AN OUTLINE OF CULTURIST POLICY: PART TWO

The 2nd of 8 WEEKLY OUTLINES OF CULTURIST POLICY


Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The use of philosophy, art, governance policy and science to honor, promote, manage and protect traditional majority cultures. 
Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the philosophy, arts, policy creation and sciences that promote, protect and manage traditional majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.
--------
This is the second of a weekly, 8-part review of culturist policies. The series will become a short e-book. Any feedback you could provide in terms of ideas or presentation would be appreciated.  

Culturist Epistemology

Culture is not metaphysical; ultimately, it exists in heads and institutions.  You need land to grow food in order to support the heads in which culture exists.  With no food, no heads; with no heads, no culture.  When a Muslim immigrates, the very space he occupies is a Muslim space.  When your town has a Hindu temple, that space is necessarily no longer a Western space. No ‘western essence’ permeates Muslim no-go zones; that space is no longer western.
Defensive Culturist Word Use

If the West falls, neither China nor Iran will promote ‘human rights;’ ‘human rights’ will cease to exist. To protect so - called ‘human rights’ we must protect western territory and solvency. 

Accordingly, it is best to call so-called ‘human rights,’ ‘western rights.’  This will remind us that when we defend the West we defend the only culture that promotes rights.  That’s why, truly, western culturism is the new liberalism.

Offensive Culturist Word Use

Cultural diversity being real dooms attempts to militarily force Muslim nations to adopt Western values and institutions.  Therefore, (when not punishing them for terrorist acts), culturism advocates keeping our military out of Muslim nations.

But, verbally, we can weaken Muslim governments by degrading their values in comparison with the ‘western rights’ model.  For example, we should ruthlessly mock Iran’s theocratic government and backwards women’s rights agenda. 

Yet, Iran is not our concern.  Reifying western pride and identity is the real goal of mocking Islam’s overall stupid brutality.  Cultural identity is usually bolstered via contrast with a hated other.  Islam is, particularly, suited to make the West look distinct and noble.

While culturism involves battles for land, might and economies that can sustain heads, ultimately culturists must battle for the cultural assumptions in those heads.

Culturist rights and refugees

We often hear that ‘individual rights’ trump ‘culturist rights;’ That is, if we enforce our immigration laws, a teen and her illegal mother might be separated. Individual rights do not automatically trump the West’s culturist right to have a border.

Muslim nations don't take in Christian refugees. China takes no refugees. Just like the Asian and Muslim realms, the West has culturist rights.  So-called, ‘human rights’ do not trump the West’s culturist right to sovereignty.

The culturist programming of youth is not difficult. Changing adult’s views is nearly impossible. Culture is made up of populations who identify with it.  Rejecting the millions of incoming ‘refugees,’ because they harbor hostile ideology, is a defensible policy position. 

All Muslim ‘refugees’ must be preemptively directed to a nation state in the Islamic world.

End foreign mosque funding

The foreign funding of mosques in the West must be stopped. To do this, philosophically, we must reject multiculturalism and embrace the culturist idea that the West has a unique civilization to protect and that Islam is the West’s traditional enemy.
To make this legal, we can note that the separation of Church and State says nothing of Mosque and State. 

More realistically, in America, the Foreign Agent Registration Act allows us to register foreign agents’ and stop their funds from being used for domestic propaganda.  To apply this law, we must classify Islam as the political ideology of an enemy, which it is. 

Ending the foreign funding of mosques does not prohibit local citizens from funding and building their own mosques.

Western rights belong to westerners individually and collectively: our Constitutional guarantee of free speech does not grant Saudi Arabia the right to build mosques in the West.  Our not being able to build churches in Saudi Arabia confirms that ‘culturist rights’ do exist.

Conclusion

China’s racist immigration laws protect their national identity.  Saudi Arabia’s culturist immigration laws protect theirs.  The West is not a culturally neutral ‘human’ globalist space.  The West has a specific culture and the right to have culturist laws that protect our culture.


The phrase ‘human rights’ is most frequently used in order to corrode western sovereignty. To win the rhetorical battle we must correctly call so-called, ‘human rights’ what they are: ‘western rights.’
----
You can read the culturist policy series intro here.

You can read more about culturism here.

Comments

  1. Polygamy, and by implication Islam, should be relentlessly attacked. Nature does not produce the sexes in a ratio of four-to-one, let alone the hundreds to one that would be needed to satisfy Islamic practice. Polygamous systems invariably produce an enormous number of restless and frustrated young men with no prospect of a mate. Such a system would soon destroy itself without an endless supply of slave brides to calm things down. The 'Prophet' himself set the example of endless war upon the unbelievers, slaughter of their menfolk and all older women, enslavement of the younger women. Islam operated like this for fourteen centuries without the slightest sign of a bad conscience or an abolitionist movement. Millions were slaughtered, millions carried off into slavery. These simple facts should be broadcast at every opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Though not exactly on topic with the article, I agree. I have thought about this and have made a very tentative discovery that I wish I had more time to investigate.

    In animals with a sharper hierarchy, you have a monopolization of women by the alpha - male. You also have a larger male / female size distinction. In my cursory search, I found nations with polygamy have the largest male / female size distinction.

    Why is this important? Well, for one, it is a great example of gene-culture co-evolution. And, two it would suggest a temperament difference between Middle Eastern and European populations.

    A book you would love is "The Rape of Troy" by Jonathan Gottschall. It is a Literary Darwinist look at Homer's work. It speaks to women selecting for strength in a violent society, leading to a lack of males and polygamy and more battle in early Greek society.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes: ehat we call "universal" human rights have no parallel in Islamic, Chinese or African cultures (and others). They are WESTERN human rights. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation made this flagrantly clear when - despite its members being part of the U.N. - it's Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam included a final article saying that all rights are subject to the Sharia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cynical hypocrisy of the 'human rights' folks is often mind boggling. And, I agree with the sentiment of that very weak culturist, Trump, says about such things:

      I don't begrudge Mexico defending it's southern border and then saying our border is a crime against humanity. It is pro-Mexico; That is what the Mexican government should be.

      But, that said, I would close down the UN's 'Human Rights' board. I believe it is 100% Islamic and hypocritical and cynical.

      Delete
  4. Culture is a function of race. Without White people, no "western" culture. That is what the author wants to veil, that is why his "culturist" approach, in his attempt to avoid race, is disingenuous.

    Please stop discussing White culture without White people.
    You can actually spare the remaining 6 parts.

    And the disingenuous harping on the moh-theme, in an attempt to raise anger against mohammedanism, doesn´t happen in pursuit of affection for the "West" but as an attempt of the jewish author to use Whites for Israel´s present interests. Wow... we almost fell for this very original, never before seen trick !

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have not avoided race. I think you didn't read the first article or the comments. You can argue with my approach to race. But, saying I didn't discuss it is disingenuous. So again, . . .

    I think, as in the previous article, we should acknowledge IQ. It will bring praise to whites and stop the SJW theme. But, the White Nation solution, (if that's your solution - you failed to provide one), is unworkable.

    Since black folks in America (you must admit) 'ain't goin' nowhere', you need to capitalize on the fact that blacks can be well behaved and patriotic. This is not even beyond dispute. And, even high IQ whites can be devilish SJWs.

    The point is, while IQ is important to discuss, people cannot change their race. So, it leads to ZERO workable policies. Even your blessed Whites can improve their culture, (see the F'n SJW line above).

    Finally, if you hate Israel so much that you will not condemn Islam, you're dangerous. Europe is being destroyed by Muslims and you want to ignore it? Are you an SJW?

    Why do I get the feeling I'll have to cut and past this same reply in the next article?

    ReplyDelete
  6. PS the line "culture is a product of race', is a really partial statement. Of course, culture is impacted by temperament and IQ. But, even you must admit, the rates of White bastardy and degenerate behavior has gone up. Right? So, did our genes change or our culture?

    If culture is a major contributor to . . . culture, then you need to drop the tired line, 'culture is a function of race.' I am not saying ignore race. But, this tired half-truth lead you to no workable solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I did provide a solution, in my comment to the first part of your series. I said that I want a)the continuation of a pure White race, b)I´m open to mixed-race territories, and that I´m open to see which approach will prevail. You didn´t pick up on that.

    What is the difference to your positions?
    You seem to put much weight on the question what would be feasable solutions. I certainly put weight on what is the desired solution. So I would like you to point out your view of a desired solution in difference to a feasable solution.

    My approach is "self-determination". And I refer to self-segregation as an apparent expression of self-determination and therefore posit that people want to live as mono-racial groups.

    Regarding "feasability" and the present reality of presence of non-Whites, your approach seems to be to somehow "deal with it"... well whatever. Here´s what I demand: the right of Whites to advocate White racial preservation, to advocate non-miscegenation, to decline interracial marriages. Presently, such demands are punishable crimes in Europe, and in the US an offense that will lead to personal ruin.

    So do you support the right of Whites to openly advocate and promote Whte racial preservation?

    I just don´t see your point. You claim not to avoid the racial question but you don´t concede that without Whites, there´s no "western" "culture". What´s your point then? You want to insinuate that there can be "western" "culture" without Whites? Yes or no? If no, you have to advocate White racial preservation. Your whole approach just isn´t clear.

    And re moh´s and Israel, I don´t "hate Israel so much", I hate the jewish White-Genocide plan, and White racial preservation can´t be discussed without naming the Jew. That´s what needs to be discussed re the moh-question as without Jews, there would be no moh-question (as so many had to find out in history when their defence against moh´s was subverted by jewish traitors, cf. Spain, Byzantium etc.).

    And if you don´t want to have "the feeling I'll have to cut and past this same reply in the next article", then please simply address my points already here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how, Peter, do we get from a to b. That is, how do we get to a pure-white territory? Does that involve giving New York, California, and all but a small part of the Mid-West to others? That is a position of weakness, in my book. And, again, how do you get there and what do you do with the minorities in the area? Again, is this a Turner Diary fantasy?

      I have to go now, but I'll address one more point before I split. I have no problem with White people advocating for White people and their preservation. Unfortunately, that is a part of identity politics as it is now practiced. But, I don't see that happening in a region that is purely White populated. That has to happen within the context of largely black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, mixed neighborhoods, in our nation.

      And, that, I don't think, is pie in the sky. The first Amendment gives us the freedom of association. That needs to be reaffirmed and HUD programs need to be stopped. That is all that needs for that to happen. You don't even need to use the word White. People congregate with like people.

      And, this idea that Islam is only a threat due to Jews is wrong. Ask the Byzantine Empire, Spain under Muslims, Charles the Hammer, Thailand and India today. If we don't act now, we will lose Europe. And, dividing the US into thirds, via civil war is not going to help us sustain the West.

      So, as per the article! We need to reaffirm our identity as the West. We need to stop letting in Muslims. The boat people will end us. And, in the next article, I'll talk about repatriation. These are things we need NOW. And, after we have stabilized the West, we can address fantasies about dividing the US into separate race based states.

      Delete
    2. Well, John... I can state that IMO, it´s the most important to opnely advocate White interests; all else follows. So the actual details of the outcome aresecondary and willl fall in place. Of-course it´s a non-starter with your Turner stuff... the usual scare tacticis " so do you want to kill them all... *screech screech*" (I will give you as much that unfortunately, many "rightists" ride that fantasy... it is extremely difficult to be a WNer... and the stupidity of my fellow-WNers has made me think... erm... various quite unconventional theories...that do involve globalists, Jews etc.). Ok, the separation can occur entirely non-violently, simply by acclamation of identity, and then refusal to cooperate (that´s what we Whites did anyways, and the only way to counter that tactics is to replace the non-cooperating people which is why this is now happening). The non-Whites will over the time vanish.

      So in your remaining 6 parts, I don´t see much use for me as for me, White self-advocacy ("taking our own side") is the thing to do, not to talk about "western" "culture". White self-advocacy is criminalized, and it´s that scandal that needs to be addressed and reversed, not detached, weazle-out, problem-avoidance-strategy-talk of "west" which is just the cowardly way of meaning "White" but being too cowardly towards the powers-that-be to say White Race. I still fail to the the fricken point of your whole endeavour.

      Delete
    3. Peter,

      I don't understand how you don't see the influx of hostile peoples as THE most imminent threat to the West. If we don't stop this, there will be a near total end to Whites and the West. We will be decimated and annihilated.

      As far as I can see, the idea of globalist 'Human Rights' overruling our culturist Western Rights is the key justification of this invasion. Winning the rhetorical war is important. I think if you want to save Whites, you need to start thinking about how we stop the Islamic / third world invasion NOW.

      And, I am not against your advocacy. I just think, as you may, if there are to be enclaves, it must happen voluntarily without jettisoning the Constitution and / or civil order. But, that is not currently our most immanent need.

      I hope you chime in on the next installment. Your arguments do make me think. The next article will discuss and dismiss, racial repatriation policy. Feel free to defend it.

      Delete
    4. "Sound money for brown people" - Ron Paul.

      You either have ideological intolerance and racial tolerance, that´s the jewish way -> thought police, police-state, oligarch rule, scarcity for total control.
      Or you have ideological tolerance and racial intolerance. That´s the germanic, White, way, for scaleable, high-trust societies.

      Stop White Genocide.
      Pro White Advocacy.

      Delete
  8. "without Jews, there would be no moh-question"

    Hindus and Buddhists would beg to differ.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You'd have to negate women's rights in order to maintain western culturalism. Better yet throw the term out and think in terms of privilege, obligation, honor, custom. White men are held to a different standard than the others, including women. We might as well accept it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you please elaborate? I am into obligation, honor and custom. But, I'm not sure why you'd have to hold women to a higher standard.

      Delete
  10. For a race to be successful and flourish they must have a safe place to call their own. The leftist cry 'Africa for Africans' and are very vocal about every race having its own territory except whites. We used to have western Europe and America. These were our 'nesting grounds' but the NWO and the EU and all the rest of the leftist alphabet organizations have inundated our lands with immigrants who will never become real Americans. White people are not traveling and are never encouraged to stay home but every other race is encouraged to come to America. Leave our lands and do not come back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I look forward to your comments on the next article in the series on racist v. absolute culturist v. pragmatic culturist repatriation.

      Delete

Post a Comment