The 3rd 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.
There are three approaches to repatriation: ‘racist,’ 'absolute culturist,' and 'pragmatic culturist.' Both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West, but differ on repatriation policy.
‘Racist repatriation’ policy gets mentioned only to highlight its vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation.
Racist repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western nations. Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multi-ethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy could lead to society violently collapsing.
‘Absolute culturists’ want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their countries of origin.
Note how much subtler absolute culturist repatriation is than racist repatriation. It does not cast Hindus, Asians, Mexican and all Africans into the same net. It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.
However, absolute culturist repatriation suffers from the same potential for civil unrest as the racist repatriation position.
Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to western identity. If we violate the rights of citizens, we undermine order in society.
However, absolute culturist repatriation policy would have the benefit of quickly ending the threat of Jihad in the West.
Instead of the ‘absolute culturist’ repatriation policy of deporting all Muslims, ‘pragmatic repatriation policy’ would review Muslims’ naturalization.
In the U.S. naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Furthermore, they "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty."
Naturalized citizens who have supported ISIS or Al Qaeda have committed fraud, rendering their naturalization null and void, justifying their repatriation.
Furthermore, any naturalized citizens who donated to or actively participated in a mosque that promotes Sharia or any other anti-Western values, (FGM or hijabs or polygamy, for example) may merit repatriation.
Such a policy targets hostile Muslims while protecting the rights of those willing to assimilate.
Such pragmatic repatriation programs, (in conjunction with ending the foreign funding of mosques and culturist school curriculum – discussed elsewhere), can minimize the risk of Jihad without absolute culturist repatriation’s rights violations or potential violence.
Stopping Islamic immigration does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Our Constitution applies to US citizens, not foreigners.
Domestically, repatriation laws can pass Constitutional scrutiny in two ways: (1) by remembering it is the separation of Church and State, not Mosque and State, (2) by classifying Islam as a political ideology.
Ultimately, culturism means officially recognizing our traditional majority culture, its legal standing and the State’s interest in protecting it. Leaving multiculturalism for culturism will rationally justify culturist immigration and repatriation laws.
Circumstances seem to be swaying culturists from being ‘pragmatic’ to being ‘absolute.’ But, those moving in this direction must consider the violence this could entail, and so should not do so lightly.
You can read more about culturism here.
--------
This is the third 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.
--------
Absolute Culturist, Pragmatic Culturist, & Racist Repatriation
There are three approaches to repatriation: ‘racist,’ 'absolute culturist,' and 'pragmatic culturist.' Both absolute and pragmatic culturists would immediately stop all Islamic immigration to the West, but differ on repatriation policy.
Racist repatriation policy
‘Racist repatriation’ policy gets mentioned only to highlight its vast difference from both forms of culturist repatriation.
Racist repatriation would remove all non-white people from Western nations. Such a policy would never be approved via election. And, in a multi-ethnic nation like the United States, especially given the fact that much of our military and police force are not white, attempts to implement this policy could lead to society violently collapsing.
Absolute culturist repatriation policy
‘Absolute culturists’ want the immediate repatriation of all Muslims back to their countries of origin.
Note how much subtler absolute culturist repatriation is than racist repatriation. It does not cast Hindus, Asians, Mexican and all Africans into the same net. It makes subtle distinctions based on history and belief systems: it is culturist, not racist.
However, absolute culturist repatriation suffers from the same potential for civil unrest as the racist repatriation position.
Furthermore, and importantly, the rule of law is central to western identity. If we violate the rights of citizens, we undermine order in society.
However, absolute culturist repatriation policy would have the benefit of quickly ending the threat of Jihad in the West.
Pragmatic culturist repatriation policy
Instead of the ‘absolute culturist’ repatriation policy of deporting all Muslims, ‘pragmatic repatriation policy’ would review Muslims’ naturalization.
In the U.S. naturalization proceedings, the potential new citizen swears, "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Furthermore, they "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty."
Naturalized citizens who have supported ISIS or Al Qaeda have committed fraud, rendering their naturalization null and void, justifying their repatriation.
Furthermore, any naturalized citizens who donated to or actively participated in a mosque that promotes Sharia or any other anti-Western values, (FGM or hijabs or polygamy, for example) may merit repatriation.
Such a policy targets hostile Muslims while protecting the rights of those willing to assimilate.
Such pragmatic repatriation programs, (in conjunction with ending the foreign funding of mosques and culturist school curriculum – discussed elsewhere), can minimize the risk of Jihad without absolute culturist repatriation’s rights violations or potential violence.
Conclusion
Stopping Islamic immigration does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Our Constitution applies to US citizens, not foreigners.
Domestically, repatriation laws can pass Constitutional scrutiny in two ways: (1) by remembering it is the separation of Church and State, not Mosque and State, (2) by classifying Islam as a political ideology.
Ultimately, culturism means officially recognizing our traditional majority culture, its legal standing and the State’s interest in protecting it. Leaving multiculturalism for culturism will rationally justify culturist immigration and repatriation laws.
Circumstances seem to be swaying culturists from being ‘pragmatic’ to being ‘absolute.’ But, those moving in this direction must consider the violence this could entail, and so should not do so lightly.
------
Click to read the policy series intro or part two (culturist rights).You can read more about culturism here.
On the point -
ReplyDeletehttps://www.counter-currents.com/fighting-for-the-essence/
David, This is very relative. And, as I have not read the book, I cannot authoritatively speak to its contents. But, I know Arktos' books well. And, I reviewed Sunic's last book here: https://libertygb.org.uk/news/against-democracy-and-equality-culturist-critique
DeleteSo, assuming Krebs' book is like Sunic's and Arktos' work, I have two comments:
1) 'The West' and, say, French culture are not antagonistic. As, I put in the introduction to the series you're commenting on, cultural identity is nestled. I can be from Leeds, British and Western. Those are congruous.
A problem with nationalism, is that it erodes the idea of Europe and the West. So the Islamic Ummah is fighting France, England, and the US separately. Islam has long been our common enemy: not just that of Normandy.
Arktos' other problem is their rejection of Christianity in favor of some odd neo-paganism they have cobbled together. The Crusades show that Christianity is capable of fielding large armies. Charles the Hammer's armies were Christian too.
No little unaffiliated neo-pagan local god worshipers have beaten Islam.
And, Christianity has two more things in its favor. Most in the West are familiar with it. Good luck teaching varieties of neo-paganism to Europe. And, secondly, Christianity has linked institutions all over Europe. Infrastructure is important.
I am not saying that Christianity today is effective. Our current pope is a far cry from those that led the Crusades. But, throwing out a 1500 year pillar of our identity and its institutions will not make us stronger. We need reform, not abandonment.
Thanks for the link! I am, despite what you might glean, a fan of Arktos.
You don't have to worry about violating their silly constitutional rights. We're not document worshipers around here and nobody gives a shit about the constitution anymore except aging boomers. And there's no way to weed out the "good muslims", with their taqqiya. When the hell are we gonna take our own side and stop with these silly half measures.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I'm not sure that the absolute culturist repatriation policy outlined above, of repatriating all muslims, is a half-measure. In what way is that a half - measure?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "we're not document worshippers around here," I am afraid the population of anonymous land is likely small. But, unlike say, China, in the US, the Constitution is an important source of identity for many Americans. The very relevant proof is that many would fight to protect it.
PS Your 'aging boomer' dig is not entirely irrelevant. Being entirely hidden and anonymous, I'm not sure how old you are. But when it comes to fighting and civil unrest, our aging population is going to have some trouble with the largely young Muslim population. It is worth entering into your calculations.
So, I don't think the absolute culturist repatriation policy would most likely lead to violence that we'd need to be able to succeed in. That is worth considering in your private ruminations. And, it is a big reason that the pragmatic culturist repatriation might be more successful.
And, no, I am not addressing unrealistic ideals and aspirations. But, I am addressing reality in 2017. That's important.
I'm not the same Anonymous above. (That's what's great about being anon, Johnny. You don't really know who or how many we are).
DeleteI'm the one accusing you of civic nationalism. (Everyone, call Culturism Civic Nationalism. It really pisses him off.)
"I am afraid the population of anonymous land is likely small."
We're a lot bigger than you think. https://8ch.net/pol/res/9974208.html#9974983
This antifa, for example, was caught by anonymous people on the chans.
We also helped to dig up dirt on Hillary, Macron, Comey and many others.
You don't understand how valuable anonymity works in 2017, but I don't hold it against you. Your ideas are just a relic from a bygone age.
"The very relevant proof is that many would fight to protect it."
This is you: https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder678/500x/74515678/white-guy-at-least-i-still-have-muh-constitution.jpg
"So, I don't think the absolute culturist repatriation policy would most likely lead to violence that we'd need to be able to succeed in."
Oh yes it will. When was the last time you looked at the news?
"And, no, I am not addressing unrealistic ideals and aspirations. But, I am addressing reality in 2017. That's important."
No, you're not. Your ideas are merely an attempt to avoid violence, which given the political situation, is already inevitable.
Don't bother answering the stuff above. Answer this instead.
DeleteYou know that everyone here is a racialist. You also know that none of us care about your civic nationalism 2.0.
Perhaps most importantly, given the choice between saving White Civilization and saving White People, the people here who read this place will always choose the latter.
In other words, all your efforts are futile.
So why do you keep posting here, Johnny? Really why? There are plenty of civic nationalist sites for you to go to. Why post here?
My friends call me Ike. I"m 37, so one of the last Gen Xers. You were not pushing the "absolute" solution but the "pragmatic" solution which just throws out the "bad" muslims, which I explained was impossible because they practice taqqiya, and you completely stepped over that point. I can hazard a guess as to why, perhaps it's a wrench in your culturalist theory? Young people won't fight for the constitution and a 70 year old fat boomer isn't gonna be much help in a fight. Generation Z is the most radical the world has ever seen. It's a half measure because your enemies aren't going to be fooled for a second by what you propose, you're still a racist and they'll have you on the back foot because you'll be constantly dancing around what you really mean and it makes you look weak. Our position here on the Alt-Right is much simpler, which is 3rd worlders have to go back and liberalism is in the words of Jonathan Bowden moral syphilis. Good day to you.
DeleteAnonymous26 May 2017 at 19:09,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that it pisses me off when people call me a Civic Nationalist. Very funny. And, the white guy in the pool was funny too. And, I have bookmarked the lint to 8ch. I will go back and visit later.
You use the 8ch link to show how many of you there are. But, I see less than a hundred people there. Was there something I didn't see? It still looks like a small isolated group of cowering 'haters.'
The odd thing is you overestimate your numbers and you underestimate the number of black people in the military and police. You expect them to go to war against themselves. It is odd.
And, you relish violence. But, again, the State has legitimacy due to the Constitution. And it has armed followers, black and white and other. You have a discussion board. Who will win?
My effort is to get the minorities in the police and military to fight with us against illegal immigration and Islam. Your effort is to troll me. Do you think that is helpful?
NOW ON TO YOUR . . . wait ignore the above, comment on this material . . .
You say 'we' and 'everyone 'a lot. So, the answer is to rile you! And, I have succeeded!
No seriously. All activists in the anti-Jihad movement struggle with despair. Not being anonymous, we greatly diminish job opportunities. And, like Spencer, put our lives at risk. So, why not give up?
Well, Manchester, for one. And, the realization that if Western Civ falls, we all die or face worse fates. Finally, Cassandra could not but act as she did.
"My effort is to get the minorities in the police and military to fight with us against illegal immigration and Islam."
DeleteAnd this is all what Culturism comes down to: The pathetic attempt at convincing non-whites to fight against their own interests.
"But, I see less than a hundred people there. Was there something I didn't see? It still looks like a small isolated group of cowering 'haters.' "
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/8ch.net
I know you're a boomer and can't understand how the internet works but you really should understand how site traffic works.
"So, the answer is to rile you! And, I have succeeded! "
:^)
You haven't answered my question. As usual, you just try to sidestep it.
I didn't ask you to stop your Civic Nationalism, or even to stop posting on the internet. I asked you why do you post here when you know no one will take you seriously?
You're appealing to the wrong crowd.
So after the Jews put any number of non-Whites upon us (1965 immigraton act)... we now need to suck up to these non-Whites in order to fight off the next load of non-Whites that the Jews put upon us (Moh-invaders)... good deal!
ReplyDeleteStill just doesn´t make any more senae than before. Not clear what you want achieve with your series here.