Ken Burns' Prohibition Doc and Culturist Corruption

This Ken Burn's documentary ad has appeared all over NYC.  The tag line "How did a nation founded on rights ever go so wrong?" has deep problems.  Here are some questions / debates it invites.

"A nation founded on rights?"  When does Mr. Burns date the founding of our nation?  Many people confuse the founding of our government with the founding of the nation.  Okay, technically we were colonies beforehand.  But, our national character started well before.

I like to date the founding of our nation with either 1607 or 1620.  The Puritans, who landed in 1620, did not set up a system based on rights.  They came here to found a nation purer than any before.  If you were a drunk, the community would lessen your status.  And, they could even take you children away or publicly punish you.

Jamestown started in 1607.  They had a bit of individualism going.  But they quickly discovered, as the Puritans already knew, that individuals are dependent on the community. If people did not stand guard or work, they would be killed by starvation and hostile indians.  Our nation, was not 'founded on rights.

Well what if you take the 1776 date?  Still, 'rights' did not trump all. Many colonies had official religions.  And, the Founding Fathers did not set up a system of anarchy wherein no one had any limits and everyone had a protected right to be anti-social.  We, again, impact each other.  A democracy or republic is not a system of government if it means the community can never define itself or regulate accordingly.

Prohibition had good attributes.  Perhaps a bit of a spike of crime and corruption, now apparently to be sensationalized by Burns, happened.  But drunkenness went down.  Hospital visits due to alcohol, such as poisoning and drunk driving, went down.  Wife battering went down.  Men spending all their family's proceeds went down.  I am certain deaths from drunk driving went down.

Ken Burn's ad shows that he is a terrible historian.  The ad already announces that he will only engage Prohibition as a nightmare. Real historians debate.    But with 'rights' based thought, all impositions become evil.  Responsibility is restraint.  Everyone has a right and the people can make no rules.

If Burns studied history, he'd note that a law such as Prohibition could only happen in a Puritan-based culture.  That would lead him to see that our nation was not simply founded in 1776.  He might read their writing wherein they say that license without responsibility doesn't lead to liberty; it leads to national suicide. But like most modern historians he probably considers the Puritans "so wrong" too for having violated rights.

We need to reclaim our sense of public good when creating values.  We need to recognize the truths the Puritans told us and not just justify our anti-social mores with 'rights talk.'  We cannot simply subsidize irresponsible behavior due to rights.  We need to proudly reinsert our cultural heritage into our legal system.  One must inform the other.

www.culturism.us

Our Debt is Only a Symptom of Cultural Problems

If we do not address culture, the Debt Ceiling debates are meaningless.  Debt is a symptom of our cultural meltdown.  Perhaps that is an overstatement.  But, if we wish to become solvent again, emphasizing cultural solutions will get us farther than emphasizing economic fixes.  Without such culturist discussions we will never pay down the debt and are essentially doomed.

            Economic forces have an impact.  When the Feds helped foment the Great Depression, people lost tremendous amounts of wealth quickly.[i]  This collapse did not happen because of attitudinal change on the part of America’s population.  And one could argue that economic explanations have new relevance as our nation careens into a black hole of debt.  Yet in truth, economic analyses ballooned our debt and culturist analysis provide the only way of permanently reducing our debt.

            We need a culturist analysis to attack inner-city poverty.  But the fear of being called racist has long kept sociologists from discussing this perspective.  Thus government money and social programs enable, rather than expose the economically unsustainable nature of single parent, low education, drug using, prison-esteeming culture.  The truth is, the long ascendancy of economic explanations and fear of looking at culture have not helped alleviate African – American poverty. And no way forward exists but having difficult discussions about cultural contributors to poverty.  

            For full economic recovery, the long dominance of the economic explanation in our schools must end. Multicultural education refuses to make any judgment on cultures.  Bereft of cultural content, schools’ exclusive focus on economics leads them to call for ‘social justice.’  The idea that all inequality must reflect unfairness leads to constant talk of ‘oppression’ in education theory.[ii]  That this economic multicultural perspective promotes anti-social behavior can be seen in the 2011 National Association for Multicultural Education’s choice to have revolutionary terrorist William Ayers as their 2011 keynote speaker.[iii]

            Teaching ghettoized African-American children that they are oppressed and should rebel and that personal responsibility cannot alleviate their class situation, maintains poverty.   That replacing this economic model’s hegemony will improve our economy can be seen in the high number of Asian students excelling in America and the economic productivity of their home countries.[iv]  Thus a culturist approach will allow us to make every ethnic group feel more responsible for their educational and economic success.  Whereas multiculturalism does not consider the potential negative impacts of culture, culturism can show communities – and our country – the way out of poverty.

In making the rational connection between culture and outcomes, by admitting that culture is important and reaffirming that this is not a racial argument, we may also be able to sanely speak about the borders again.  Latinos have grossly higher teen pregnancy rates and lower educational achievement than average Americans.  Muslim immigrants pose a much higher risk of terrorism than Japanese immigrants.  But our fear of discussing culture for fear of being called racist kills such discussions in their cradle. 

Immigration restrictions made on a culturist basis will give all Americans, of every cultural background, a sense of the connection between cultural rectitude and prosperity that has long defined our public character.  Thus, people refusing entitlements out of shame could once again become a proud moment for Americans.  Structural economic interpretations argue against such sentiments.  Adjusting our attitudes towards responsibility, pride, work and entitlements, is the only way politicians can again take us towards fiscal sanity.

Finally, a culturist analysis can even speak to corporate responsibility to our nation.  Businessmen who undermine our borders and send jobs overseas are putting an economic perspective over a cultural perspective.  We have to remind them that they have a responsibility to the nation that raised them.  Furthermore, when all is said and done, international cultural diversity means our American business leaders will not feel comfortable raising their children, living, and retiring in other nations.  This cultural analysis might help them identify with our nation again. 

I do not argue that economic theory is useless.  We need to understand how the Fed's quantitative easing will cause inflation and thus steals from all of us.  And this article has cursorily addressed the horror of jobs going overseas. And we, of course, need to reduce our government spending.  But long-term recovery requires growth.  Cutting spending will require weening from government.  Neither of those can happen if we do not renew our committments to individual responsibility in the name of sustaining our nation. 

Brave academic sociologists such as Orlando Patterson of Harvard have reintroduced culture as an explanation for explaining African-American poverty.[v]  Schools of education need to follow suit.  And our politicians need to stop calling everyone who discusses culture racist.  We can do our part by demanding that culturist explanations for our current problems get aired by using the words culturism and culturist whenever multiculturalists call our nation racist.

---

[i] Brian Domitrovic, Economic Crisis, Then and Now, Lecture at the Hyatt Regency, Indianapolis, IN, 10/10/09 http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=lecture&SFor=ec90805d-7af8-4adb-a889-2b7f1b60ba79

[ii] Pedagogy & Theater of the Oppressed Conference, http://www.ptoweb.org/

[iii] The National Association for Multicultural Education: Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice and Equality, http://nameorg.org/ 2011 conference

[iv] Educational Attainment in the United States / Race.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#cite_note US_Census_Bureau_report_on_educational_attainment_in_the_United_States.2C_2003-0

[v] Orlando Patterson, “A Poverty of the Mind,” New York Times, Op-Ed Section, 03/26/10, 

Amy Winehouse Culturist Re-Post

This is a repost of an article published here in November of 2009.  RIP AMY

Today I heard Amy Winehouse heard for the first time. That is, I have seen her many times, but I never saw a performance that grabbed me more than it just illustrated  her tragic wastiness. But her version of Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard it Through the Grapevine,” with Paul Weller of the Jam, was a stunning virtuoso performance. She missed nothing, but remained both vicious and wild, yet controlled to the point of perfection in pitch, with  clever metered vocal fills. And even the fade-outs from her competent co-vocalist happened at the prescribed time. But her final intonation of the chorus, when she went quiet, it was like hearing the subtle twang of Mae West in her prime.

With reason, many could conclude that Winehouse is deleterious to the success of western civilization. She is a role model of potentially disastrous impact. She makes drugs and the refusal to go to rehab sexy. And culturists know that youth follow those with status. That is why we need values leadership from positive and popular role models. I would much rather those who took care of their families and diligently pursued their studies in the name of western civilization getting glamorized. I would much rather see the artistic elite banish junkies for shame's sake. But that would cost us the Rolling Stones, Billie Holiday, and many other artists. It would make the West much more like communist China. And that, I would not like to see.

Winehouse brings a very interesting cultural mishmash to the table. She is definitely Jewish, her music is clearly derivative of African – American soul tradition ala Motown, she has the biker chic that tattoos bring, and – most of all – she embodies that ennobling yet defiling self-destruction, Ziggy Stardust-style tragedy of the burn out and crash of the chosen one, the rising star style. While she presents no role model, she represents a vamp, a type, a trope, that we can all share joy in. In her way, if teachers want to use her for edification, she even ties us back to the 19th century romantic tragedy of the romantic Goethe's Lotte who died for love. She is a sacrificial lamb to our deep cultural longing for bonding through her familiar formulaic romantic cultural mish mash. 


Unlike the more electronic pop idols, Winehouse reminds us of the jewels of western culture and the romance of the individual self. And, perhaps, in a multicultural world where the divided West refuses to see it has a culture to protect and offending Islam may soon become a crime, her drunken iconic presence is a culturist good

The TSA, Multiculturalism, and Thanksgiving

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has created long lines using controversial body scanners to protect us from Islamic terrorism.  But multiculturalists have so cowed us that we will not mention Islam.  If we ever wish to have a pleasant and safe Thanksgiving again, we must replace multiculturalism with culturism.

If you point out that cultural diversity is real, multiculturalists always call you racist.    We do not have culturist profiling in airports because they will call us racist. The key to disarming them lays in noticing how multiculturalists tyrannize us by leaping from discussions of cultural diversity to cries of racism.

If you want security, rights, and short lines you need only scan people with Arabic sounding names who have ties to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, or Afghanistan.  Period. 

Instead, we go to great lengths to demonstrate our blindness to the import of culture by patting down Mom from Minnesota, Vinnie from Brooklyn, three year old children and nuns to show the multiculturalists we are not racist.

But the propensity to terrorism does not stem from genes or skin color; it has nothing to do with race.  Islamic terrorism comes from the tenet of Jihad within the Koran.  Whereas Jesus overtly detested any violence, Muhammad led over 60 military campaigns. 

Multiculturalists and Muslims, of course, denounce the assertion that all religions are not the same as racist phobia.  They express outrage at all who would suggest that cultural diversity is real. 

So to show we take no notice of culture, we risk our lives.  After all, proving that we do not believe cultural differences exist ultimately requires letting many young Pakistani males through customs unchecked.

If Muslims in America were truthful, they would admit that their religion has produced all of the thousands of terrorists attacks in the world since 9 -11.  To show appreciation for their recent immigration here they would submit to the inconvenience of extra security checks.  This would endear them to all Americans.

But, as with so many in western societies, Muslims use rights to protect anti-social behavior.  All attempts at using cultural information incur aggressive lawsuits over racism from the Council on American - Islamic Relations.  As a result, the Muslim presence in America means that all us Americans must have our rights greatly abridged.  As a result, their freedom reduces ours.

Fear of multiculturalists calling us racist not only endangers us physically, it cows our spirit by making us accept that terrorists will forever bully us and dictate our rights on Thanksgiving.  By distinguishing rational culturist profiling from irrational racial profiling, we can disarm the multicultural logic the terrorists use against us wwand salvage the freedoms for which we give thanks. 

John K. Press, Ph.D is the President of the culturist Brooklyn Tea Party.  He is also the author of the book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future.  www.culturism.us has more information.

Angela Merkel Rejects Multiculturalism Nearly Embraces Culturism

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has definitively announced the failure of multiculturalism in Europe.[1]   Thus she has come much closer to adopting te positive value system of multiculturalism’s opposite, culturism.   While her speech represented a great leap forward for culturism, the full impact of culturist realizations will not come until she understands the impact of history on culture.

Multiculturalism’s failure results from its total failure to acknowledge diversity and that nations have traditional majority cultures.  The mandate to ‘celebrate diversity’ requires that we ignore culture’s real impact.  Merkel’s denunciation of forced marriages recognized that other cultural patterns exist.   And indeed levels of crime and government dependency clearly are also higher amongst some immigrant groups than others. 

But the depth of harm does not lie in such statistics, but in basic cultural outlooks.  Germany has a culture that respects education and discussion.   Psychologist Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, spent time studying Muslims in youth prison.  He found that rather than handling conflict via dialogue, Muslim youth consider it proper to settle disputes via “physical revenge.”[2] 

The cultural tendency toward solving disagreements via violence has manifest in violent mob actions such as burning tens of thousands of cars in Paris, attacking German youth in schools, and worldwide violence over Danish cartoons portraying Muhammad. 

Sane immigration policy requires noting cultural differences.  It is culturist, not racist, to acknowledge that wherever many Chinese move, they excel in school and set up Chinese areas that become tourist attractions.  Wherever Muslims move they make the schools rougher and create no-go zones.

In noting that other cultures have honor killing, violent ways of settling disputes, and antipathy towards free speech, Merkel has come a long ways towards noting that Germany (and the West generally) has a traditional majority culture.  An implication of her acknowledging diversity is recognizing that the West alone stands for democracy, freedom of speech, the relative separation of Church and State and the sanctity of the individual.

Now that Merkel acknowledges that culture is important and has implicitly acknowledged that Germany has a majority culture, she must make one last step in achieving culturist awareness.  She must recognize that Islam has been aggressively trying to conquer the West for 1400 years.  History travels with cultures.  Even if Chinese immigrants had the same anti-social patterns as Muslim immigrants, their lack of historical animosity towards the West would render them less of a threat. 

Merkel has acknowledged that multiculturalism has failed.  As such she may now be willing to discuss cultural dynamics in general.  But only when she starts talking of the positive value of culturism, when she takes a western culturist stance, she can really make sound policy.  At that point she will know that she must stop Muslim immigration to the West and make sure her laws and schools openly protect and promote German heritage and western values.   

www.culturism.us

---

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures

[2] http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5905/pub_detail.asp

Culturism is the Ultimate Form of Liberalism

www.culturism.us

George Washington – The Culturist Father of Our Nation

Writers of public school curriculum would do well to note that George Washington, the Father of our country, was a culturist.  Washington laid out his culturist principles in a document all school children used to study, his 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, upon completing his second term as President.

Far from celebrating our multicultural ties to the Old World, Washington argued that, “it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; . . . indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.” He told his audience that, “Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections.” And in this context Washington took solace in the fact that, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles” because this similarity created strong cultural ties within our national community.

Washington further showed himself a culturist when he meditated for some time on the importance of public morality to the success of our “experiment” in self-government. Highlighting religion he wrote, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.” He declared culturist considerations a duty when he told the nation, “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?”

Washington’s Farewell Address echoed another core culturist precept when he discussed isolationism. Among his many statements against foreign entanglements he asked us not to “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice.” He probably emphasized avoiding entanglements with Europe as it was the only region with which we would seriously consider meddling. To the extent that we must have alliances, culturism suggests we should bolster Western nations. But, on the whole, culturism advocates against foreign entanglements.  Furthermore, he urged us to “take vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”

Thus in his turgid farewell to the nation, Washington expressed the tenets of culturism perfectly. Rather than urging a multicultural philosophy that emphasizes our differences, he feared diversity undermining our unity and emphasized our commonality. Rather than calling indifference to public morality a virtue, he argued that the survival of our republic depended on our cultivating a sense of duty. Not a globalist, he cautioned against wars. And as he did, he suggested that we put the concerns of our Western brethren first and then pay off the accumulated debt immediately. Like all the Founding Fathers, George Washington was a great culturist because he prioritized America’s solvency in his thoughts. And, along with all else he did, his Farewell Address solidifies his position as a great American culturist.

The Tea Party is a Culturist Movement

   In what way is the Tea Party a Culturist movment?  What are the culturist implications of the Tea Party?  The answers circle around the concept of self-governance.

   Culturism holds that the traditional majority culture has the right to define, promote, and protect themselves.   This is self-governance as the Founding Fathers meant it, as a community.

   On the largest scale, culturism advocates self-governance for the West.  Islamic nations realize they have a majority culture and have culturist policy.  So do Asian cultures.  In fact, that is the norm throughout the world and time.  The world is not getting more diverse, the West is.  Only the West has given up the culturist right to self-definition in the name of multiculturalism, globalism, and individualism. 

   The West has a core culture.  And, more than any other culture, it is based on the concept of self-governance.  If you ask Americans to describe their nation, what makes it special, they will reply, “It is a democracy.”  The Greeks invented democracy, the Roman republic is a golden age.  The Middle Ages, in part, get called the Dark Ages because people were not encouraged to lend their minds to rationally guiding their individual and collective fates. 

   Islamic cultures pride themselves on fidelity to their theocratic strictures.  Democracy, free speech, the separation of church and state, feminism, are not their values.  China has neither free speech, freedom of religion, or democracy.  That is not their value.  Just as they have a right to keep people out that do not have their values, we have a right to do the same.  The multiculturalists say we have no core culture.  The values they identify as “human” values are really just western values. 

   Within the American Federalist system, States and localities have the right to self-governance.  This right has been attacked by the Federal government.  Whether you favor or oppose abortion, for example, you should recognize that when the Supreme Court decides nationally, it takes away a reason for you to participate locally.  By definition, whatever is decided in Washington DC is not decided in your State or locality.  Smaller government means more participatory democracy, more self-governance.

   Culturism also gets undermined by a radical rights-based individualist framework.  In modern America, no traditional majority culture can protect, define and promote itself without the ACLU saying it makes an individual uncomfortable.   This undermines communities’ ability to exist and guide themselves.  Individuals exist within the context of cultures.  To smash individual rights would go against the tenure of western civilization.  But, communities and traditions cannot be kept from existing because one individual might have his feelings hurt.

   Finally, self-governance means that individuals govern themselves.  To do so sustainably, they must think about responsibility.  Negatively, when the government takes care of you it removes your motivation to be responsible.  Positively, we should behave with an eye to vindicating the western culture that believes in our ability to decide what we wish to do for ourselves.   Thus the Tea Party’s call for smaller government supports the western value of liberty through responsibility.

   The Tea Party ideal of self-governance is not only theoretical.  If the West falls, self-governance will cease to exist.  Militarism can take over.  Neither Islam nor China will fight for our rights to self-governance.  The Federal government has shown itself incapable of self-governance.  It has nearly bankrupted all of us.  Local communities without the right to set standards end up riddled with anti-social behavior.  And individuals that are not self-governing, are not truly free.  The Tea Party needs to stand for self-governance at the local level or the West will fall.

www.culturism.us

Empedocles, rights talk and culturism

The following are thoughts from an important debate I am having with Empedocles. He runs the "a pox on both your houses" blog. Please read and respond to our crucial discussion. And please visit his wonderful philosophical blog by clicking the title of this blog post!

Empedocles,

I very much agree with your anti-metaphysical stance on rights. I also agree with your statement "I do not think that right claims need to be acquiesced to if they are harmful to a people." And the switch from negative rights (what the government can't do) to positive rights (the constant government intrusion in the name of equality and fairness you mention) is very significant.

My favorite book on rights is Mary Glendon's short "Rights Talk". It would answer your question about limits to rights by saying that under current situations, where positive rights are asserted on metaphysical basis of justice, there are no limits to them and they are not negotiable. Group rights, economic rights etc. cannot be challenged. She would ask us to accept that rights are a construct gained by power and not eternal truths, so that we can have discussions like the ones we are having about the limits and use of rights.

If we accept the Neitzschiean premise, and take rights to be situational, does that weaken them in any sense? I say no. We can then adopt pure pragmatism. So I can say rights here in America are valid and we will verbally push for them as being international, but we will not legally recognize international rights such as the right to build mosques here. We use that language against others while protecting ourselves from others use of them against us. This would be a pragmatic approach to rights.

Accepting pragmatism, the only question left is then, pragmatically, which is the best strategy. Thanks to our discussions I am leaning towards the above strategy. And if people say it is hypocritical that you want to push rights as an idea internationally via sanctions etc, but do not recognize international rights that hurt your sovereignty, I would respond by explaining the pragmatic, real politik view of rights. This is the strongest position to come from.

The problem is that, in the current world debate, whenever you use the phrase "human rights" people hear "weak sovereignty" and use your own language against you. And yet, if we do not go with human rights language we cannot vocally back the Iranian dissenters. The sword of "human rights" language cuts both ways. The second best idea is to say we back "Western rights" as an international idea. But this will not make a satisfactory substitute for human rights language because explaining the distinction is too difficult. Furthermore, Iranians will likely not rally for anything designated as 'western rights.'

Finally, my first impulse is to just say screw the international scene and assume rights only apply in the West. However, if we could weaken Iran and make them more amenable to rationality, it would greatly enhance our security. I have never believed in that possibility before, but now I have some hope. The potential of a moderate Iran is a hard carrot to give up. If that is an impossible carrot, then I would adopt my original stance of saying screw the international scene, rights are purely western. So again, unknown variables determine what is the best strategy.

Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Britain's 85 sharia courts

The think tank Civitas profiled and condemned 85 British sharia courts. Since it is ‘extremely difficult” to gain access to these courts, the report references fatwa’s, or religious rulings, “run out of or accessed through mosques in the UK. These give a “good indication of the rulings of sharia courts in Britain. Examples are, “a Muslim woman may not under any circumstances marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam; such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man; polygamous marriage (i.e. two to four wives) is considered legal... a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for the same reason); . . . [and] a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce” These rulings undermine Britain in several ways. But they, most obviously, do not violate the laws of every nation.

First of all, by denying the right of legal protection to its female citizens, it alienates them from the British community. The rulings, a Muslim representative noted, are only valid if both sides agree. But Susan Okin, who writes on the incompatibility of multiculturalism and feminism has noted that most female oppression takes place in private. If her family pressures her to drop out of school to marry she may be so isolated from the opportunities and protection of western law accepting the ways of her subculture may seem like the only opportunity. As Civitas argued, the Islamic tribunal “may be the only tribunal the man will accept.” In Canada Muslim women stopped the imposition of legally binding Islamic arbitration. But notice that this effort stopped sharia in the west, not in an international space.

Worse yet, a spokesperson for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal said that the courts were an opportunity to “self-determine disputes.” The “self-determination” language comes from the League of Nations. It refers to separate nations determined by a distinct people. That is it refers to international matters. Under multiculturalism, however, this language is used to mean that nations within western nations have a right to self-determination. And, herein, we see a distinct legal system within a western nation. We have to ask, “What is next?” In Canada there is already a Canadian Islamic Congress. Will we see an Islamic Parliament? Will there be a Muslim Prime Minister in Britain? In asking these questions we see how having a parallel legal system threatens the sovereignty of the West. But notice that this move does not threaten the sovereignty of an imagined international space, it threatens western nations.

Civitas’ director, David Green said, “Our system is based on moral and legal equality or it is based on nothing.” This culturist truism only grazes the issue of sovereignty. Britain must only recognize British law. “The IK’s highest court has ruled that sharia law was “wholly incompatible” with human rights law. The House of Lords granted asylum to a Lebanese woman on this basis. Though culturism agrees in general, the language used herein also reduces western sovereignty. Britain is a nation with a distinct evolved tradition, heritage and culture. Islamic law is distinct from British law. Human rights law, though based on western thought, is also a foreign legal construct held together by those allied with the UN. Britain needs to stand up for British laws or it will disappear. Rather than adopting international or multicultural tenets, Britain must be culturist.

All opposed to sharia law in the West will condemn the existence of Islamic courts in Britain. Yet most cling to the language of ‘human rights.’ Readers please ask yourself these questions, “Is human rights language more often used in favor of the West or against the West?” If you are not in favor of the United Nations, why do you support international rights language? Is there a way to support the concept of international rights without supporting the United Nations and undermining our sovereignty?” As ‘human rights’ language is western, we are the only nations that take it seriously. As with ‘multiculturalism’ other nations ignore ‘human rights’ and turn them on us as a weapon. There is not question that the West would be better off replacing the use of multiculturalism with culturism. Would it better protect the West to replace ‘human rights’ language with culturist language?

Human rights language has recently come close to toppling Iran. Were they called, western rights, it might not have caught on as well. Yet, I am troubled by the use of international language in western disputes. The international space of the UN is also very much against us. We are told to side with the Palestinians with indifference because their 'human rights' are being violated. We are not to take sides as all else do. Herein human rights language means we must be neutral. We must be aware of language. When should we use culturist talk of western rights? Should we ever use 'human rights' language? I know we definitely should not use such language when it comes to asylum claims. Multicultural rights to self-determination back Sharia courts in western nations. What other examples come to mind?

FIght multiculturalism, spread the words culturism and culturist

Culturist Banking Lessons

Does the culturist perspective teach us anything about the international financial meltdown? You bet it does. In fact, if we had had the words “culturism” and “culturist” we likely would not have gotten into this financial mess in the first place.

How did we get into this mess? We got in this mess because the United States’ government noticed that different cultural groups get mortgages at different rates. And since they had no word to guide them to a cultural explanation for this discrepancy, they took the disparities as evidence of racism. And since banks make the loans, our government decided banks must be racist. Thus not having the concept of culturism forced them into a tragic misstep.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act under the American President Jimmy Carter first started checking banking institutions to make sure they were giving credit to low income and minority families. During the Clinton administration, the United States government’s Housing and Urban Development Department sued banks to force them to make risky loans to these buyers. Barack Obama’s ACORN organization intimidated banks, via tactics such as protesting mergers and lawsuits, into making more of these bad loans. Banks complied, but spread the risk throughout the entire system. The stage was set for a collapse.

If the United States’ government had had a culturist perspective, rather than using the disparity in loan rates to show society is racist, they might have used it to show reality is culturist. They could have used it as a teaching tool by says, “Cultural group A, you’re lagging behind cultural group B. You need to do some collective reflection and get your cultural act together.” Culturists would see this as a more constructive reaction than suing banks so that they could not discriminate on a rational cultural basis between good and bad loan risks. Recognizing the important variable of cultural values helps people make realistic decisions.

Multiculturalists will tell you that all discrimination is bad. They do this because, ironically, they do not really believe cultural diversity is important. They think cultural diversity is just a matter of food, fashion and festivals. Deep down, they do not really think diversity exists; they think all cultures are the same. Culturists, on the other hand, acknowledge cultural diversity. If people in your culture drink too much, if they do not postpone pregnancy, if they don’t study, if they do not keep their families together, culturists know it will impact your economic and educational outcome. Cultural practices can even affect the rates at which your cultural group gets mortgages approved.

The next time you hear someone start into that tired rhetoric about how racist our Western societies are, the next time you hear them start to use different levels of achievement to prove it, I want you to get angry. Tell them that that is the same lame sort of thinking that got us into our financial mess! Tell them that rather than dismissing the possibility that cultural values can impact society, as multiculturalists do, they need to start considering the very real impact cultural values can have, as culturists do. The multiculturalist perspective makes us indiscriminately ignore the impact of culture and denigrates our society as racist. It undermines our rationality and pride. Shout that you are sick of people constantly undermining our teaching of values and pride by calling America racist. Then, after regaining your composure, remind them that the financial collapse proves multiculturalism is dangerous.

To get our financial institutions and society back to discriminating and judging rationally, to safeguard both, we need to recognize the very real impact of cultural diversity. We need to stop being multiculturalists and start being culturists. We have to switch from multiculturalism to culturism. We must to learn from our mistakes. Otherwise, reality will soon hit us in the face again.