Obama’s Dangerously Multicultural Muslim Advisor: Dalia Mogahed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sting of replacing Hail to the Chief is no laughing matter

There has been a lot of chuckling about Obama’s replacing Hail to the Chief with a rotation of songs that includes Sting’s “Desert Rose.” The laughing has come from people that consider it ironic that we move towards a song with Arabic content during the War on Terror. But this is no laughing matter. It is a matter of life and death. We do not see this because of the illusion of progress.

History’s seemingly straight line from tribes to chiefdoms to nation states has conspired to give us all an illusion of progress. In a certain sense there has been progress. Laurence Keeley’s “War Before Civilization” shows that in tribal times 25% of males died in battle. Wars were fought approximately once a year and every male participated. If a tribe lost too many men the women were often raped, killed or enslaved by the winning tribe. By contrast, in 20th century Europe, with its two big wars and Stalin, 1.9% of males died in battle. There was remarkably little revenge imposed on the vanquished.

Developments in political organization also reinforce the illusion of progress. Mankind writ large has moved from tribal states to ever-larger political organizations. This has brought, again, a corresponding reduction in war deaths. And these states all contain some level of infrastructure, political hierarchy, taxes, borders and military. Whereas, Kelley tells us, 66% of tribes were at war yearly, only 40% of chiefdoms had this frequency. Nation states only go to war once per generation. And so, again, we believe we see a straight line constituting progress. Certainly, many assume, these trends towards larger political units and peace mean that a globalism is destined.

The problem with assuming progress is that nation states have collapsed and large systems disappear extremely rapidly. The Roman Empire fell as much as it dissolved. Furthermore, the move towards peacefulness is registered in averages. Some chiefdoms have been extremely violent. The Aztecs and Mayans are prime examples. They went to war yearly in order to get captives for sacrifice. And some nation states have also been very brutal. Nazi Germany is the paradigmatic example in this category. But, might you not say, weren’t the Aztecs and the Nazis defeated by more peaceful political organizations? Doesn’t this prove progress? No.

Before concluding, and returning to Obama, I must point out that technology does not prove progress towards peacefulness is a natural progression either. Nazi Germany was technologically advanced. Their eugenic rhetoric was heavily informed by the theme of science. Their killing was industrial. Imperial Japan was nearly as cruel as Nazi Germany. They kidnapped young girls from all the surrounding nations and gang-raped them for years. Japan too had high levels of technology. In fact, both nations’ command of communications, transportation and weapons technology helped them in their viscous endeavors.

The problem with the assumption of progress is that the experiment is only half run. Yes, we beat both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Japan’s behavior and China’s cultural revolution showed that Confucianism is not incompatible with tremendous cruelty. China is building a fierce military. More immediately, the Islamic world has declared Jihad or holy war upon us. Those who assume progress look at the fall of the Berlin wall and assume that history has ended. Conflict continues. Islamic nations and China are not buying into the idea of the destiny of cooperative globalism. Nothing is settled. America can revert back to tribal warfare. And either China or Islam may yet defeat and dominate us. The “march of freedom” does not destine global cooperative peace.

During World War Two we were famously united against our foes. We knew, as tribes in primitive warfare had to know, that our side was virtuous and the other side was evil incarnate. This knowledge led to near 100% effort by our population. Darwinian evolution does not favor the best, it favors that which is best able to survive and flourish. It may be that driven, racist, authoritarian China has more staying power than our current values based on multiculturalism can muster. More immediately, the fanatical devotion shown on the Islamic side may be able to defeat our diverse population’s nonchalant commitment to our nation. Had we been disunited and unclear about the nature of our foes in World War Two, we would have been defeated. Destiny did not lead to those victories, unity and determination did.

Obama’s saying that we are a Muslim nation during his inauguration and his adopting of an Arabic greeting for the Presidency both undermine our sense of unity and blur our ability to see good and evil. In a world with war, both the unity and erect posture Hail to the Chief engenders are very important. Furthermore Obama’s constant show of respect for Islam diminishes our understanding of why we might want to consider it our enemy. If we are unable to defeat our foes it will largely be because we are not both united and determined to defeat them. In that eventuality, Obama’s seemingly small insults to our traditions and identity will be shown to have been a matter of life and death. His adoption of a Sting song in place of a key anthem that united us will have proven to have been no laughing matter.

Culturism and Barack

The election of Barack Hussein Obama will be a great event for mulitculturalism and thus a horrible one for culturism. Multiculturalism denies that western nations have a core culture. They would assert that America has no more of a tie to the heritage of British protestant culture than it does to Saudi Islamic culture If Barack Hussein Obama gets elected, if our President's name has an Islamic cast, it will undermine our ability to define ourselves as unique and in competition with other cultures.

His supporters will respond, but he is not a Muslim, he just has an Islamic name. This argument would fly if he were born with that name. In fact, he chose it as an adult. And people should ask themselves why people have changed their names to Islamic names. Why did Cassius Clay become Muhammad Ali? Why did Lew Alcindor become Kareem Abdul Jaabar? But if we take him at his word, if he is as he claims to be, we have to hold him to it. We need him to repeatedly remind us that he American and proudly identifies with our Christianity and Enlightenment based culture. To control the damage his Islamic name does, we need him to constantly reaffirm he does not identify with Islam.

Unfortunately, his reassurance that he is not a Muslim will not help us internationally. Whether true or not, the Islamic world considers it obvious that he has ties to Islam. His name, muslim father and stepfather, madrassa training and close ties to the Islamic rebel in Kenya give them grounds. And though multiculturalism has hidden the fact that the West has been in mortal conflict with Islam since 700 ad, the Islamic world meditates on this fact day and night. They will see this as a victory and get a tremendous morale boost from it.

Obama's policy on Iraq makes him seem like a culturist. Culturism takes diversity seriously and so has very limited hope for turning Iraq into a progressive democracy. McCain takes the globalist position that we are all the same and Iraq's Islamic culture is not inherently incompatible with being a liberal democracy. Obama follows culturists in regretting our involvement in Iraq. But, culturists should be fooled into thinking him a culturist because of this coincidence. Whereas culturism takes Islamic nations to be essentially hostile and foreign enemies to whom we owe nothing, Obama sees them as friends in the global community whom we have injured.

Obama's name not being recognized by English spell checkers reflects its foreign genesis. It reflects the fact that much of his family has non-American ties. Does this create complications? Well, how can he purely think of American interests when his aunt is an illegal alien? How can he consider the American perspective in international aid when his brother lives on a dollar a day in a Kenyan slum? His connections with the Muslim Luo tribal leader Odinga shows a non-Western cultural affiliation. For internationalists, for globalists, these relations are a boon. Just as other nations do, culturists argue we have to put our culture and nation first in our land. Culturists would rather have an American president purely reflect American interests.

What's in a name? A whole lot. Even though Obama is not Osama, the Islamic world will interpret his pulling us out of Iraq will in a much different way than if someone named McCain did. Even if Obama is not a Muslim, celebrations will break out across the Islamic world on this basis if he gets elected. Even if he is as Christian and American as the day is long, his very name will undermine the idea that we have a common cultural heritage in the West. His aunt being a Kenyan illegal immigrant shows the foreign nature of his name actually does reflect foreign ties. But even if he governs with none but America's interests in mind, his name alone will convey extremely detrimental culturst lessons.