US Culturist Immigration History Video

Please learn about the history of our culturist immigration policy.  It helps when Obama tells us 'Who we are." 

Culturist Policy Article # 1 - Islamic Immigration

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 or supports the art or science of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy. - adj.

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

Culturist immigration policy calls for an immediately halt all Muslim immigration into western nations.  Cultural differences, history, and recent events justify this position.  We must counter globalist and multiculturalists politicians’ culturally-neutral, open-borders agenda.

Western culture has its roots in Athens (the scientific / secular approach) and Jerusalem (our Judeo-Christian roots).   Both sources of western culture dovetail in esteeming the conscience of the individual.  Democracy and freedom of speech, for example, are rooted in respect for individual’s reasoning capacity.

Islam means ‘Submission.’  Submission herein is not just a matter of establishing a personal relationship with God as the individual sees fit. Muhammad ruled the government and religion at the same time, making theocracy an Islamic ideal.  Thus in Islamic nation after Islamic nation we find either full-blown theocracies or pressure for theocracy. 

Individual conscience and theocracy are incompatible.  Increasing the size of a population that holds values inimical to those of our traditional majority culture erodes and endangers the foundation of our culture.  History and recent events prove that this is not only a theoretical debate; It is a matter of life and death.

Historically, Islam has long been hostile to the West: They took Spain; They took Constantinople; Islam’s western attacks were stopped in France by Charles ‘the Hammer’ Martel in 732; Islam’s eastern advances were halted at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.   Culturists agree with Faulkner’s sentiment - the past is never dead and buried; in fact, it isn’t even past.

Recent terrorist attacks provide all-to-concrete evidence that the past is prologue. 9/11 in New York, the 7/7 London bus bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and the Charlie Hebdo attack are just the peaks of a sustained hum of terror coming from the West’s Islamic population.  We have a right to immigration laws that err on the side of physically protecting our populations.  Politicians who deny this have blood on their hands.

Prohibiting more Muslims from becoming citizens in western nations is not racist – it is culturist.  It would not depend upon whether the Muslim were black, Middle Eastern, white, Asian or Latino.  Religion is cultural, not racial. Cultural diversity is real, therefore culturist policy is rational and justified. Culturist will happily debate any politician who thinks cultural diversity is not real and important.

Those who say this immigration policy violates some ‘universal,’ ‘human rights’ norm are globalists, not culturists.  All non-western nations have culturist or racist immigration laws. Culturists need to ask globalist politicians why only western nations must be held to their ‘globalist,’ ‘human rights’ standard, why we cannot be culturist like other nations.   

Politicians who reject culturist immigration policy because western culture is grounded in religious tolerance must understand that our western Constitutions and laws only protect our western citizens’ freedom of religion.  Our laws are national, not international. A later culturist policy article will discuss domestic freedom of religion. But, our religious tolerance laws do not protect foreign Muslims’ right to immigrate to the West.

Lastly, multiculturalists will object to this proposed immigration policy with their defining beliefs: The West has no core culture to protect; It is a culturally neutral zone where random cultures happen to coincide; the West is just as Hindu and Muslim as it is Christian and secular; we cannot favor any culture or consider any cultural traits in our laws. Culturists affirm that the West is not Islamic; Islam is hostile to the West; and we have a legal right to protect ourselves. 

Because cultural diversity is real, history is important, conflict exists, and our citizens have been harmed, culturist immigration policy would immediately halt all Islamic immigration to western nations.

Explosive Censored Presidential Debate Footage Found!

Most people thought the Presidential debates a great success.  Those on the right celebrated Mitt Romney’s victory.  And, those on the left praised the substantive nature of the debate.  But, I found the debate suspicious and disturbing. 

Was it really possible that, in the sole debate entirely dedicated to domestic policy, the topic of immigration did not come up once?  Is that possible?  I thought not. And, so I began a search, at my place of employment, for the censored debate footage that I suspected existed.

I mean, this debate focused on jobs.  And the presence of over 15 million illegal aliens means that a very significant number of Americans have been displaced from the job market.  Though he would never say so, President Obama should be especially for reducing immigration, since Latino immigrants largely take African – Americans’ entry-level jobs. 

And, maybe it is just me, but I thought terrorism would be mentioned in the domestic policy debate.  After the Fort Hood terrorist attach and our freedom of speech being denounced this 9/11, I thought domestic terror policy and Islamic immigration might have come up once.  This total omission did not make sense to me either.

Remarkably, It only took me a day of snooping around after work to find the missing footage.  I am not sure if it got spliced out from the original debate or if the networks simply aired a different debate than the one that happened.  But, the authorities clearly thought that the censored footage I found was far too explosive for the general public. 

In the missing footage, Romney starts off by saying he wishes to fence off our border with Mexico.  He also says that he would also halt Islamic immigration.  Obama repeatedly calls this racist.  And, Romney shows himself a patriot by not relenting.  But, I need not describe this footage any further, as you can watch it for yourself, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bwwOb0hdU&feature=g-upl

When you are done watching this censored footage, please distribute it.  Repost this introduction.  It is imperative that Americans know of this horrific and unprecedented censorship.  If enough people learn of this unforgivable manipulation, perhaps in future debates the authorities discussion of the vital topics of immigration and the threat of Islamic jihad to be aired.

John K. Press, Ph.D.

www.culturism.us

What is Good American?

Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. In speaking about culturism I’m often asked to define the majority culture. Here, a member of the majority culture is an American. The question then is, “what is an American?” In this day of nearly open borders and multicultural confusion, this is a very important question.

I concede that Americans are not easily defined. We have neither a shared religion nor race like other countries. We do have a shared history, Western ideals and a shared future. But beyond that, being an American leaves you with such a broad range of behaviors 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. Though the definition of Americans needs to be broad, it is still definable and a prerequisite to guiding our nation.

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 need to remember this basic idea. If you violate our laws and only complain about America you may not be a good American. Like being a sports fan, being a good American requires love. Fans can complain about their team, you might disagree with its policies, but at heart you have to really want your team to win. If you want your team to lose, you cannot be said to be a proper fan of that team. GO LAKERS! No matter what their legal status, if people hate America and wish it ill, they cannot be said to be Americans. Our immigration laws have always paid attention to this emotional bond because we have traditionally realized that loving America is not a universal trait. We need to remember this component of citizenship.

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 grandparents and our forefathers and our traditions. I work hard at what I do and take my work and role in America seriously. When we say a movie is good, it is infrequent that we are referring to its moral message. Good here means entertaining. But to be a good American in a moral sense means, again, that your actions contribute to our country in a positive way.

If we need to change our institutions for your cultural group you are probably not a good candidate to be an American. For example, many Muslims are currently challenging our basic holidays such as Halloween and Christmas, requesting we build footbaths in quasi-public institutions, change our photo identification laws and refusing to serve customers with American tastes in markets and taxis. Many Muslims have asked us to accept Islamic dress, polygamy, honor killing and female genital mutilation. Worse than that, in Western Europe they have challenged our sacred right to free speech. These do not show an affiliation for Western culture. Wherever you see efforts to challenge our traditions, it helps us see the contours of American culture. These examples show we have a culture. If you love America you want to assimilate into its core culture and help perpetuate it.

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. When you advocate cockfights, have no qualms about underage pregnancy or live a criminal lifestyle, it shows you do not have any idea what America is about. 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 foundation of our liberal democracy: the middle class. If poor opportunities give rise to demagogues, frustration and riots, 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 businessmen’s consciences are so checked out that they think porn on television and gangster rap on radio have no negative consequences, they have shown that they 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. Go team!!

The limits set in this broad definition of what constitutes a good American may seem harsh. But we have defined ourselves and had fear of cultural decline since the Puritans. This healthy habit has served us well. In the age where television tells us we can have all fun and no responsibility, being clear on such definitions has extra importance. If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. Multiculturalism provides the perfect example. It tells us that we have no culture. In schools it can provide no moral guidance. It tells us that Islamic law, porn, sending our infrastructure to China and the gang lifestyle are all equally American. This means in school it must lie about history. When our culture provides so few value assertions outside of schools, it behooves us to remember we do have a culture, fragile traditions to be proud of, and a set of responsibilities that go along with our liberties.

Culturism Takes Sides - Vote Romney

This blog entry will likely stay up until Super Tuesday.

Culturism is a philosophy dedicated to American unity. It holds anything that divides us, multiculturalism for example, harms us. In E Pluribus Unum, it emphasizes the Unum. Culturism agrees with Benjamin Franklin's assertion that if we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately. However, when we go into the voting booth, we don't have the opportunity to vote for a little bit of both. At such a moment our democracy demands that you take sides. So, before Super Tuesday I must tell you which of the candidates I think has the most culturist sensibility.

Culturism also holds that culture is VERY important. For that reason, culturism holds out very little hope for our turning Islamic countries into stable democracies. These countries are permanently different; and if they are to change, our military won't be the reason. The only candidate who agrees with this culturist reasoning is Ron Paul. Yet he has no realistic hope of winning. Barack Hussein Obama is the only somewhat viable canditate who is reluctant to invest a lot of our money in other countries. Unfortunately, his muslim connections make his loyalty suspicious. His backing of those dedicated to Islam in Kenya means I will not vote for him. I cannot tell which candidate is most likely to take out Iran's nukes. Foreign policy cannot be a decisive factor in our decision.

Culturism, by definition and to the extent possible, is chiefly concerned with domestic cohesiveness. One could see the Democrats running a woman and black man as a great way to foster unity. It shows that we now have no limits by race or gender. But they might use their access to recusitate ghosts of ancient gripes. Romney's Mormonism might make him a multicultural poster child. Yet, while Govenor of Massachusetts, he was strong enough to empower State troopers to enforce Federal immigration laws. This shows that he has some understanding of the need to control our culture. Nothing can foster our unity as much as letting people know that we are a sovereign nation; if you are not a nation, you cannot expect unity. McCain wrote the rejected amnesty bill, and Clinton and Obama were for it. Not believing we have a nation, none of these people can unite America. Romney is our best hope for unity and sovereignty.

Perhaps our being in the Middle East will result in some good. But leaving our borders open, giving amnesty to everyone (al queda members included) who has illegally trespassed into our nation is definetely anti-culturist. About this there can be no question; this is a bedrock of culturist thought. The only viable candidate who agrees with this assertion is Mitt Romney. Ron Paul's immigration and war policies do not violate culturist principles. He has other points of view, smaller government for example, that can be recommended by culturist principles. But we must admit that Paul has no realistic chance of winning. Culturism is practical. If immigration is important to you, please realize that every vote for Ron Paul could be given to the only other candidate who agrees with him on the crucial culturist issue of immigration. For the sake of our borders, DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT MITT ROMNEY THIS TUESDAY!!!!

Culturist Thought of the Day - Iowa and New Hampshire

As you know, Huckabee won Iowa and McCain won New Hampshire. To a culturist this is very bad news. That is because both of these candidates are pro-Amnesty. That means that they are likely to naturalize illegals in terrorist cells and further erode our national sovereignty.

It is also bad news for culturists as it, perhaps, indicates that culturists are out of touch with the American people. Polls show, however, that immigration is a top issue of concern with voters. It has been a focus of the debates. Huckabee even brought Jim Gilchrist, a founder of the minutemen, aboard to get an immigration enforcement image.

So what gives? This culturist's theory has to do with geography. Our system allows people from Northern cities to winnow down the candidates. Iowa is one state away from Canada and three states away from our southern border. It is one of the least likely places in America to understand the impact of immigration. New Hampshire actually touches Canada. Other than Maine, it is our Northernmost state.

Hang in there Paul and Romney. If this culturist is correct, when we get to states further South we'll see very different results. Immigration will be a deciding factor in states that don't border Canada. In the long run, we should work to get the nomination process changes so that it doesn't start with states that are so geographically remote. Early inclusion of at least one state from the South or Southwest would make the process more likely to reflect the concerns of most Americans.