AN ACADEMIC BOOK RECOMMENDS WAR IN EUROPE!

Peter Turchin’s, ‘Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth,’ necessarily implies that the West needs a popular war within or near its borders. He reluctantly confesses, “A reactionary catchphrase of the 1970s used to go, “what this generation needs is a war,” a deplorable sentiment but one that in terms of cultural evolution might sometimes have a germ of cold logic.”^[i]

THE STORY OF MAN AND WAR

Turchin’s main project is to explain the existence of civilisations.  To this end, he tells the story of social cooperation’s rise and expansion.  Being an evolutionary anthropologist he starts by describing chimpanzees use of violence to maintain their group cohesion and hierarchy.

But, by the Pleistocene era, (2 million – 10,000 BC), evidence indicates that man, (homicide aside), was largely peaceful and egalitarian.  Why?  Stone weapons!  Upstart bullies could be pounded in the head with stones during their sleep.  So weapons enforced egalitarian cooperation.

At the end of the Pleistocene era, because the weather became stable, populations boomed. At this point, you get brutal unequal chiefdoms.  TAhe standard model says that agriculture created the archaic states.  Turchin convincingly argues that this is not true, war did.

For thousands of years, after agriculture became widespread, people continued to do hunting and gathering as well.  Those with these blended economies were free and equal. And these folks’ had much better diets than those who only did agriculture. So agriculture does not explain the rise of states.  

Using math, history and evolutionary logic, Turchin argues that one group switching to a centralised hierarchical state system could dominate and enslave the others.  Once one group had switched, others had to do so or be beaten. So hierarchical cooperation was born and brutally enforced. War made people do agricultural, not vice versa.  Societies’ roots are in war.

But, starting about 500 BC, Turchin explains, military horse use decisively tilted the military advantage to whoever could field the largest army. Large armies require big population bases. Hierarchical archaic states' control via violence limited their size and created internal disunity.

Universal monotheistic religions enabled larger societies.  Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Confucian taught rulers to treat their subjects with care.  In turn, these religions legitimised supporting the king. But these egalitarian ethics, again, were there to create larger populations in order to win wars.   

THE CULTURIST CRITIQUE

Turchin ends his book asking a huge culturist question, “How do we develop the science of cooperation?”^[ii] His answers are all skewed because he ignores cultural diversity. 

In arguing that modern ethics all evolved to the same end, (making big populations for war), and so are the same, Turchin undermines Western pride. When nations are proud, (Imperial England), they spread; when ashamed, (the West under multicultural philosophy), they contract and crack. 

Yes, Mr. Turchin, war makes societies via cultural innovation.  But, that does not mean all cultures are the same.  

His failure to note cultural diversity also leads him to assume that military conflict is a thing of the past.  War deaths have been declining for five hundred years. So, going forward, he concludes, we’ll only have economic competition.  But, as he enthuses, global cooperation only arose in 1945.^[iii] And, really, the 'ultrasociety' still does not exist.

No sane society would bet its life on Islam forever forgoing violence and adopting 'universal' values.

CULTURIST POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In showing how ethics facilitate empire, Turchin tells us that Spain could only keep its Middle Ages multi-ethnic empire together via fervently acknowledging its shared Christian Catholic identity. And, eventually, religious schism undermined the Spanish empire.^[iv] This means multiculturalism destroys societies so the culturist policy of promoting assimilation is safer.

But, ultimately empires collapse because their wars happen on distant front lines.  When, in the empire’s capitol city, “ . . . survival is no longer at stake, selfish elites and other special interest groups capture the political agenda. The spirit that ‘we are all in the same boat’ disappears,” and inequality, disunity and social collapse follow.^[v]

In reviewing the scientific literature, Turchin concludes, “The evolution of cooperation is driven by competition between groups.”^[vi] Again, he assumes going forward competition will only be economic.  But, if not, the ‘cold logic’ of his formula wherein the absence of war undermines cooperation, means we need war and we need it close to home.  And, for the West, there is only one plausible enemy close to home: Islam.

CULTURIST CHOICES

As a culturist, I have long argued that Western governments must: a) Drop their guise of cultural neutrality, acknowledge Western culture and legally protect it; b) Stop Muslim immigration both for safety and to create an enemy; c) Deport any immigrant who advocates Sharia for lying during naturalization; d) Stop Saudi mosque funding on our soil.

I advocate these non-violent culturist policies because violence is unnecessary, would undermine our legal system, cause property damage and possibly end in defeat. But, Turchin’s thesis, war creates states, strongly suggests that we would best reach our culturist goals via violent confrontation with enemies on or near European soil.

---

^[i] Turchin, Peter, Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth, (Chaplin: Beresta Books, 2016), 42.

^[ii] Ibid. 230.

^[iii] Ibid. 5.

^[iv] Ibid. 203.

^[v] Ibid. 42.

^[vi] Ibid. 93.

-->

-->

Be Culturist! Judge Cultures! Islam is Retarded!

Islam is retarded!  Retard means, ‘to slow down the development or progress of (something); to hinder advance or accomplishment.’[i]   It also indicates subnormal mental abilities. Islam is retarded in several ways.  It seeks to bring us back to the 7^th century.  In the 21^st century, if that isn’t retarded, I don’t know what is.

We need to be able to say such things – to judge cultures!  It is not racist; it is culturist.   I don’t oppose mosques in the West because dark skinned people meet there.  I oppose mosques because they are temples to retardation!  What self-respecting progressive nation would encourage building temples to retardation?

Multiculturalism promotes retardation by asserting that old world cultures such as African tribes and Hinduism are equal to western culture.  Voodoo dolls and the caste system?  No thanks.  The same goes for Black ghetto culture.  It’s retarded. I am western.  I am into the first world.  I am a progressive, I believe in the future.  I am not a multiculturalist.  I am a culturist.  I judge cultures.

Christianity is not retarded.  Protestantism’s emphasis individual conscience paved the way for scientific inquiry.   A glance at history shows that the West’s combination of Jerusalem and Athens created modernity.  Social studies conclusively link Protestant culture and good government.[ii]  Churches support the culture that made democracy and science possible.  Churches are temples to man’s individual and collective improvement.

As one cannot separate culture and biology, I will go one step further in establishing that Islam is retarded.  Both Athens and Jerusalem emphasize conscious frontal lobe activity; It is because our frontal lobes are so big that we have human abilities.  Islam’s ritual and appeal to anger trigger activity in the cerebellum and amygdala (centers of movement and fear).  As such, Islam seeks to focus on parts of the brain we share with reptiles.  That is beyond mongoloid Down Syndrome retarded!

On the theme of biology, having pride increases serotonin levels and posture. [iii]   Western culturism - by taking pride in our futurist western culture and denigrating backwards cultures - physically increases western fitness.  Multiculturalism and Islam work to lower our standing; to make us equal to and lower than other cultures.  We will never progress as long as we think we’re equal to or below retarded cultures.  When we stand tall we give a sense of direction to ourselves and to the world. 

So spread these culturist thoughts: I judge cultures.  The West is the best.  Our culture increases life spans. Our culture invented the internet and water heaters.  Islam has invented nothing of any use.  Islamic culture is not equal to ours. Stoning women is retarded.  Islam is retarded!

---

[i] Merriam – Webster dictionary, retard, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retard

[ii] Putnam, Robert, D., “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century; The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture;” Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pages 137–174, June 2007.

[iii] David M. Buss, “Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of Mind,” (Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2012) p. 387.

Islam is the Enemy! Not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda

Islam is behind the Paris bombings, the Mali hostage situation, 7/7 in London, and all the other more than 20,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.  Media must stop saying “ISIS has claimed responsibility,” “The Taliban did it,” or “We’re looking for the ringleader.” When they ask such questions, they back up the multicultural idea that the religion is okay, it’s only a few bad apples that are giving Islam a bad name.  To win this battle, we must identify the enemy properly.  It is Islam!

“But, Culturist John,” you might ask, “You’re not saying all Muslims are terrorists, are you?”  “No.  But, I am a culturist, I believe cultural diversity is real.  And, Muhammed was a warrior. He fought in over 20 battles, established a theocracy and beheaded dissenters. If you follow Muhammed, you’re glorifying an expansionist theocratic killer. You’re part of a religion dedicated to violently taking over the world.”

Multiculturalists deny that Islam is behind all these attacks.  Ironically, multiculturalists tell you that all religions are the same.  They say, “Islam is a religion of peace. We’re only hunting a few groups: ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Lone Wolves. Then all will be peaceful again.”  BS.  If you follow Muhammed, you glorify a theocratic warrior killer! As a culturist I am dedicated to convincing the multicultural West that cultural diversity is real.  Islam as a whole is behind all of these attacks.

Then the Left claims, “Muslim’s attack because of what the West did in Iraq.  It’s because of Israel.”  This also pushes the idea that deep down, Islam only wants peace. So I answer, “Did Mali participate in the Iraq war? Why are Muslims attacking in Thailand?  How about India?  Why are Muslims attacking Muslims?  Why did Islam take Spain in 711? Was that because of Iraq?  Israel?” I’ll answer my own rhetorical questions: Islam’s attacks are not a response to a specific policy.  Starting with Muhammed in 622 A.D., Islam has always sought to impose global theocracy via violence. 

“But not all Muslims are terrorists,” they cry.  Culturists reply, “Many ‘Christians’ never go to church, (which doesn’t take much commitment).  And, not all Muslims are brave enough to go on suicide missions. But to support Jesus is to support a pacifist, who valued individuals. To support Muhammed is to support a killer dedicated to theocracy.  All mosques promote the values of this expansionist theocratic warrior.  They are guilty! Individual Muslims may not be violent.  But, Islam is!”   

As a culturist, my focus is cultural diversity being real. Islam is a violent theocratic religion bent on world domination.  And, to highlight cultural differences, we culturists must denounce the media when they ask, “Who was the ringleader?” or “Was ISIS responsible?” or they say, “We are searching for the suspect in Belgium.” We culturists must shout, “The problem is not Al-Quaeda in Mali or ‘the suspect’ or ‘ISIS’; the problem is Islam!”

My 'Imagine' is the Antidote to Lennon's Horrible Anthem

Culturist Policy Article # 4 – Repatriation

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

--   --    -    --    --    --    --    -

There are three approaches to repatriation: racist; ‘absolute culturist,’ and ‘pragmatic culturist.’  This article will completely reject the racist model; explain the problems with the absolute culturist model and promote the pragmatic culturist model.

---     --    --    --    --    --   -- 

Racist repatriation policy:

Racist policy gets mentioned only to highlight its stupidity and vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation. 

Racists repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western areas.  Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multiethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy would lead to society collapsing into violence. 

Absolute culturist repatriation policy:

Absolute culturists want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their country of origin.  Note how much subtler this is than racist repatriation.  It does not cast Hindus, Asians, and all Africans into the same net.  It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.

The culturist profiling of Muslims is advocated on the basis the belief that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with and even hostile to, western civilization.  From a culturist perspective, this makes sense. However, it suffers from the same potential for civil unrest that the racist position does. 

Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to the West.  If we violate the rights of citizens, we set a precedent and take actions that intrinsically erode our sense of due process. 

Thus the absolute culturist policy, it seems to me, a road to civil disorder and, on a more philosophical level, immediately undermines the West’s view of itself by violating our laws and due process.

Pragmatic Culturist repatriation policy:

The pragmatic culturist policy relies on several measures aimed at stopping the Islamification of the West, while preserving the rule of law.

First of all, in terms of immigration, both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West.  And, to the extent legally possible, both would deny all pending residence permissions.  Neither of these measures compromises our system of law or rights.  Our Constitution protects our citizens.  If you are a foreigner, we have not compromised any rights to which you were entitled. 

This next measure is tailored to the United States, but pragmatic culturist would hope that a legal version pertains in your western nation. In our naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, “that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Furthermore, they “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty.”

Sharia law violates our Constitution.  Having supported ISIS or Al Queda means you backed a foreign state. In other words, persons who have backed these terror groups perjured themselves during their naturalization process. As such, such a person is liable for prosecution. However, in the name of efficiency, simply rendering their naturalization null and void and repatriating them will do. 

Furthermore, if you donated to or actively participated in a mosque that is knowingly pro-Sharia and hostile to the West, your citizenship should be revoked.  If you engaged in any un-western practices such as polygamy, female genital mutilation, attending a Sharia court or defying our government proceedings in the name of Islam (for example, not removing your hijab for identification or demanding our schools are halal) repatriation proceedings must proceed immediately. 

Such a policy would allow us to target Muslims who have no intention of assimilating.  And, unlike the absolute culturist position, this policy recognizes the fact that many Muslims are passive in regards to their religion: they drink, smoke and watch football matches on Friday night. To the extent that these folks do not engage in hostile foreign activities, their rights should be protected. People whose rights are protected will not necessarily become antagonistic to their adopted nation. 

To help ‘secular Muslims’ support the West, as detailed in the culturist assimilation policy article, such secular Muslims would be exposed to our common assimilative pressures such as culturist public schools and events. And, ending the foreign funding of mosques on western soil would undercut our enemy’s culturist efforts to radicalize young Muslims. And, as above, fear of repatriation would keep first generation Muslim immigrants from outwardly advocating western culture be replaced.

One might ask, “If pragmatic culturists believe Muslims can be assimilated, why completely stop Islamic immigration?” First of all, large insular communities retard assimilation.  Small amounts of Muslims, neither replenished nor funded by foreign powers, will disperse. Secondly, we can never discount the possibility that the children of moderate Muslims will be radicalized.  We have a right to put the safety of our western citizens in front of the desires of any foreign population to move west.

With these pragmatic culturist repatriation policies, we can regain cultural control of our nations without compromising our sense of legal due process or fomenting civil unrest.

 

Culturist Policy Article # 3 - Assimilation

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

--   --   --   --   --   --   --   --  -- 

Culturist assimilation policy in a nutshell:

Whereas multiculturalism emphasizes diversity, and drives us apart, culturism emphasizes our unity.  Multiculturalism says the West has no core cultures into which to assimilate and calls all who promote assimilation ‘racist.’ Culturism affirms that western nations have wonderful core traditional cultures into which to assimilate. 

Immigration limitations:

Latin American and Islamic immigration to the West must stop now. For both groups, this forces a choice: here or there?  Additionally, if foreign peoples are the majority in an area, they will not assimilate to the wider country.  We must not grow already large immigrant communities.  

Possible repatriation:

A later article will detail repatriation policy.  Suffice it here to say that, in America, displays of ‘fealty to foreign potentates’ provide evidence that you perjured yourself during your naturalization proceedings: your adopted citizenship contract is thus null and void.

Criminalize Sharia law in the West:

Culturism affirms that the West has a core culture.  Sharia is not western.  Refusing to show your face during government proceedings and advocating public schools become halal, shows fealty to non-western ideals.  As such, (where legally possible), those advocating sharia law should have their citizenship revoked.

No dual citizenship:

Rather than convenience for individuals, ending dual citizenship is designed to create unity behind our Western nations and values.  It forces a choice of loyalties.

Education:

Western schools must teach that the West and western nations are the best.  Multiculturalism says all cultures are equally wonderful; this undermines schools’ ability to inculcate pride in western values and achievements.  We need culturist education.

Western festivals:

Local governments should celebrate western history and holidays.  While not requiring attendance, these celebrations provide an opportunity for new citizens to show public enthusiasm for their adopted nations. 

Conversely, our local and national governments and schools should not fund celebrations of other nations or their cultures.  Multiculturalists believe that Ramadan is just as western as Christmas.  Culturists disagree.  Our governments must not promote foreign cultures.

Flags and anthems and flags and anthems:

Fly a flag in front of your house, in banks and government offices.  Let’s have the anthem before films. Stand when it plays.  Let’s play our national anthems on television and radio.  Those who don’t want to stand should feel uncomfortable.

Monolingual government:

Government transactions must only take happen in the traditional majority language of your nation.  Language is a primary source of unity.  Not providing services in foreign languages forces new citizens to learn the national language: This is an essential part of being a citizen.

Furthermore, conducting government work in foreign languages creates enclaves where only foreigners may be hired.  This creates foreign dominated communities, which leads to enclaves where only foreigners can be elected.  In democracies, such enclaves make passing immigration laws difficult, which undermines national sovereignty. 

Limited travel to foreign nations:

Returning to ‘your country’ should be made difficult.  This goal will work in tandem with ending dual-citizenship to force new citizens to decide if they really want to adopt the receiving western nation as their new homeland. 

Immigrants must know that family reunification can happen by your returning to your country of origin; citizenship does not mean your family can come into ours.  And, adopting a new homeland necessarily entails familial and cultural rupture: forewarned, the immigrant has the burden of choice.

No foreign mosque funding:

In America, existing law allows us to trace and stop foreign enemy funds from entering our nation during wartime. Investment is welcome. But, foreign mosque building is not investment; it is culturist aggression. Foreign-funded mega-mosques discourage assimilation into western Christian culture and must be stopped.

Rights advocates must know that this policy does not prohibit local citizens from building mosques and engaging in their chosen religion.  Also note, that China, Iran, and other nations also have culturist laws.  Our Constitution is not a suicide pact; we can legally define and protect our traditional majority culture.  Our constitutions are ours; they do not provide foreign nations rights in our nations.

No remittances:

Those in the U.S. annually send more money in remittances to other nations than the combined debt of several of our major states.  Doing this while our nation is in debt shows poor citizenship.  If you are here to ‘send money back to your country,’ you need to return to your country. 

Reinstate real citizenship oaths:

Finally, citizenship is a matter of the heart, not paperwork.  If you refuse to consider advocating laws that prioritize your new nation’s safety over your convenience and your group’s self-interest, you are not a citizen in the truest sense of the word.

Therefore, we must affirm the importance and legal standing of loyalty oaths for those seeking to become new citizens.  We must prosecute and expel those who perjured themselves during their naturalization process.

Conclusion:

Citizenship means supporting the nation’s traditional majority culture.  People of varied backgrounds can celebrate the greatness of the West and western nations.  Good citizens must enjoy freedoms and not be harassed.  And, in turn they should integrate into the nation. 

But this will only happen if we replace multicultural philosophy and policies with the culturist philosophy and the culturist assimilation policies enumerated herein.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ARTICLE HERE

Culturist Fact: Birmingham is not British!

People ask, “John, isn’t culturism just another vague ‘ism.’”  No.  Culturism is not metaphysical.  Cultures exist in heads and on land. This is measurable. That is why it is a culturist fact that much of Birmingham is no longer British.

Do a thought experiment with me: If all of the “British people” were killed (God-forbid) and the land we call Britain were entirely re-populated with Muslims (as in the attached video), would British culture still exist?  Would it linger in some eternal metaphysical realm?  NO!  It would be gone.

Cultures live in heads. And, these heads need land upon which to exist.  These are real items in real space.  When an area is Pakistani, it is no longer ‘also British’ in some metaphysical way. The area is Pakistani.

As of 2011, 13.48% of Birmingham was Pakistani. At the same time, white folks of British heritage, were 53.1% of Birmingham in 2011.  And, Indians were 6.02%.[i]  The Indians may identify with Britain.  Hindus have a long history with Britain. But their temples are non-British spaces. Details aside, the fact remains, much of Birmingham no longer primarily identifies with Britain, its history, traditions, songs, etc.

Now multiculturalists will tell you that everything is British: the Muslims marching in the attached video are just as British as Prince Charles and Monty Python. Shiva is a British God too. Everything is British and nothing is British.  As a culturist, I disagree.  British culture does exist.  Those in the shared video are not British.

From a culturist perspective, the attached video shows, large parts of Birmingham are no longer British, under British control, or a part of the British Isles. 

Join the discussion of this article HERE !

---

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Birmingham

“Reclaim Australia” culturists rally across Australia!

April 4^th “Reclaim Australia” rallies were held in 16 different Australian cities.  The rallies specifically focused on the creeping Islamification of their great western nation.  The rally in Melbourne had over 3,000 in attendance!  There and in other locations, violent “#No Room for Racism” thugs attacked them.  But, make no mistake, Australia is fighting back!

One of the speakers at the Brisbane rally said, “Our policy should be Culturism, not Multiculturalism!”  This is a culturist movement.  The last words of the first paragraph of the Reclaim Australia website (www.reclaim-australia.com) says they wish to retain their ‘Australian cultural identity.”  They say they stand for “pride in the Australian flag and Anthem at all levels of schooling,” . . . “Christmas, Easter, Australia Day,” and beliefs “Australians have grown up with.”

Who would deny that Australia has cultural identity to protect?  Multiculturalists! Who is Reclaim Australia reclaiming Australia from? Multiculturalists.

Of course, multiculturalists showed up with preprinted signs saying “#No Room For Racism.”  They pull out the “R-word” whenever someone says they love their western culture or that cultural diversity includes negative aspects. Reclaim Australia’s website denounces racists. That’s good.  But, more of them must also say they are for culturism.  This will give them room to speak; to go on the offense.

And, they have plenty of culturist causes to go on the offense over.  Reclaim Australia’s site says they are standing up against female genital mutilation, halal, polygamy, Islam in the classroom, and burqas. Do the “#No Room for Racism” people really want to defend polygamy, burqas and female genital mutilation?  No?  Then they are culturist too!  This attack beats just denying you’re racist.

Anti-Jihadists take heart!  Australia has woken up!  You are not alone!  The well-dressed Reclaim Australia crowds were physically assaulted by multiculturalist thugs, but they stood proud for the West and will do so again.  We all owe these brave Australian culturists our appreciation.  Network with them.  Share their facebook pages. Spread the word!  GO TEAM!!

The Culturist Battle in Ferguson

The U.S. is rightfully nervous about the battle in Ferguson: the shooting of Michael Brown, the retaliatory shooting of two police officers the shooter’s prosecution.  However, it is important that we know that the real battle is between two ways of defining America, because our nation’s fate depends upon which definition prevails. 

On one side we have the multicultural narrative.

Michael Brown’s supporters – and I include President Obama and his Administration in this category – see the Ferguson teenager’s death as proof that America is a racist nation that will never give “people of color” and other “historically under-represented minorities” a fair shake.  This narrative paints America as a source of oppression that must be fought.

On the other side, we have the patriotic narrative.

Our traditional patriotic narrative points to America as the New World, where innovation and freedom have led to the greatest expansion of wealth the planet has ever known. Here, with hard work, anyone can achieve their dreams. This narrative teaches us pride in our nation and challenges us to work hard in order to sustain and honor it.

If we continue to push the multicultural narrative, our nation will dissolve in race-based resentment.  If we can revive the patriotic narrative, we will be united, solvent and strong.

Since African-Americans are at the heart of the multicultural narrative, converting them to our narrative is key to winning this life-or-death debate.

First of all, to win the debate, we must aggressively criticize black-American culture.  Black - Americans are poor because their thug-life culture is violent, too sexualized, and hostile to education.  Black – on –black homicide is the cause of cheapening black lives, not police.  They are not victims of America, (America is great), they are the victims of themselves and their cultural degeneracy.

Using the term ‘culturist’ will allow us to make these necessary criticisms of black culture.    If we say it now, multiculturalists just call us ‘racist.’  Using the term ‘culturist’ points overtly to our concerns being about culture, not race. “If cultural diversity is real,” we can reply, “then we need to be able to talk about it.”  The discussion, we will note, is culturist, not racist.

Secondly, we must appeal to what the black – American author of the book Culturism calls “right – minded” blacks.[i]  They are sick of having their reputations tarnished by association with the black under-class, he tells us.  And, we must join them in celebrating great black-American patriots such as Crispus Attucks and Kobe Bryant.  If we can get African-Americans to again see themselves as a great part of a wonderful country, we will all win.  

Winning this debate will take discussing facts. But, it must also involve culturist public events and pressure.  Handing out American flags in Ferguson, and shaming all who do not treat the flags well, would be a great start.

The physical battle in Ferguson is terrible.  But, it is only a symptom of the real battle, the narrative battle.  If we lose that battle, I am afraid, we will lose the nation. 

---

[i] Hampton, Scott, Culturism: The Real Reasons People Dislike African-Americans - And Race Has Nothing to Do with It. Atlanta: Lehigh Press, 2014.