Multiculturalism holds that we should celebrate our differences. Culturism suggests that we celebrate our unity. In the history of the world every tribe, nation and group has thought it wise to emphasize their unity. But multiculturalists have the strategy "celebrate diversity" as a radical new idea. Robert Putnam has recently put the two sides to a test.
Robert Putnam is the author of the wonderful book Bowling Alone. In this work this Harvard political scientist employs sociology to investigate the concept of "social capital." Social capital is a measure of cultural connectedness. This would include networks with other people as well as access to understanding the language and skills involved in getting ahead. Those without social capital are not woven into the social fabric of society.
In Bowling Alone he finds that social capital is rapidly dwindling amongst Americans. This means that they trust less and have less in common with their fellow citizens. They volunteer less, vote less, and are generally less involved in their communities than ever. Bowling is up, bowling leagues are down. Americans are increasingly bowling alone. Putnam found social capital to be associated with health, wealth, and low crime rates. In his earlier study of Italy he found that social capital even explained the ability for democracy to emerge.
Putnam's recent study on diversity involved nearly 30,000 people in 41 communities. He found that the more diverse neighborhoods are the less social capital they create. People in diverse communities volunteer less, give to charity less, vote less and work on less community projects. The simple fact is that people do not trust people they share little in common with. As President Clinton's Secretary of Labor Robert Reich pointed out, the rich do not want pay taxes to help the poor when they do not see any commonality with them.
Putnam said, "It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity." These findings were not racial. Putnam said those in diverse communities "distrust their neighbors, regadless of the color of their skin." Ethnic tensions did not arise so much as a general civic malaise. Some have argued that diversity helps economically, many have argued against that conclusion. But all agree, as Putnam says, when it comes to social connections between people, diversity "brings out the turtle in all of us" he said.
Culturism does not hope or expect diversity to be eliminated. Anyone who does is silly; diversity will always be a welcome part of America. But if we do not stress our unity, we may lose our conntection to our fellow Americans altogether. This may undermine our sense of connection, political action, and sense of trust we might otherwise feel with our neighbors and those less fortunate. In the end, Putnam's Italian studies show that emphasizing multiculturalism over culturism may even undermine our ability to have a sustainable democracy.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Western Civilization and Your Rights are Under Attack!!!!
Recently there have been a rash of attacks on the uniquely Western institutions of free speech and the separation of church and state. To inquire about the attacks on Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, click the title of this blog. To learn of those against the Englishman named Lionheart go to http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/british-police-have-been-charged-with.html.
Ezra Levant has republished the Danish cartoons which caused riots and protest all over the Muslim world in Canada and is being prosecuted for it. While we are supposed to understand and tolerate Muslim culture, they do not try to do so for ours. Free speech is an essential part of Western culture that does not exist in Islamic nations. They should appreciate and tolerate it. The extreme shame of it is that it is a Canadian governmental body that is prosecuting Levant for exercising his free speech. The government complaint form allowed the plaintif to check a complaint of religious discrimination. Essentially the same thing is happening in England, with Lionhart, and America with Marc Steyn (using Canadian laws).
Multiculturalism says there is no main culture in Western nations. There is one; it celebrates separation of church and state and freedom of speech. These are not universal cultural characteristics, they are Western. The complaint against Steyn says it seeks to "protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance." But as some cultures do not celebrate free speech and separation of church and state, they are not Western. Some cultures advocate Sharia law and some are cannibals. Canada is not multicultural, it is Western.
Instead of multiculturalism, we must realize we are unique and practice culturism. That means that just as Islamic and Asian cultures protect, promote and privilege their cultures, Western governments should protect, promote and privilege Western cultural traditions. We have a unique tradition to protect or lose. It is not the default of world culture. In Islamic nations their laws can, and do, promote what they want. In Western lands freedom of speech and the separation of church and state must be held sacrosanct. If muslims do not like the promotion and practices of Western culture they are free to leave it.
My previous statement is not racist, it is culturist. In England Lionheart has been jailed on "suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986." First of all, they were factually true. But that aside, culture and race are different. Warning about a religion is not racist, it is culturist. Silencing discussion of culture under the guise of stopping racism is misguided, inaccurate and dangerous. Race is not a productive or rational basis of discrimination. Culture is a productive and rational basis of discrimination. This post is not racist, but it is culturist. This post defends some cultural precepts and denounces others. Unlike making racial distinctions, the freedom to make cultural pronouncements is essential to all societies.
Western culture is not universal. That this is not widely know is shown in the name of the commission prosecuting Ezra Levant: "Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission." Individual rights are not "human" or "universal" they are Western. If we do not protect them, as they do not exist elsewhere, rights will disappear.
All Canadians should post Ezra Lavant's offensive articles on their blogs. All Englishmen should post Lionheart's offensive articles. Will they jail all of you? Counter suits for publishing the hate filled Koran is also necessary.
Ezra Levant has republished the Danish cartoons which caused riots and protest all over the Muslim world in Canada and is being prosecuted for it. While we are supposed to understand and tolerate Muslim culture, they do not try to do so for ours. Free speech is an essential part of Western culture that does not exist in Islamic nations. They should appreciate and tolerate it. The extreme shame of it is that it is a Canadian governmental body that is prosecuting Levant for exercising his free speech. The government complaint form allowed the plaintif to check a complaint of religious discrimination. Essentially the same thing is happening in England, with Lionhart, and America with Marc Steyn (using Canadian laws).
Multiculturalism says there is no main culture in Western nations. There is one; it celebrates separation of church and state and freedom of speech. These are not universal cultural characteristics, they are Western. The complaint against Steyn says it seeks to "protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance." But as some cultures do not celebrate free speech and separation of church and state, they are not Western. Some cultures advocate Sharia law and some are cannibals. Canada is not multicultural, it is Western.
Instead of multiculturalism, we must realize we are unique and practice culturism. That means that just as Islamic and Asian cultures protect, promote and privilege their cultures, Western governments should protect, promote and privilege Western cultural traditions. We have a unique tradition to protect or lose. It is not the default of world culture. In Islamic nations their laws can, and do, promote what they want. In Western lands freedom of speech and the separation of church and state must be held sacrosanct. If muslims do not like the promotion and practices of Western culture they are free to leave it.
My previous statement is not racist, it is culturist. In England Lionheart has been jailed on "suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986." First of all, they were factually true. But that aside, culture and race are different. Warning about a religion is not racist, it is culturist. Silencing discussion of culture under the guise of stopping racism is misguided, inaccurate and dangerous. Race is not a productive or rational basis of discrimination. Culture is a productive and rational basis of discrimination. This post is not racist, but it is culturist. This post defends some cultural precepts and denounces others. Unlike making racial distinctions, the freedom to make cultural pronouncements is essential to all societies.
Western culture is not universal. That this is not widely know is shown in the name of the commission prosecuting Ezra Levant: "Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission." Individual rights are not "human" or "universal" they are Western. If we do not protect them, as they do not exist elsewhere, rights will disappear.
All Canadians should post Ezra Lavant's offensive articles on their blogs. All Englishmen should post Lionheart's offensive articles. Will they jail all of you? Counter suits for publishing the hate filled Koran is also necessary.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Culturist Thought of the Day - America is NOT Racist
My descriptions of Western culture mention that we believe in democracy, women's rights, the separation of Church and State, and individualism. People are surprised to hear that these are not universal beliefs. I explain that Americans often incorrectly think their values are universal. But when I describe the West as anti-racist I really get indignation. "Surely we are very racist" comes the reply. Silence follows my response that we are amongst the least racist places on earth or in history. While Barack Hussein Obama's campaign has gotten the issue into international news, we need to set the record straight; Western nations like America lead the world in the fight against racism.
Americans, again, too often fail to take notice of the rest of the world's difference. Korea is very racist. My wife is Korean. Walking there we have had strangers stop us and tell her she is a disgrace. At a jazz concert two years ago rocks were thrown at us. That is their culture. I do not bring this up to say we should condemn them or invade them to make them follow "human rights." I bring this up to say that such behavior would be considered outrageous beyond belief here. Even if we were brave enough to whisper support for such thoughts, we would be rightfully scared of acting on them. In our society, I am proud to write, few things are worse than to be called a racist.
But racism is not just about attitudes. Korean, Chinese and Japanese laws are overtly racist. If you are not of the proper racial category you cannot become a citizen of these nations without marriage to one of them. If you marry someone from the right lineage and wait some years you might be able to get Asian citizenship. But even then, your "mixed-blood" child would not be allowed in the army, they may be excluded from public school, and many government and private jobs will be impossible for them to attain. This is not to condemn them, this is how they anchor their identities. Our notion that we should not discriminate on the basis of race is noble, but it is only ours. We should, however, be very proud that our laws, unlike those of other countries, actually forbid racism.
Until the United States and for much of our history, most nation's identities were based on race. German was not only a type of citizenship, it was a race. Japanese is a racial designation. I can tell you what a Filipino looks like. I cannot, however, tell you what an American looks like. We are the exception to the rule in that we are not race based. The traditional Indian caste system is largely based on color. And in countries like those of Latin America, to the extent that they have it, mobility is much more constrained by race than it is here. Western nations are pioneers in the concept of a race-blind society.
I am bragging. Yes I am. But this is necessary. While racial discrimination is illegal here, while we have affirmative action programs to help minorities, while we even have an African American candidate for President, we still hear that America is a very racist country. This results from our comparing ourselves to some unattained ideal and NOT from the rest of the world. While Barack Hussein Obama is running for President and getting race discussed, it is important to note that he is running. That he is considered a viable candidate to be our national leader is remarkable. Those who would take this point of pride from us need to be confronted with a factual comparison. While the world watches our elections it is important for us to brag that America is among the LEAST RACIST NATIONS ON EARTH. This fact should be proudly featured in any description of the West.
Americans, again, too often fail to take notice of the rest of the world's difference. Korea is very racist. My wife is Korean. Walking there we have had strangers stop us and tell her she is a disgrace. At a jazz concert two years ago rocks were thrown at us. That is their culture. I do not bring this up to say we should condemn them or invade them to make them follow "human rights." I bring this up to say that such behavior would be considered outrageous beyond belief here. Even if we were brave enough to whisper support for such thoughts, we would be rightfully scared of acting on them. In our society, I am proud to write, few things are worse than to be called a racist.
But racism is not just about attitudes. Korean, Chinese and Japanese laws are overtly racist. If you are not of the proper racial category you cannot become a citizen of these nations without marriage to one of them. If you marry someone from the right lineage and wait some years you might be able to get Asian citizenship. But even then, your "mixed-blood" child would not be allowed in the army, they may be excluded from public school, and many government and private jobs will be impossible for them to attain. This is not to condemn them, this is how they anchor their identities. Our notion that we should not discriminate on the basis of race is noble, but it is only ours. We should, however, be very proud that our laws, unlike those of other countries, actually forbid racism.
Until the United States and for much of our history, most nation's identities were based on race. German was not only a type of citizenship, it was a race. Japanese is a racial designation. I can tell you what a Filipino looks like. I cannot, however, tell you what an American looks like. We are the exception to the rule in that we are not race based. The traditional Indian caste system is largely based on color. And in countries like those of Latin America, to the extent that they have it, mobility is much more constrained by race than it is here. Western nations are pioneers in the concept of a race-blind society.
I am bragging. Yes I am. But this is necessary. While racial discrimination is illegal here, while we have affirmative action programs to help minorities, while we even have an African American candidate for President, we still hear that America is a very racist country. This results from our comparing ourselves to some unattained ideal and NOT from the rest of the world. While Barack Hussein Obama is running for President and getting race discussed, it is important to note that he is running. That he is considered a viable candidate to be our national leader is remarkable. Those who would take this point of pride from us need to be confronted with a factual comparison. While the world watches our elections it is important for us to brag that America is among the LEAST RACIST NATIONS ON EARTH. This fact should be proudly featured in any description of the West.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Culturist Q and A
How does culturism's view square with the “culture war?”
The "culture war" is seen as divisive.
Both secularists and religious folks in our country can look back on a a long Western cultural tradition that holds mens’ spiritual attributes to be more valuable than their physical attributes. Plato said that men’s souls were higher than their bodies. He said reason should rule appetite. Freud said the same thing. Jesus did too. It is sad that so often Christians and feminists agree on issues, but the way they frame them divides them.
Both the religious and the non-religious can invoke the primacy of mind / soul over body to anchor morals and critiques of our current culture. Why do we not feature sex on television or in the classroom? Because both insult man as a mental being. This is not just purely a cultural preference; real results come from it. We have a first world economy and opportunity today because we applied our minds to the problems of this world.
The FCC should make public airwaves an island of decency. This would create a safe zone for kids. We should use zoning laws to keep strip club billboards away from our main thoroughfares. In the age of of the internet the idea that this will bar people's access to information does not hold water. These culturist policies will promote essential cultural values.
The Culture War is often framed as a secular versus progressive battle. Culturism seeks to unite the sides around common Western values.
The "culture war" is seen as divisive.
Both secularists and religious folks in our country can look back on a a long Western cultural tradition that holds mens’ spiritual attributes to be more valuable than their physical attributes. Plato said that men’s souls were higher than their bodies. He said reason should rule appetite. Freud said the same thing. Jesus did too. It is sad that so often Christians and feminists agree on issues, but the way they frame them divides them.
Both the religious and the non-religious can invoke the primacy of mind / soul over body to anchor morals and critiques of our current culture. Why do we not feature sex on television or in the classroom? Because both insult man as a mental being. This is not just purely a cultural preference; real results come from it. We have a first world economy and opportunity today because we applied our minds to the problems of this world.
The FCC should make public airwaves an island of decency. This would create a safe zone for kids. We should use zoning laws to keep strip club billboards away from our main thoroughfares. In the age of of the internet the idea that this will bar people's access to information does not hold water. These culturist policies will promote essential cultural values.
The Culture War is often framed as a secular versus progressive battle. Culturism seeks to unite the sides around common Western values.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Culturist Thought of the Day - Romney, Obama and Multiculturalism
It would be extremely rich for culturists if Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama were the nominees of their respective parties. Romney is, of course, a Mormon. Obama has many ties to Islam.
Normally, assuming America has any culturist sensibility at all, Obama's ties to Islam would disqualify him from the presidency of the United States. He went to a madrassa as a child, his father and stepfather were Muslim. Obama visited Kenya, the country of his youth where his muslim stepmother still lives - and supported the Muslim leader in their now bloody conflict, Raila Odinga. But media's blackout is based on its buy-in with multiculturalism. To multiculturalists all cultures are interchagable and equally worthy of celebration.
Romney's Mormon religious roots are problematic too. Many Mormons still believe in Polygamy. Culturism, the book, explains why accepting this on an individualist level makes sense, but culturist reasoning rejects it. What happens when pimps start to marry their whores? When bad men collect women? Mormon's have, in Romney's life, been outwardly racist. Culturists know that even when you are clearly talking about cultural issues you are likely to be smeared as a racist.
Nothing gets you exiled from reasonable discussions faster.
If these two get their party's nominatios we'll get to look at two very unseemly, (Western standards) cultures closely. If multiculturalists qualify their celebration of diversity, they are actually culturists. Either they would have to say they love polygamy and racism, Jihad and honor killings or ignore these examples of diversity. That is what they normally do and strive to do. But the temptation for Romney to use the Islam card and disqualify Obama would be huge. Obama's temptation to uncover the unseemly side of Mormonism would be equally large. If either exposed the other, multiculturalist's unqualified love of diversity would take a hit. Culturist issues would be raised and perhaps our culture would realize that Western values are unique and not to be taken for granted.
Normally, assuming America has any culturist sensibility at all, Obama's ties to Islam would disqualify him from the presidency of the United States. He went to a madrassa as a child, his father and stepfather were Muslim. Obama visited Kenya, the country of his youth where his muslim stepmother still lives - and supported the Muslim leader in their now bloody conflict, Raila Odinga. But media's blackout is based on its buy-in with multiculturalism. To multiculturalists all cultures are interchagable and equally worthy of celebration.
Romney's Mormon religious roots are problematic too. Many Mormons still believe in Polygamy. Culturism, the book, explains why accepting this on an individualist level makes sense, but culturist reasoning rejects it. What happens when pimps start to marry their whores? When bad men collect women? Mormon's have, in Romney's life, been outwardly racist. Culturists know that even when you are clearly talking about cultural issues you are likely to be smeared as a racist.
Nothing gets you exiled from reasonable discussions faster.
If these two get their party's nominatios we'll get to look at two very unseemly, (Western standards) cultures closely. If multiculturalists qualify their celebration of diversity, they are actually culturists. Either they would have to say they love polygamy and racism, Jihad and honor killings or ignore these examples of diversity. That is what they normally do and strive to do. But the temptation for Romney to use the Islam card and disqualify Obama would be huge. Obama's temptation to uncover the unseemly side of Mormonism would be equally large. If either exposed the other, multiculturalist's unqualified love of diversity would take a hit. Culturist issues would be raised and perhaps our culture would realize that Western values are unique and not to be taken for granted.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
The Gathering Storm Culturist Interview
Yesterday I was on the Gathering Storm Report blogtalk radio program put on by Always On Watch. You can find it via clicking on the title of this blog. It was a great show as their extended format really allows deep exploraton of ideas. The format allows you to go deeper into ideas than the typical 15 minute slot allows. But still, there was one line of reasoning in which I don't think I responded to the host, W.C., well enough.
At the top of the show, W.C., Always (the co-host) and I discussed my biggest disagreement with almost everyone else who writes about Islam; I do not spend any time vilifying other cultures in other countries. I do not support Islamic Fascism Awareness Week. I do not decry what muslims do in muslim countries.
People that decry other nations for not being like us utilize the same globalist thinking that the open borders crowd does. It holds that all can come here because everyone in the world basically agrees that being an American is the future or shortly will agree. I don't think that China agrees that democracy is good or that Islamic nations agree that the separation of church and state is good. As pockets of no-go areas in France testify, people who immigrate to the West do not naturally assume our ideals or assimilate. Diversity exists. Challenging Islamic countries to hold up Western ideals is like asking a pig to walk on two feet.
This globalist thinking also justifies our forays into other nations. Our trying to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into progressive democracies is based on the idea that all people basically agree in our human rights, democratic, individual conscience fostering, vision. But as soon as democracy came to Palistine they voted in Hamas. The popular vote does not automatically lead to Enlightenment-based policies. Democracies result in such only when the people in the countries in question believe in them. Diversity exists, our nation is special.
W.C. put me in the most difficult spot of the night when he asked me what should be done about Islamic expansion. My first response was to find a point of agreement. All who worry about such things recognize that we should stop muslim immigration to Western nations immediately. What I did not mention is that culturism does not respect nation's rights to have nuclear weapons. It is totally Kosher, from a culturist perspective, to go in and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities; to kill Osama for attacking us; to invade and dismantle Pakistan's nukes. What is not legitimate is to then occupy the country and try to reprogram its culture to where it can support a democracy. This denies the existence of diversity or the importance of culture. It, again, is the same thinking that justifies open borders. It assumes there is no diversity and it is like trying to get a lion to be kind to zebras.
Ah, but I still had not answered W.C.'s great and challenging question. What to do about Islamic expansionism. The strategic practicality answer is the one I should have emphasized. Is it affordable or practical get militarily involved in country after country where the Western notion of rights is being violated? We might get into enforcing other's borders, but we often do so to stave off one Islamic foe from another. We then end up sending money to support an Islamic nation. Why on earth do we send money to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine? Are these our friends? NO!!! At best they might vote for a couple of years, then they revert to being our enemies. We should protect and back Western nations only. If we want Western values to survive, to remain a possible light upon a hill for others, our money is best spent protecting Western borders and economies.
That is my best answer to the most challenging question I was asked. It went to the very heart of my disagreement with others who write on this issue. I'd utilize any means to protect us, whatever is practical. I just think that we get better bang for our buck defining, protecting and promoting our culture domestically - being culturist - than spending our money in and on Islamic nations in the hope of turning them into Western ones.
Thanks to WC. and Always for having me on The Gathering Storm Report.
At the top of the show, W.C., Always (the co-host) and I discussed my biggest disagreement with almost everyone else who writes about Islam; I do not spend any time vilifying other cultures in other countries. I do not support Islamic Fascism Awareness Week. I do not decry what muslims do in muslim countries.
People that decry other nations for not being like us utilize the same globalist thinking that the open borders crowd does. It holds that all can come here because everyone in the world basically agrees that being an American is the future or shortly will agree. I don't think that China agrees that democracy is good or that Islamic nations agree that the separation of church and state is good. As pockets of no-go areas in France testify, people who immigrate to the West do not naturally assume our ideals or assimilate. Diversity exists. Challenging Islamic countries to hold up Western ideals is like asking a pig to walk on two feet.
This globalist thinking also justifies our forays into other nations. Our trying to turn Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan into progressive democracies is based on the idea that all people basically agree in our human rights, democratic, individual conscience fostering, vision. But as soon as democracy came to Palistine they voted in Hamas. The popular vote does not automatically lead to Enlightenment-based policies. Democracies result in such only when the people in the countries in question believe in them. Diversity exists, our nation is special.
W.C. put me in the most difficult spot of the night when he asked me what should be done about Islamic expansion. My first response was to find a point of agreement. All who worry about such things recognize that we should stop muslim immigration to Western nations immediately. What I did not mention is that culturism does not respect nation's rights to have nuclear weapons. It is totally Kosher, from a culturist perspective, to go in and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities; to kill Osama for attacking us; to invade and dismantle Pakistan's nukes. What is not legitimate is to then occupy the country and try to reprogram its culture to where it can support a democracy. This denies the existence of diversity or the importance of culture. It, again, is the same thinking that justifies open borders. It assumes there is no diversity and it is like trying to get a lion to be kind to zebras.
Ah, but I still had not answered W.C.'s great and challenging question. What to do about Islamic expansionism. The strategic practicality answer is the one I should have emphasized. Is it affordable or practical get militarily involved in country after country where the Western notion of rights is being violated? We might get into enforcing other's borders, but we often do so to stave off one Islamic foe from another. We then end up sending money to support an Islamic nation. Why on earth do we send money to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine? Are these our friends? NO!!! At best they might vote for a couple of years, then they revert to being our enemies. We should protect and back Western nations only. If we want Western values to survive, to remain a possible light upon a hill for others, our money is best spent protecting Western borders and economies.
That is my best answer to the most challenging question I was asked. It went to the very heart of my disagreement with others who write on this issue. I'd utilize any means to protect us, whatever is practical. I just think that we get better bang for our buck defining, protecting and promoting our culture domestically - being culturist - than spending our money in and on Islamic nations in the hope of turning them into Western ones.
Thanks to WC. and Always for having me on The Gathering Storm Report.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Culturist Letter to a Globalist
Dear Globalist,
Obviously, I do not agree with the view that all cultures are becoming ephemeral. Drinking Coca-cola does not make you American any more than eating Chinese food makes me Chinese. I was a high school teacher for eight years. The achievement gaps between cultural groups has budged very little. That is because some cultures value education much more than others. Some value teen pregnancy. Both drink Coca cola. These are very significant examples of diversity; they have a huge impact.
You may say that all cultures will inevitably agree that education and low teen birth rates are the goal of life and what they wish. You are not the only one to posit the idea that all cultures are becoming one. But when we make that assumption we assume that they are becoming united behind Western ideals. Islam will adopt a separation of Church and State. China will become a democratic respector of human rights. Even if you believe that we are destiny, I do not think this is what they would say. As China gains in power they are increasingly unwilling quietly accept scold for not adopting Western "Universal" values. Islamic countries are not giving up. Until they give up the "illusion" of keeping their culture, it is unsafe to assume that they are just little "modern" Americans in the making.
Interestingly, people who believe that globalization is making us and our model the international default simultaneously claim that the world is diversifying. Borders are breaking down. However, that is not true. China, Japan and Korea still only give citizenship to foreigners who marry into their culture. Even then the rights are exteremly limited. Having spent time in each, I can tell you that they are not increasingly diverse. Islamic countries are not opening up to diversity. Saudi Arabia doesn't even let in non-muslim symbols, let alone people. Africa is not polyglot. Only the West is diversifying. We are globalizing by breaking down our borders. It is dangerous that we are the only ones experimenting with dismantling our culture and sovereignty. At very least we should check this trend with more rigor than asserting slogans about "celebrating diversity."
Those who think all are the same, culture has no import and diversity doesn't really exist promote open borders. They believe that all people are Americans deep down. People come here in droves; but not necessarily because they love the U.S. They want the money. They take welfare, don't pay taxes, and send their profits back home. This does not show overriding concern for America. It is not certain that we can maintain a first world economy on such a basis. Worse, many people who come here settle in enclaves and are actually hostile to the West. We do not see that so much in America yet. But Europe has no-go zones and Muslim enclaves where hostility to women's rights, freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state are not believed in.
Racism is stupid and dangerous. Because of this we have become afraid to speak of cultural differences. This is behind much of the reason that we have gone for multiculturalism. We have decided not to judge anything; to just, as the slogan goes, "celebrate diversity." It is not healthy to be blind to basic truths. Cultural diversity exists and it is important. Racism is totally irrational and dangerous. Culturism is necessary. Multiculturalism has robbed us of our ability to make value judgements. Culturism can restore our ability to make value judgements. We will have more realistic and productive debates if we identify ourselves as "culturists."
PS Culturism is defined as saying that cultures have a right to define, protect, and promote themselves. It respects the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia, China and Iraq. By definition it is not globalist, pro-sovereignty, and against attacking other nations in the name of Western - what non-culturists mistakingly call "universal" - values.
Sincerely, Culturism
Obviously, I do not agree with the view that all cultures are becoming ephemeral. Drinking Coca-cola does not make you American any more than eating Chinese food makes me Chinese. I was a high school teacher for eight years. The achievement gaps between cultural groups has budged very little. That is because some cultures value education much more than others. Some value teen pregnancy. Both drink Coca cola. These are very significant examples of diversity; they have a huge impact.
You may say that all cultures will inevitably agree that education and low teen birth rates are the goal of life and what they wish. You are not the only one to posit the idea that all cultures are becoming one. But when we make that assumption we assume that they are becoming united behind Western ideals. Islam will adopt a separation of Church and State. China will become a democratic respector of human rights. Even if you believe that we are destiny, I do not think this is what they would say. As China gains in power they are increasingly unwilling quietly accept scold for not adopting Western "Universal" values. Islamic countries are not giving up. Until they give up the "illusion" of keeping their culture, it is unsafe to assume that they are just little "modern" Americans in the making.
Interestingly, people who believe that globalization is making us and our model the international default simultaneously claim that the world is diversifying. Borders are breaking down. However, that is not true. China, Japan and Korea still only give citizenship to foreigners who marry into their culture. Even then the rights are exteremly limited. Having spent time in each, I can tell you that they are not increasingly diverse. Islamic countries are not opening up to diversity. Saudi Arabia doesn't even let in non-muslim symbols, let alone people. Africa is not polyglot. Only the West is diversifying. We are globalizing by breaking down our borders. It is dangerous that we are the only ones experimenting with dismantling our culture and sovereignty. At very least we should check this trend with more rigor than asserting slogans about "celebrating diversity."
Those who think all are the same, culture has no import and diversity doesn't really exist promote open borders. They believe that all people are Americans deep down. People come here in droves; but not necessarily because they love the U.S. They want the money. They take welfare, don't pay taxes, and send their profits back home. This does not show overriding concern for America. It is not certain that we can maintain a first world economy on such a basis. Worse, many people who come here settle in enclaves and are actually hostile to the West. We do not see that so much in America yet. But Europe has no-go zones and Muslim enclaves where hostility to women's rights, freedom of speech, and the separation of church and state are not believed in.
Racism is stupid and dangerous. Because of this we have become afraid to speak of cultural differences. This is behind much of the reason that we have gone for multiculturalism. We have decided not to judge anything; to just, as the slogan goes, "celebrate diversity." It is not healthy to be blind to basic truths. Cultural diversity exists and it is important. Racism is totally irrational and dangerous. Culturism is necessary. Multiculturalism has robbed us of our ability to make value judgements. Culturism can restore our ability to make value judgements. We will have more realistic and productive debates if we identify ourselves as "culturists."
PS Culturism is defined as saying that cultures have a right to define, protect, and promote themselves. It respects the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia, China and Iraq. By definition it is not globalist, pro-sovereignty, and against attacking other nations in the name of Western - what non-culturists mistakingly call "universal" - values.
Sincerely, Culturism
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Culturism's "Western Abolition Celebration Day" Idea
The New Jersey legislature is considering issuing an apology for slavery. Assemblyman William Payne asks, "If former Confederate states can take action like this, why can't a Northeast state like New Jersey?" Here is my response and a suggestion.
Every conservative will respond to this by asking if 640,000 dead is not an apology? After giving 640,000 lives and countless injuries in the name of stopping slavery, saying, "we want an apology too" is sort of Monty Python.
Beyond this we forget that every country since the beginning of time has had slavery. Native Americans had slavery. Africans had slavery. The Islamic slave trade totally dwarfed ours. Much less than 10% of slaves that came to the New World were destined for these United States.
Western civilization is the only one to have ever had a problem with slavery. We are the ones who decided it was wrong. We fought a Civil War over slavery. Brazil got the bulk of slaves that came to the New World. Did they have a war to stop it? No their slavery continued until 1908. How about Saudi Arabia or Libya? They enslaved Europeans until Jefferson sent the marines, as the hymn has it, to "the shores of Tripoli." The British spent decades fighting against slavery in Africa. They were unsucessful in stopping indigenous and Islamic slavery. But they tried.
Rather than apologize, we should have an annual celebration of our unique efforts to stop slavery. We should celebrate the British and American efforts. I cannot for the life of me think of a good name for this suggested holiday, but it would be something like the "Western Abolition Celebration Day." We could celebrate those thinkers and warriors who struggled to convince people slavery was wrong and gave "the last full measure of devotion" (their lives, Gettysburg Address) to stop it.
New Jersey Assemblyman Payne said an apology would comfort black residents of New Jersey. Calling someone a victim, treating them like a sulking child, insults them. Furthermore his proposal is designed to make America feel bad. Does it help people to think their society is bad? Is such an attitude conducive to striving within that society?
It would be much healthier for all concerned if, instead of another silly and tired apology from pompous pandering hypicrites who would likely not have given their lives in battle, we had an annual celebration of being a part of a country and civilizatio that was so marvelous as to be the first to condemn slavery and fight to abolish it!!!
Every conservative will respond to this by asking if 640,000 dead is not an apology? After giving 640,000 lives and countless injuries in the name of stopping slavery, saying, "we want an apology too" is sort of Monty Python.
Beyond this we forget that every country since the beginning of time has had slavery. Native Americans had slavery. Africans had slavery. The Islamic slave trade totally dwarfed ours. Much less than 10% of slaves that came to the New World were destined for these United States.
Western civilization is the only one to have ever had a problem with slavery. We are the ones who decided it was wrong. We fought a Civil War over slavery. Brazil got the bulk of slaves that came to the New World. Did they have a war to stop it? No their slavery continued until 1908. How about Saudi Arabia or Libya? They enslaved Europeans until Jefferson sent the marines, as the hymn has it, to "the shores of Tripoli." The British spent decades fighting against slavery in Africa. They were unsucessful in stopping indigenous and Islamic slavery. But they tried.
Rather than apologize, we should have an annual celebration of our unique efforts to stop slavery. We should celebrate the British and American efforts. I cannot for the life of me think of a good name for this suggested holiday, but it would be something like the "Western Abolition Celebration Day." We could celebrate those thinkers and warriors who struggled to convince people slavery was wrong and gave "the last full measure of devotion" (their lives, Gettysburg Address) to stop it.
New Jersey Assemblyman Payne said an apology would comfort black residents of New Jersey. Calling someone a victim, treating them like a sulking child, insults them. Furthermore his proposal is designed to make America feel bad. Does it help people to think their society is bad? Is such an attitude conducive to striving within that society?
It would be much healthier for all concerned if, instead of another silly and tired apology from pompous pandering hypicrites who would likely not have given their lives in battle, we had an annual celebration of being a part of a country and civilizatio that was so marvelous as to be the first to condemn slavery and fight to abolish it!!!
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Culturist Thought of the Day - History Lessons
History started around campfires in tribal times. It was a central part of that which kept the tribe thinking itself important, creating cohesion and passing on values. History serves an essential function within society.
Academic history has forgotten what the historic function of history has been up to now. They have gotten into the debunking business using scientific accuracy as a tool. Mr. Moses you are correct. Grand narratives are said to be dead and inaccurate. We need multiple perspectives. There is merit in that, but too much of it, as Dr. Wilson suggested, is a cloak for fabricated Marxist ideology. Rather than serve the central function that history is to serve within a culture, they use history to destroy and debunk the culture. This is enormously destructive.
The popularity of history can be seen in the existence of the history channel. Many best selling books concer historical topics. Many top movies depict historical events. Histories popularity results from its tribal roots. Academic historians who have stripped the positive messages and narrative of history do not sell. This should tell them something; we need our myths.
Academic history has forgotten what the historic function of history has been up to now. They have gotten into the debunking business using scientific accuracy as a tool. Mr. Moses you are correct. Grand narratives are said to be dead and inaccurate. We need multiple perspectives. There is merit in that, but too much of it, as Dr. Wilson suggested, is a cloak for fabricated Marxist ideology. Rather than serve the central function that history is to serve within a culture, they use history to destroy and debunk the culture. This is enormously destructive.
The popularity of history can be seen in the existence of the history channel. Many best selling books concer historical topics. Many top movies depict historical events. Histories popularity results from its tribal roots. Academic historians who have stripped the positive messages and narrative of history do not sell. This should tell them something; we need our myths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)