question is, of course, hard to answer because we are not easily defined, like other countries, by religion or race. We have a shared history and ideals and a shared future. But beyond that you have so many options that it boggles the mind: Gay ministers are good Americans and conservative gun proponents are good Americans too. We are a nation full of liberty and spectrum. But some general answers come to mind.

First of all, to be an American is to want what is best for America. This sounds like the utterance of a politician, but we have forgotten it. If you violate our laws and only complain about America you may not be a good American. Like being a Lakers fan, being a good American requires love. Fans can complain about their team –when will Kobe get some serious help and Mitch Kupchak leave – but at heart you have to really want your team to win.

The analogy with sports breaks down at the level of action. As a Lakers fan I am inactive. As an American, I speak with people about what I think will make America better. I attend rallies. But more than that, I try to improve myself and be a really good person in order to do credit to my grandfathers and our forefathers and our traditions. I work hard at what I do and take my work and role in America seriously.

If we need to change our institutions for your cultural group you are probably not a good candidate to be an American. For example, Muslims are currently challenging our basic holidays – holiday – build footbaths in quasi public institutions; change our photo identification laws and who gets served in markets and taxis. This is a bad sign. People are not fitting in. They are not conforming and in an era where individualism has eclipsed culturism, we are caving. We have to remember we have a culture and it requires some accommodation. If you are too inflexible to meld to our ways, you are probably a bad candidate for being an American.

Immigration that does not recognize the rule of law is another area of concern. Again, if we need to change our institutions to fit you, it is a sign you are not fitting in. Many immigrants believe that we need to dismantle our border laws to suit them. It is not clear that they want this because they think it is best for America. When people do not pay taxes once they are here or overuse public services and send money “home” it is not clear that they have America’s best interest at heart. A good American has upholding American institutions, fiscal stability and reputation as a goal.

This gets us to our last category. If you are a businessperson who puts profit above nation, you are a bad American. Divesting from America and running sweatshops domestically undermines our tax base. It enervates the middle class – which is a foundation of liberal democracies. If this country devolves into class hostility and violence – ala Mexico – we will lose liberties. Where will the businessman then live and enjoy a good quality of life? Do you really want to be secluded from America? Would it not feel better to be a part of an America that is strong free and something you can proud of? When your conscience is so checked out that you think porn on television and gangster rap on radio and no social questions arise, you have forgotten that we are all in this together. And remembering that we are all in this together is a big part of being a good American.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Happy Culturist Columbus Day!!

Technorati Profile

Columbus day is a very appropriate and interesting day for culturism to finally be available on amazon. That’s right!! You can now buy culturism on Amazon!! Culturism’s availability is important because it very directly addresses the Columbus Day / Indigenous People’s Day controversy. Some people, 83 of whom got arrested at Denver’s Columbus Day Parade, want to remind us of what a disaster Columbus’ arrival was for Native Americans by renaming the holiday. As such, they have a point. But this point hides their larger agenda: equating all Western Civilization with genocide and terror. This hidden agenda requires a much closer and accurate look at history and anthropology.

Columbus was ruthless and brought a wave of violent conquistadores in his wake. But his settlement in the Caribbean and the conquistadors’ incursions into what became Latin America were very different than the British incursion nearly one hundred years later. The British derived much of their self-worth from contrasting themselves with the “Black Legend” and cruelty of the Spanish conquest. Rather than coming to plunder, rule and leave, the early Americans came to stay and live. So not all Westerners were equally villainous. Furthermore, nearly all of the “genocide” that happened resulted from the unintentional spread of diseases.

But the largest readjustment in the thinking the protesters need has to do with their understanding of indigenous peoples. Their righteous stance comes from their imagining the natives in the iconic mold of the noble savage. As chapter four of culturism details, natives the world around were largely brutal, superstitious, and violent. Somewhat near Denver, the Anastazi Indians had deforested and ruined the environment as well as turning to warfare and cannibalism for sustenance before Columbus arrived. A major reason the conquistadores in Columbus’ wake were able to conquer so many folks with so many men is that indigenous people were tired of being hunted for human sacrifice by the Aztecs. The Aztecs and Mayans hunted tens of thousands, ate their flesh and wore their skins!!! The British settlers largely survived by providing natives protection from each other. Environmental ruin, starvation, and warfare were widespread before Columbus arrived.

Yes, indigenous people sustained damage due to Western incursion. But here we should, again, remember the long sweep of context. “Indigenous peoples” also includes Africans. Our 300 years of slave trading was an extension of “indigenous” Islamic slave trading that went on for over 1000 years. That slavery was larger in scale and resulted in fewer survivors. Native Americans had slaves too. America, England and Western Civ are not unique for having had slavery; we are unique for having stomped it out. Previous to Western civilization 25% of indigenous peoples died violent deaths. Even in our previous century only 1.5 % of males died in battle. Very few people die in war now. Certainly people died at the hands of European expansion. But they died in greater numbers before and have subsequently had the benefit of living in a peaceful world.

Culturism does not judge cultures. If you ask people that practice female genital mutilation they will, whether your Western ears believe it or not, tell you it is a good thing. Human sacrifice and constant warfare likely give life a great sense of gusto that we fail to appreciate. But if the protesters for Indigenous Peoples do not like war, early death due to disease, starvation, human sacrifice and slavery they have imbibed Western values. They should remember that many indigenous peoples today kill for God, engage in slavery, hang homosexuals, denigrate freedom of conscience and commit honor killings. The values these protesters revere are Western, not indigenous. They should join all Western cultures in applying Western standards of judgment to Columbus. Then they should celebrate the spread of Western values they embrace and celebrate Western cultures’ spread by buying culturism on Amazon right now!

Friday, September 21, 2007

Great Western Art

Technorati Profile

Yesterday was amazing. I got free tickets to go see the final rehearsal of Lucia di Lammermoor at New York’s Metropolitan Opera. Then, after my daily stay in the library’s basement, I went to a discussion group on Aeschylus Oresteia. When there I got a call and free tickets to go see A Chorus Line on Broadway. Wow!!

I tried hard to think of what the common culturist lesson was in these pieces. They are very different. Lucia di Lammermoor depicts an over-the-top struggle of love against an arranged marriage and includes a famous “mad scene” before bodies populate the stage. A Chorus Line focuses on the lives of much more believable individuals who are struggling to get work in a – you guessed it – chorus line. And the Oresteia concerns the birth of justice in a dilemma in which one must avenge their father’s murder, but the mother killed the father. Finding a commonality between all of these was hard.

One can see the concerns as increasingly petty. The Greek Oresteia concerns huge issues, fate, the death of the age of the Gods, the Birth of justice, male versus female. The Opera had huge love, and the Chorus line was just about average individuals. But, saying this is a progression or a declension is hard. The Opera had unsurpassed music and virtuosity, but its theme was trite. No one falls in love and kills themselves like that. I learned more from the low brow musical. Its all down hill from Greek plays in terms of death and depth. But the musical about the common man speaks to me. One could not say progress or declension is a theme across the ages of Western theater.

Morality was another angle I considered. In the Orestia, Orestes, must revenge his fathers death. But his father killed his sister so that the Trojan War would go well. He was also trapped in a lose – lose situation. A strong sense of duty motivates the characters. The Opera characters rebel out of selfish love and the Chorus Line folk only think of their own passion when it comes to job choice. But, then again, our being able to do what makes sense to us is a virtue. If there is a commonality, it is people raging against their situations and trying to live according to truths – be they individual or duty centered. From a long Western perspective, the individualistic passionate dancers are not less than the murdering Greek’s or the Opera’s characters who are also dedication to love.

Pride. The culturist meaning I came up with is pride in our artistic accomplishments. We have a long and variegated history of theater in the West. These are enigmatic, entertaining, and inspiring pieces. Others have their ritual prayers and stereotypical crafts – gotta love those – but our artistic striving from the Greeks to Broadway has produced some gems to be proud of. These are consciously contrived expressions of the individual vision with high levels of artistic mastery. Those who say the Western tradition is just about materialism and acquisition, should know about the Western creation of the individual and enshrinement of his conscience. They should know that we are proud of the material wealth our capitalists and scientists have brought to the world. But those of you who still have doubts about our greatness, should really go see some fabulous theater today!!

Monday, September 10, 2007

Muslim Parade and Immigration History

Technorati Profile

Recently I joined other concerned Americans at the Muslim Parade here in NYC. I found out about it throuh Atlas of It was put together by and the stop the maddrassas coalition had considerable numbers of people there. But as I was interviewed I came to realize that I was not clear as to why I was there. I came with no group and represented no one other than an average American - myself.

As interviews rolled on, I became more focused. One interview which was aired shows this. It can be found at (though they misidentify me as Lee, not Johnny P.). As the interview shows the main positive message I could get out was that we should stop muslim immigration now. As in Culturism, I use the pragmatic reasoning that we stand to lose very much, by way of terrorism, and to gain very little by continued Muslim immigration. More philosophically, I mentioned that we are not under any moral obligation to let them into our country. As evidence I noted that they do not let us into theirs. We have a right and a duty to make cost - benefit calculations when deciding policy. We are not bound by international rights which do not exist.

This, in fact, is our tradition. Interviewers asked if we are not defined as the land that never discriminates and always allows immigrants. People do not know basic history. In 1924 the Johnson - Reed Immigration Act basically stopped immigration to this country until 1965. And it did so on the basis of Culturist discrimination. From the late 19th century until the 1924 Act there were terrorist bombings across America. The Palmer raids to deport dangerous aliens happened because two bombs were ignited infront of Attorney General Palmer's home, for example. Everyone knew that the Anarchist and terrorist bombing was done by Eastern and Southern Europeans (Jews and Italians). The cultures that they carried over had revolution in their rhetoric. And so the 1924 Act targeted those populations. It said immigration numbers would reflect the percentage of the population in 1890 (going back to a more Western European centered demography).

So this is not the first time we have encountered a culture immigrating that condoned terrorism. Again, not all did - my great grandparents for example - but the calculation was made as to what we gained by allowing more in versus what we risked by keeping them out. We decided our nation was full enough and pulled up the drawbridge. After that - lo and behold - people assimilated and terrorism (even during the Great Depression) disappeared. Those who do not remember the past do not learn lessons from their past. Those who control the past, Orwell said, control the future. We must remember our basic history to know what our traditions and options are. For the time being our tradition says stop Islamic immigration until we can document that the number of attempted terrorist attacks a year on our soil have stabilized at zero.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Atlas, Tattoos, and Football

Technorati Profile

Today, the fabulous Pamela "Atlas" Geller had Diana West as a radio guest. West's book, The Death of the Grown-Up,says our civilization is endangered by a lack of a mature outlook. In the interview she pointed to the higher education opportunities for the 1960s kids and their allowances causing marketing to be aimed at them creating a rise in the power of youth. She also, intriguingly, indicated that Hitler's shadow discredited authority. They also talked for a long time about our lack of ability to stomach bad news in Iraq and our inability to stand up to Islam. West's interpretations and their conversations were fascinating.

On hold, I wanted to pop off two of my wilder culturist ideas. People may agree with the philosophy of culturism without endorsing a particular policy. And some fun points can serve as learning prompts. The first fun observation I wanted to anonymously note was that the military is not the only anomaly of machoness in our country. Professional sports are too. When Michael Vick and others get caught doing immoral acts, when basketball players cuss or fight, they are suspended. The leagues take having role models and a reputation seriously. I would love it if public media [not private] would suspend any publicity or mention of celebrities that get caught with drugs. This would create an island of sane media for kids to watch. It would also show that we take morals seriously. Professional sports do not want to be seen as a collection of uncivilized thugs, neither should the United States.

My second possibly extreme comment concerned my pet peeve. I live on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Nearly everyone here has tattoos on their hands, arms, and faces. If anything shows immaturity it is the view that you want to exclude yourself from any high level, non-artistic, gainful pursuit. It not only limits your potential, but says that you are convinced that you will not change or develop as you age; at sixty you will still want the same images on your body. Were these tough posers to face war they would likely melt. These hipsters are not tough, or impressive, they are immature, overgrown children pretending to live an adolescent dream. But I do not mean to judge!

My proposal to remedy this is to severely punish those who give tattoos to people under 35. When you are 18 you often haven't even paid rent. You are not mature enough to make such a long-term decision. Though individuals have rights, we have a cultural right to have a culture that nurtures positive behaviors, that does not corrupt our impressionable young. You have a right to positive acts, not to irresponsibility, to liberty, not to license. Children of 18 are not mature enough to have no cultural guidance from any but other 18 year olds. West would tell you that we need to be mature and macho enough to tell children what to do.

Culturism the book - not to get to deep here - tells us that rights require a functioning society with a sense of responsibility. If our society falls due to irresponsibility rights will not continue to result from some metaphysical guarentee. Sustaining real freedom requires the mature effort that creates a functioning society; pretending you are tough is not enough. A nation of children would fall quickly. When we abdicate our resopnsibility to teach such truths we are complicit in our collective erosion.

My two solutions, kicking bad people off public airwaves and raising the age of tattoo rights, might offend some people. They would be right to note that we must be concerned with the protection of free speech. But we cannot always let the evoking of absolute rights undermine democracy and our sense of responsibility. Free speech does not mean unqualified rights to public airwaves and space. Those affected are free to vote against such laws (even at 18 since we capitulated to the Sixtees generation rather than standing up to it on that count). These suggestions might not do well in our current cultural climate. But, West and Atlas are right. Not having the spine needed to put forth unpopular suggestions does bode well for us.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Disagreement with Mr. Pipes

Technorati Profile
I hate to disagree with someone I respect as much as Mr. Pipes, but alas in the interest of illustrating a few points . . .

The article of his with which I take exception concerns Saudi Arabia's airline, Saudia. Its website warns potential passengers that no religious relics are allowed in the Saudi Kingdom. Mr. Pipes rejects, correctly, banning religious items in this country. He then suggests that we ban their airline.

Mr. Pipes and I agree that Saudi Arabia represents a peculiar and different civilization. I hope we also agree that Western civilization is also peculiar and different. Neither can be said to be the best or the future winner in the battle for survival.

What Saudi Arabia allows into their country is none of our business. If they want to only wear red and walk backwards, that is their privilege as a sovereign nation. The idea that we must make them behave like us is based on the idea that Western culture is or should be the default of the world. Even if it should be, it isn't. We must learn to accept that. Our interference in other cultures, our attempts to remake them in our image, will likely lead to failure and resentment.

While they are them, we are us (what a sentence!). The West is a distinctive and unique group of cultures. America also has distinctive traditions. While we cannot ban mosques, we must recognize that they are a threat to our separation of church and state, because there is no separation (witness Saudi Arabia) between mosque and state. While Saudi Arabia has a right to define itself, we have a right and duty to define ourselves.

To this end, we should immediately ban Saudi Monies from coming into America for the purpose of building mosques and funding advocacy groups. We can welcome investment. This is culturally neutral. But mosques are not in the Western tradition. We have 1400 years of war with Islam. Their attempts to overtake Europe being repelled on September 11th, 1683 is not so far away that we can again allow the creation of Islamic centers in Western lands. Just as we have no universal right to bring crosses into their lands, they do not have a universal right to fund culturally aggressive programs in our land. The problem with assertions of universal rights and rejecting Saudi Arabia's right to define and defend itself is that it undermines the same rights for us. Cultural rights of self-determination should be respected.

Two culturist principles are herein clarified. One is that diversity exists and will exist. The details about Wahhabi supremicist groups in his article should scare us and alert us to the fact that not all peoples are Westerners or Americans. The other culturist principle is that Saudi Arabia, as well as most other nations, take the culturist mission of self-definition and self-defense, to be a common sense part of their mission. We should not be surprised that they have a distinct culture or defend it; we should learn from it. We also have a distinct culture and should defend it. They practice Saudi culturism, we must practice Western culturism.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Education, diversity, and culturism

Technorati Profile

Diversity exists and we have a culture. Culturism emphasizes both of these truths. John Andrews reports that the "we" in the first sentence cannot be defined by the Colorado University Regent Paul Schauer. While Colorado University has ethnic studies, it has no Western Civilization program (which might explain the Regent's appauling lack of education). And this mindset results in, as the case here, a failure to define and promote ourselves - culturism. Our failure to promote Western Civilization is very frightening.

Sometimes definition by contrast is the clearest. That is why culturists must remind people of the very diversity concept they laud. Three execution style murders of students in Newark, New Jersey fall outside the pale of Western Civilization. But, Schaer might assert, that was an abberation from any cultural point of view, wasn't it? The answer is no; diversity is wide. Ethnic ethos are not just variations of politeness.

Violent cultures in which machismo and an early death are the norm exist. Much of Mexico is run by drug runners who commit brutal murders in a short and glorious life. This is an outgrowth of the general fatalism of the culture. It is not an abberation, it is a stable mutli-generational cultural way of life. If you celebrate diversity without qualification, you celebrate M-13 style death cults. Rejecting that lifestyle highlights appreciation for Western Civilizations sense of fair play, rule of law, respect for the individual, and optimism.

Somalis recently watched as a woman was brutalized and raped in their apartment building. Could brutalizing women be a part of a culture? Yes. Western Civilization allows women rights. Women in many long - stable cultures have been treated as livestock and slaves. Honor killings, female genital mutilation, and cultures where women cannot go outside without their husband's permission, exist. Tell that to the women's studies department and those celebrating ethnics. The Somalis were just practicing their ethnic culture in Western lands. Women's rights are a part of Western Civilization.

Recently a Muslim woman shot her husband because he was going to Morocco to get a second wife. Our laws cannot even accomodate such diversity. How do we marry the second wife? Can each sue for their part if he dies? Our laws are based upon expected cultural habits. What if women are to be kept in Hegabs and they are not allowed to take them off for driver's license photos? If people want to marry multiple women or not allow them to drive or have honor killings or wear hegabs in other countries, that is not our business. But it cannot happen in Western nations. Westen legal systems are based on western cultural assumptions. If you want to know about Western civilization look at the philosophical and cultural assumptions in our laws.

We do have a culture. It is progressive. It believes in the dignity of individual conscience. The application of the mind to problems of the world allowed us to create the modern life that we have helped spread around the world and allows those from around the world to come to Western nations. But that does not mean that global diversity is over. We have a specific culture that, are you listening Regent Schauer, stems from a tradition starting with Socrates questioning, moving to Jesus' belief in equality for all in love and potential, our Enlghtenment ideals getting us away from warlords and creating science, and - yes - progressive political movements.

Ours is a specific culture it has taken eons of struggle to create. It is not just the world's default. If we do not wish people to passively watch rapes, do execution style murders, and have multiple wives in this country we have to assert that these behaviors are wrong. We have to tell people, in essence, about Western culture. We need to announce the correlary truth that sustaining our culture requires people to apply themselves reasonably to the problems of the world, in a progressive, and law-abiding manner. We need to teach about our historic respect for the individual mind and its abilities. Without defining ourselves, without borders and laws, we can slip deep into the diverse natural tendencies of man. That is why we must teach Western Civilization.

Friday, August 3, 2007

China's 2008 Olympics

Technorati Profile

Yesterday I saw my first advertisement for the 2008 Olympics in China. This event will bring prestige to China. On the same day I received my monthly copy of the fabulous newsletter Impris (get it free at For once, I was not in sympathy with this month's article. It was called "Dealing with China in the Coming Years."

The Impris article was worried about China's influence and sustainability, military, and economy. I share worry about our not effectively competing with China economically. We should be as anti-egalitarian and as pro-Western in our dealings with them as they are pro-Chinese. But the rest of the article was very impatient that China turn into a liberal democracy. The article asserts that they are a "dictatorship" and optimistically proclaims in the alst paragraph, "We should talk back to the Chinese when they question our open society, and openly criticize Chinese repression. Above all, we should continue to be a beacon for freedom. . . "

When the Olympics start those who believe in universal human rights will start protesting of China. They will basically be saying that the entire world must adopt Western standards of right and wrong. The Impris article is worried because China's GDP quadrupled between 1978 and 1992. It has since been growing faster. And yet we, with our huge trade deficits are supposed to tell them how to live! Abstract and absolute application of rights for criminals and students and uncensored media are our way. They need not be the way of the whole world.

We are a young nation. As the Impris article points out Asian - American students comprise 50 percent or more of the student body at numerous universities. Perhaps we have something to learn. If we continue to confuse liberty and licence; the right to be responsible in numerous ways and the right to party without consequence; we may not be around as long as China. Rather than telling other people that they must be like us, we can best secure liberty by telling our current population that they must be more like our forefathers. China's future is not our responsibility. We must take care of ourselves.

The Olympics should teach us something. It is a competitive world. Teams that do not accept discipline from their coaches are at a disadvantage. Teams that will allow you to play regardless of how many practices you miss will fail. Teams on which the members do not really care if they win or not - those that are committed to the whole world being one big team under Western individualism - may lose. We should enjoy and learn from China's 2008 Olympics. We should rally for our team, instead of decrying theirs.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007


Technorati Profile

My friend Doc is a universalist. He believes that all humanity is one. Many people do. Yet I as a culturist am not dedicated to the proposition of "humanity." I believe that people divide into cultures. What did I tell Doc?

In culturism I go back to nature . In nature animals live in groups. This is a necessary survival trait in animals that do not recognize eachother, such as fish. Animals, including fish, are quite territorial. This is not rational. When Chimpanzee groups split your old friends become your enemies. Plumage, smells, and sounds are used to differentiate the in group from the out group. This is universal and functional.

Mankind has lived in tribes for 97% of his time on earth. Tribes are defined by their group nature. Tribes shared the same characteristics as the animals described above. This is not a coincidence. Neither, I told Doc, is it a coincidence that all people on all continents in all stages of humanity's development have been found in cultural clusters.

This is still the case today. As much as we would love China's government to advocate for all of humanity, it does not. As much as we would love Islamic nations to work towards a united secular order, they do not. Nations and cultures exist; and in a world with scarcity (the one we live in) they are in competition. We all love a good "win-win" situation; but such a situation still has sides to win.

Lastly, Doc said, "Yes. This might all be true, but the world is getting diverse and globalized." This, however, is not the case. The West is getting globalized. We are opening our borders and refusing to take sides. Asian countries are still racially defined. I cannot become Japanese. Islamic nations are not allowing diversity in their nations.

All groups, in all times, have recognized they are on teams. From tribal times on people have rooted for their own side. The other teams in this league are united and loyal. We do not even recognize that we have a team. Cultures exist. Diversity exists. If our side becomes weak, the others gain. When others gain ascendancy, it will not be a win-win for us. But it will not be a bad day for "humanity" since there is no such grouping.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The West is NOT superior

Technorati Profile
Culturism does not hold that the West is superior. We must recognize that Islamic peoples think that their way of life is superior, and we have no way to disprove that. There are joys of being an Indonesian headhunter that we will never know. The community that often accompanies poverty is priceless. Culturism recognizes no metaphysical or philosophical or self-evident way of proving our way is superior. It is just ours.

If our way of life were obviously superior, culturism would not be necessary; we could just sit back and wait for our triumph. And this is precisely the problem. To the extent that we think our way of life superior, we can ignore its sustainability. When we run up debts (personal and private), don't discourage our young from being tattooed, uneducated, single-mothers (sorry about the tattoo crack), we undermine our cultures economic viability. A large middle class is the backbone of democracy. Allowing massive third-world immigration undermines our middle class. Not being willing to discourage terrorists from be coming citizens shows a pathological indifference to our own well being. We must recognize that Western civilization does not reflect eternal universal truths; but fragile, temporal beliefs we and our forefathers chose.

International meddling also results from the belief that Western values are universal and obviously superior. When we go into other countries to make them like us it shows a profound lack of appreciation for cultural diversity. Islamic countries have their own brand of culturism. They, without the separation of church and state we hold obviously superior, promote their own culture. China's government promotes China's well-being, Korea, Korea's . . . This is natural. But China does not try to export her race based confucious ideals to us. Islamic countries have no universal right to build mosques and spread their ideals here. And, likewise, we must recognize that protecting rights, individualism, democracy, and progressivism are our culturist duty. Our culture is only our own.

Saturday, July 7, 2007


Technorati Profile

Yesterday I went to the very excellent Brooklyn Museum of Art. They have a show on feminism that is quite provocative and an excellent exhibit on the creation of the American identity. Surprisingly, this blog will be about the feminist experience!

There was an excellent lecture on ancient Minoan Goddess worship. This genre of history is based on the findings of the minoan civilization on Crete that date back from 2500 - 1500. The lecturer noted that in over 1000 pieces of art there is no fighting or attacking of women. Females are central in many of the images and women are depicted participating in religious ritual. Symbols of regeneration, such as the bull, tree, and snake, appear frequently in this art. Then, according to the lecturer, it was wiped out in 1500 b.c.

I loved the art displayed and the idyllic civilization he portrayed. The problem stems from the constant beating up of Western civilization that such lectures are always enjoying. They contrast the peaceful images with the violent ones of Greece. Via art and reinterpretation of myths (such as the capture of the Amazons) writers claim that Western civilization was based on a patriarchal attack on peaceful female civilizations. Later, other authors show, that the bible starts by damning women and the bull (devil), tree (of life), and snake (in the garden) and establishing an angry sky god.

There are several problems to this condemnation of Western Civ. First of all, Homer does not even start writing until 1100 - 800 b.c. By this time the minoans would be gone for 400 years and on an island. Worse yet, though, is nearly every primitive culture we have found in historic times, no matter how isolated, is brutal and oppressive. If the goddess culture thrived, it did so for a short time in on an island. No major states that we know of, from Egypt to the Aztecs, to the Persians, have been paradisical. It is not fair to judge Western civilization by a standard that has only been found via archeological digs on an island.

In comparison to all the historic civilizations, primitive tribes, and current regimes, we are by far the most peaceful and respectful of women's independence and rights. A fair evaluation cannot be made to ruins and unrealized utopian goals. This is the real world. And the goddess worshippers should recognize which culture supports their right to pursue their dreams, create their religion, and feel empowered.

But again, aesthetically, the finds at Crete are gorgeous and the exhibits at the Brooklyn Museum very much worth visiting!!

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Lost in the Guggenheim

Technorati Profile

I went to the Guggenheim museum today and certainly would not recommend it to anyone I liked. There were some good exhibits. They had a room of early impressionists. These people created a revolution in the art word when they stopped painting the objective world as though they were taking a photograph of the “objective” world. Instead they sought to portray the subjective experience of vision. In real life a train may look like a train, but I may experience it as motion and light. Pointillists did this to wonderful affect; they recognized that our visual field is received as undifferentiated pixels of light.

The Guggenheim also featured many Kandinsky’s. He was the artist that took this artistic divorce from the objective world to another level. His work eventually retained no references to any natural objects from the objective world. Thus his work was not representational; but fully abstract. This lead to the modern works of art which feature blank canvases and random pieces of metal such as those displayed in many modern art museums and corporate lobbies.

After leaving the museum, we went to a Catholic cathedral dedicated to St. Ignatius Loyola. The structure and every piece in it were breath taking testimony to the glory of man’s ability. Taken as a whole; it was an awe inspiring work of art. To do modern art and have a decent conscience one must ignore such monumental and glorious pieces. A piece of black metal cannot compare favorably with any great work of art before the impressionists. From the Greeks to the French Royal Academy the works of Western art have sought to show the glory of man and have succeeded. Modern art does not so much contrast itself with older art as it exerts a profound amnesia in its creation.

Modern art’s amnesia is done so in the name of freedom. It tries to get at the essence of the individual experience. In doing so it must not reference traditions or objects which would impose themselves on the viewer. The problem is that one can never extract themselves from the culture from which they so unnaturally try to divorce themselves. The very goal of encapsulating an individual perspective free from the constraints of the outside institutions IS a Western project.

Liberation, unfortunately for modern art, does not come from being alone. In real life it leads to isolation and starvation; no man is an island because he cannot survive as one. Freedom comes from a collective effort. That is why the abstract art feels so alienating and says so little to viewers. We leave perplexed and uninspired. Furthermore, despite the emancipatory goals of modern artists, we leave less empowered than ever. There is nothing to strive for, nothing to achieve, and we feel alien and unable to understand another segment of our world. Culturist art would recognize the power of tradition, further our collective glorification, leave people feeling awed, uplifted and connected. Unfortunately, when you leave modern galleries like the Guggenheim, you just feel cheated.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Girls Kissing on a Bus

June 20th a 64 year old public bus driver got in trouble. He kicked two 14 year old girls off of his bus for making out. In doing so he called them "sickos." The mother was outraged and wanted to be assured that the driver was not getting away with a "slap on the wrist." The driver's action may have been inappropriate. I did not see how light or heavy their kissing was. What is inappropriate the assumption that his actions were necessarily wrong.

From an individualistic, rights-based perspective, anyone telling anyone what to do cannot be tolerated and must be reprimanded immediately. What is missing from this consideration are the sensibilities of the rest of the people on the bus. What if others did not want to see sexual acts? What if there were children on the bus (excluding the 14 year old girls) whose parents did not want them exposed to lewd sexuality of any orientation? What of the girls' respect for their elders and those around them? No. None of these issues was deemed worthy of taking into consideration in the eyes of the policy enforcement bureaucrats.

It is not irrational homophobia to want to stop children from having sex in public. Cultures are largely sucessful to the extent that they have intact families and value education. Cultures in which people are largely promiscuous and engage in premarital sex are fragile. Our elders have had more time to think about such things. There are deep religious and secular cultural reasons, grounded deep in our history, that inform the older sensibilities of the bus driver in question. He may not have thought of the importance of distinguishing liberty from license in supporting a first world republic. But he was not only expressing idiosyncratic quirks.

People who only make judgements based on the absolute value of individuaism miss out on a lot. The bureaucrats who punished him were likely only thinking of lawsuits. They know that the judicial system does not consider culturist values. They knew that their programming taught them that any restrictions on individuals will get you sued. But they may not have thought of what the judges do not consider. Certainly the mother who was not outraged at her children's public sexuality and disrespect for the elderly driver has imbibed individualism as an absolute. But being aware of our cultural history, what makes a culture thrive, and the wisdom in thinking about others' sensibilities makes us richer, better people.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Questions Concerning Culturism

If you have any questions about the contents of culturism I would be delighted to answer them.

Monday, June 4, 2007

John Edwards

John Edwards' performance in the debates showed a profound ignorance of culturist dynamics. He said the first thing he would do if elected would be to leave the country!!! He would leave for six months!!!!! He would tell the people that we believe in absolute rights and diversity to "reestablish moral authority."

This is the sort of thinking that got us into the Iraq war. Does he think that the rest of the world needs more of our moral authority? Does our safety lay in telling the rest of the world how to run their countries? The countries he mentioned going to, by the way, were European. What does he think the response would be were he to go to China and Iran and start telling them about the glories of Western ways? Does he think that this would make them see that we are right and to be worshipped?

Rights and individualism are our vision, not the world's. To go around the world trumpeting them seems more antagonistic than understanding.