AN OUTLINE OF CULTURIST POLICY: PART THREE

The 3rd of 8 WEEKLY OUTLINES OF CULTURIST POLICY

by John K. Press

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 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.

HOW TO REPLACE AFRICAN-AMERICANS

Black economic displacement has been going on for some time.

by Brett  Stevens

These days, people are talking quite a bit about African-Americans and crime, violence and race warfare. While the connection is hard to ignore, we should make it clear that we are not scapegoating those who are the symptom and not the origin of the problem. That leads to further revelations which might put the entire situation in context.

As I have written before, minorities face an ugly dilemma: assimilate and lose culture or retain culture and be marginalized. No amount of welfare state programs can recover the pride and sense of well-being that is lost as a group realizes that it is not in control of its own fate, and exists merely as a tool of something larger. Even if the majority is mixed-race, that “new race” is hostile to the minority group, and by the nature of young people falling into attraction with those around them, will quickly destroy the original race and replace it with the new monoculture of non-race. This alone would induce a fury in one sufficient to explain any number of riots and crimes.

WHY ARE WE STILL WAITING FOR THE WAR AIMS OF THE UNION TO BE REALIZED?

Honour Abe's Commitment to Repatriation

by Daniel Barge

With the recent attacks on Southern identity, which some have likened to cultural genocide, there has been a lot of talk recently about Southern pride, history, and honour. Those who are attacking the South in the guise of the Confederate flag and other monuments of the Civil War claim that the Confederacy was all about slavery, and therefore an evil entity, not unlike Nazi Germany.

To back this up they refer to the famous "Cornerstone Speech" by the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, delivered at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861. In this speech Stephens pointed out something that, to his contemporaries, must have seemed rather obvious:

“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man...”

Among those contemporaries, we must include Abraham Lincoln, and we can also include many people from our own era; White Liberals, for example, who continue to attest to the unequal nature of the Black man by continuing to avoid him, his neighborhoods, schools, and social life.