Culturism

Shame: The Culturist Film Review

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:41:00 +0000

Ironically, the film “Shame” (2011) portrays the shameless life of a sex addict in New York City. Instead of funding this descent into filth, the UK Lottery funds should have bought and distributed copies of James Twitchell’s marvelous book, “For Shame: The Loss of Decency in American Culture,” (1997).

If I am being generous, the film “Shame,” shows the hollowness of modern consumerism. But the laconic lead, Brandon (Michael Fassbender) explores this dynamic with fewer words than Sylvester Stallone in Rambo V. Despite its lack of verbal insight, the film won award after award. One suspects, the critics were only celebrating its relentless portrayals of transgressions.

In contrast, James Twitchell provides thoughtful cultural analysis of the roots of shame. Employing sociobiology, he portrays shame as a near universal feeling with the biological components of blushing, lowering the head, and averting the eyes. The emotion being so visible to others indicates cultural survival value. For example, it used to keep westerners from irresponsible breeding.

Twitchell lays a lot of blame at the feet of television. Competitive pressures cause programmes to show relentless fun with zero consequences (ie; sex without STDs or pregnancy). And ratings rule all. People used to retire from tv when caught in unseemly acts. Now, they get rewarded with a reality show. So, advertisers’ biggest target, youth 18 – 34, have seen no consequences, boundaries, or shame in their young lives.

Consumer culture doesn’t stop at the television, Twitchell tells us. To attract audiences, Churches speak less and less of hell and more often sing of heaven accompanied by rock bands. Educational philosophy now forbids shame in the name of “self-esteem.” And males’ traditional parenting role of disciplining has been denigrated in favor of the feminine values of sensitivity and unconditional love.

The film “Shame” provides a perfect example of Twitchell’s contention that our culture now gives too much honor (the opposite of shame) to victims. The most significant line in the film comes when, just prior to her suicide attempt, the sex addict’s sister, (Carey Mulligan), pleads, “We’re not bad people. We just come from a bad place.” Poor evil, wretched filth; how sorry we should feel for them.

In the end, Twitchell recommends we bring shame back by denouncing and shunning ethical trash. As is the western tendency, his solution has an individualistic tint. Rather, culturists seek systemic reform such as changing school curriculum, rewards and punishments, inculcating cultural pride and honor with culturist border laws, and such. But, at very least, the UK Lottery should stop funding sex films, with no redeeming values, that parents would be ashamed to watch with their families, like “Shame.”

The Culturist Review - The Great Gatsby

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:29:00 +0000

When I say this will be “The Culturist Review” of the Great Gatsby (2013), I should write “The Culturist’s” review. The first person to earn the label “culturist” was Matthew Arnold (1822 – 1888). And, he would have quite a lot to say about the recent remake of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book. Thus this review – packed with spoilers as it is – will feature the views of the culturist, Arnold.

Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) searches for something true throughout the film. He thinks he has found it in the form of Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). But, she cannot love him because he is not of the aristocratic “Old Money,” crowd.

Rather, Gatsby he crawled up from poverty. He can only live in their lavish neighborhood and throw ridiculously crass parties because of profits from bootlegging and worse. But this crass display of conspicuous consumption does not impress his betters; Gastby is lowbrow in blood and taste.

Matthew Arnold lived during the peak of the industrial revolution. He recoiled at the proliferation of many Gatsbys equating money and values. And the glamorization of this class, led the middle class to also only worship money, and money only. “Where might cultural leadership come from?” He wondered.

Just prior to Arnold’s day, the aristocratic class – the House of Lords and such – had modeled breeding and morals for the populace. But in Arnolds time, they had assimilated downwards towards shallowness. And, here Arnold’s disillusionment parallels Gatsby’s. Daisy Buchannan chooses class over love. Her husband, with all his “Old Money,” plays polo, cheats on his wife with a gas station girl, and parties just as desperately as Mr. Gatsby’s guests.

Gatsby’s main meditation concerns the past – I think this is why he’s called “Great.” When he ran away from his poverty he made up an aristocratic past. Gatsby met Daisy in a small town before her marriage. When discussing his obsessive love for her, he always couples his love with desires to return to the past. He repeats, “Can’t repeat the past? Why of course you can.”

The Aristocratic class being permanently materialized, Arnold hoped public education would allow the middle class to become the new standard bearers for cultivation. This would come via connection with the past and the best that had been thought and said in history. Without the standards culture provided, the culturist Arnold opined, crassness would simply feed upon itself in a vicious cycle of dissatisfaction.

Ever the culturist, Arnold also argued that the West could find guidance in his new secular, literary reading of the Bible. Religion provides values that compete with money and materialism; rather than wealthy, it tells people to be spiritual.

While killing Gatsby – because he thinks him a sinful murderer – the murderer repeats “God sees everything.” And the eyes of God watch over the poor section of town. God likely appears in the poor area of town as the rich are too full of spectacle to see him. The moral act by Gatsby’s murderer also illustrates Arnold’s hope of values coming via infusing the masses with religion.

Arnold foresaw the emptiness of the lavish hedonism director Baz Luhrmann captures so well. But audiences, ironically, go to this film to enjoy this very hollow spectacle. Thus today’s audiences too partake in the shallowness of modernism; they too worship this very “eye of a needle” behavior that keeps the wealthy out of heaven.

Gatsby cannot go back to the past. The aristocrats that used to provide some connection with the West’s grandeur provide no road map. The film and book hint at his being Jewish, but Gatsby has severed ties with religion. As long as we do not get values from the past, religion, or some other source – as Arnold would tell us – the West will continue to slide into the decadence typified in Gatby’s long self-destructive vacuous hedonistic parties.

Culturists Celebrate an Election Landslide (In India)

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:23:00 +0000

The parade celebrating the victory of the culturist Indian BJP political party, started with a bang – literally. A “bomb” firework about eight feet from me exploded. As embers went down my shirt they burned my upper right back. I call the BJP culturist because they hold to a variation of “Hindu Nationalism,” (which I’ll detail in another article). Celebrating this culturist victory in the streets of India was exhilarating. If I have a scar from celebrating the BJP political victory, I’ll wear it proudly.

The “bombs” and 30 foot long, six explosive wide, strings of fireworks, were repeatedly detonated as we wound our way through the small north Indian town of Rishikesh. This aspect of the parade mimicked the main celebration of the major Hindu holiday “Diwali.” We also painted each other red to duplicate the main activity of another major Hindu holiday’ “Holi.” Thus, this combination of fireworks and paints replicated Hinduism’s two main holidays and so reinforced Hindu culture.

We marched to the constant pounding of 3 large Indian drums. The traditionally-dressed women paraded behind the men as a group. The genders frequently broke out in dance independently from one another. And though the genders got jostled as we avoided “bombs” through narrow streets, traditional Hindu gender roles got reenacted via this aspect of our celebration. Raised in progressive circles, the women celebrating a party dedicated to traditional roles, pleasantly warred with my assumptions. But women frequently left their homes to dance with the parading women.

Often on the route, the hippie tourists would come out of their hotel rooms to look at the parading crowd and wave. Between the bombs, drums, colors, and dancing, we made quite the impression. The left leaning youth support, “the people,” in pseudo-Marxist solidarity. If they actually knew that this was a local celebration of culturist nationalism, they would have hidden in revulsion. Just earlier a close leftist friend had warned me that the June National Culturist Conference would contain NAZIs.

Most nations have been and are culturist. The people support the traditional majority culture’s right to protect, promote, and defend itself. The era of all indigenous peoples feeling bullied by the Cold War ended decades ago. Culturist celebrations and identity trump the “globalist” social justice model the left assume “humanist,” “global citizens” desire. India is an overwhelmingly Hindu nation, thus the hippies should have guessed that a political party celebration would be for a culturist Hindu party.

As we wound through the streets, the winning candidates and the crowd stopped at Ashrams (Hindu monasteries). As Rishikesh is a holy city on the Ganges, my town is packed with them. At each the ashram head would emerge and exchange blessings with the new political bosses. Hippies, as they see Hindu political figures as holders of ancient wisdom far superior to the West’s, would have found this mix of nationalism and religion counter-intuitive. But, Yogis must have contributed to my state’s Hindu Nationalists landslide – the BJP takes their culture seriously.

I danced and marched with the BJP for about two hours. In every part of the town locals came out and waved and exchanged greetings with us. At one point a child tore down a poster belonging to the opposition party. The elders scolded him. I detected no hostility by the culturist celebrants towards any minority group, Muslim or other. Good feelings and respect appeared to be the order of the day. No NAZIs, my leftist friend would have been shocked to see, appeared.

As a member of the National Culturists, this a culturist victory parade bolstered my spirits. Our political philosophy can lead to electoral victories and incredible parades. The BJP is one of the two biggest political parties in India. The National Culturists are not alone.

The Woolwich Beheading and the End of Islamophobia

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Fri, 31 May 2013 03:18:00 +0000

As you know, recently two Muslim men beheaded a British soldier, in the name of “Almighty Allah,” in London. In the name of the slain soldier, Lee Rigby, we must insist that all political correctness stop now. Every person who uses the tired, dangerous phrase, “Islamophobia,” is complicit in the killing of Lee Rigby and must be confronted as such.

A phobia is an irrational fear. But, Islam is a violent ideology that celebrates Jihad. One of the killers’ Muslim names means, ‘Holy Warrior.’ To fear adherents to a violent ideology, of holy war, is not irrational; it is the very essence of the most rational of instincts, that of survival. And those who would demonize our survival instinct are complicit in the murder of all victims of Jihad.

If someone uses the term, ‘Islamophobia,’ in your presence, yell at them, “Was Lee Rigby ‘Islamophobic’ as his Muslim killers approached him with a large knife after hitting him with a car?” Scream out of anger! “It is not irrational to fear people who are trying to kill you!” Scream out of self-preservation! Because this term ‘Islamophobia’ may literally kill you as it threatens your civilization.

Every time you go to an airport, you must go through heavy searching no matter what your demographic. This massive inconvenience happens because we do not wish to appear Islamophobic. Thus we risk our lives rather than deal with the fact that diversity exists and includes hostile, large, predatory, violent ideologies. So to save your life, scream at those who use the term, ‘Islamophobic,’ “Were the people in the 9/11 planes Islamophobic during the hijacking?”

While you are at it, please scream violently at anyone who calls you ‘racist,’ when you mention Islamic violence and Jihad. It is not funny. The Muslims who inflicted holy war on the Boston Marathon were white. Noting cultural diversity is rational, not racist. Culturist profiling of Muslims at airports is neither racist nor, can it be argued after the beheading of Lee Rigby, Islamophobic.

The killing of cartoonists and filmmakers illustrates the danger Islam poses to our values. Weekly worldwide Jihad proves Muslims’ willingness to kill for their ideology. Think of the real danger posed by Islam; think of the victims around the world; imagine someone calling Lee Rigby’s widow and child ‘Islamophobic,’ if they – in their horrible grief – criticize Islam; – and scream at them as if your life depended on it. In fact, it does.

Crafting State – Nations – The Culturist Review

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:09:00 +0000

“Crafting State – Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies,” is an academic argument which refutes culturism. In the academic literature, nation refers to a people; State refers to the government. Thus, you can have a nation (a people) that wants a state. And, you can have a state with several nations living inside of it. This powerhouse of nationalism studies authors, Alfred Stepan, Juan J. Linz, and Yogendra Yadav argue that in the second case, nations should use multicultural style arrangements to create stability and avoid secession.
Crafting State – Nations focuses on India. The Indian State, got the local states’ nations not secede by giving them control over their own internal cultural and governmental affairs and the ability to use the local language in State government. Furthermore, India’s central government bought off secessionist leaders with positions in the central government. With this combination of autonomy and perks, Indians have frozen secessionist movements and the population has high regard for the central Indian government.
The authors suggest that, rather than unity via nation-state (where the people make the state), you foster unity via affiliation in the nations with the central government – this is a state-nation. Their ideal program is called Federacy. To avoid secession, the central state would give tremendous autonomy to the local cultural group’s government, the federacy. Under this model, the local federacy would have exclusive jurisdiction “over culture – making and culture – preserving powers, such as the right to establish the indigenous language as the official language.” The local people of the federacy, if satisfied with the central government’s administration, would feel loyalty to the state.
In my state of California 38% of all inhabitants are Latino and they are poised to become the majority. [i] The group, La Raza, is a secessionist group that has branches on every university campus. And 27% of inhabitants speak English either poorly or not at all. [ii] When diversity has its horrid effects, should the United States make have California’s conduct all government and school programs in Spanish? This would accelerate the current exodus of non-Latinos from the state. This may have helped with the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. But India is 81% Hindu and so is Tamil Nadu. Allowing Tamil Nadu the ability to conduct local government in their language is, therefore, not so significant a rupture.
The authors show how a variation on the federacy model kept Catalonia in Spain. But here we are talking about two Catholic nations in one State. If we give exclusive jurisdiction “over culture – making and culture –preserving powers,” to Muslims in Denmark, will we not then have Sharia law enforced with the complicity of the Danish government? Is this not entirely contrary to western law? Worse yet, the federacy model grants the federacy the right to create “extremely restrictive immigration policies and to prohibit those citizens of the polity who are not citizens of the federacy from buying land or establishing commercial enterprises.” So this would create no-go zones for Europeans.
The central government would keep control of foreign affairs and war. But, the federacy could opt-out if the treaties adversely impacted them. To increase buy-in, the Federacy citizens would have voting rights in the central government, but those in the center would not be able to vote in the federacy. Finally, an international force, such as the UN, would make sure the federacy got all its rights. This is secession in all but name. This worked, as the authors tell us, with Norway and the Aland islands. But, any culturist could tell you having an international force impose a separatist Sharia-compliant zone in Norway would be a nightmare.
The authors note how this model really worked well in keeping the Mizoram peoples in India. But, using the same techniques, federacy did not work in nearby Nagaland. The difference? Mizoram had a perfect culturist formula wherein they had one language and their people (their nation) lived within their borders (their state). Thus, with the Mizoram, a binding treaty was possible. The Nagas,were multicultural, their leaders spoke different languages and the Naga people spilled over into neighboring states. Again, the background assumption of this book is that multicultural diversity can lead to bloody secession movements, and their examples inadvertently prove culturism is a great antidote to such chaos.
The authors call the minority cultural insurgents “cultural nationalists.” But, beyond this acknowledgement, the authors deny the importance of culture. In fact, they claim that their surveys showing that the 161 million Muslims in India are proud to be India and approve of democracy, disproves Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” model. This shows that Islam and democracy are friends. But, India is 81% Hindu. The only 13% Muslim population is spread throughout India, and only have a majority in Kashmir. The salience of Kashmir, the only Muslim state, being in rebellion in defiance of federacy is not lost on this culturist author. Amazingly, the authors read no significance into the Kashmiri cultural nationalists being called the “Muslim United Front.”
Nor do the authors wonder what it would be like were India 81% Muslim. Their other effort to overlook Islam comes in their study of Indonesia. Here the Acehnese people wanted to secede in order to implement a more stringent form of Sharia. Using the federacy program, near total sovereignty was given to them. In turn they put down their arms. And the Acehnese are happy with the treaty. Yet, four scant years after the agreement, the government of Aceh passed a law punishing adultery with death by stoning. Also, terrorist camps have been found in Aceh. As Indonesia and the Aceh are Islamic, this might not be a problem. But, do we really want to have an international body enforce such cultural practices in Great Britain?

www.culturism.us

Salute the Culturist Generation Identitaire

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:51:00 +0000

In the long run, this late-mid October 2012 week might get memorialized as an important one in culturist history. Not for the American Presidential debates. But because “Generation Identity,” (‘Identitare” in French), occupied, in the popular American vernacular, a mosque and demanded a public referendum on ending Islamic immigration and mosque construction. This group scored on rhetoric; and they understand history. An involving, public form of peaceful, culturist action, led by a new generation, has emerged.

The French Generation Identity movement is grounded in culturist historical basics; from the roof of the Poitiers mosque, in honor of October 25^th, they hung a banner reading, “732 Generation Identitaire.” The Muslims actually built the mosque to revenge the French Hero, Ancestor, and warrior, Charles Martel defeating their Muslims ancestors in Poitiers, on that spot, on 732. The significance of this battle cannot be overstated. Charles Martel’s victory over Islam likely prevented a repetition in France of the 700-year take over of Spain by the same Muslim forces.

Culturists have history on their side and use it. The history of animosity and bloody battle between the West and Islam has not stopped. Multiculturalists remove this historical angle and so project the relatively peaceful present back into the past and indefinitely into the future. But, history and current geo-political activity show inter-civilizational conflict continuing. In celebrating Charles’ Martel’s 732 battle, Generation Identity shows acute culturist historical awareness.

The word “Identity” in the name of Generation Identity refers, I argue, to culture. Generation Identity begs their culturally French brethren to keep the region’s traditional majority culture from the aggression of a historically hostile culture. As the West paradoxically makes individualism the root of our cultural commonality, our national culture groups collectively have trouble separating the individual identity tree from the cultural forest. We tend to see identity individually. But, Generation Identity’s highlighting their national history points collective cultural identity being their group name’s referent.

Cognitive dissonance happens when one can choose between an uncomfortable fact and changing your actions. People would rather change their assessments of situations than face a challenging reality. The older generation cowers at discussing the hard truth of Islam in the West. The new generation has no comfortable fear abeyance mechanism, denial, or employment, making its generation accommodate and pretend to its doom. As our forefathers did with the decline of religion, this generation can and must outstare this void with their eyes wide open.

Culturists in other western nations, such as the British National Culturists, constitute new generational stances based on a fresh and clear interpretation of history. We western bretheren recognize common words in “Identitaire” and “Identity.” We agree with your statements against multiculturalists and globalists. When our separate nations band, western culturism stands stronger. In this spirit we salute your culturist hero Martel. And we culturists in America, England and elsewhere in the western world admire and salute you, Generation Identity, for your historic culturist initiative.

Explosive Censored Presidential Debate Footage Found!

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 03:54:00 +0000

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

2012 Culturist Presidential Debates

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 04:44:00 +0000

Hi Culturists,

Please enjoy the Presidential debates as I'd like to see them unfurl! This video touches on several aspects of culturist thought. Please enjoy and spread it!

Thanks,

John Press

www.culturism.us

Culturist Praise for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:42:00 +0000

In his recent journey through America, calling for the elimination of Israel, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran made a bold and important statement. Along with the 9/11/12 assaults on our embassies, and the subsequent rioting across the Muslim world, this speech has served as a clarion call to all who would think. The West needs leaders who share Ahmadinejad’s geo-political philosophy.

While we take a globalist position, President Ahmadinejad and the leaders of the Arab Spring take a culturist position: they know they have a side and they stand up for it. In his response to Ahmadinejad, President Barak Obama, by contrast, denounced politics that pit, “East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew”[i] Obama is a globalist in that he takes no side in any international battles, he claims to speak for all of humanity. We must rebuke this cultural blindness and realize, as Ahmadinejad, declares, that the West has a side in international affairs.

You must admire the extremes to which Ahmadinejad and him Muslim bretheren take their culturist stance. While in America, Iran’s President told CBS that Israel has no roots in the Middle East and must be “eliminated.”[ii] The twenty – one Arab countries surrounding Israel have a land mass of 8,368,272 square miles. By contrast Israel covers 12,877 square miles. In the whole Middle East a small sliver smaller than New Jersey is non-Islamic and the culturist Muslim world will not stand for it.[iii] They back what has become the traditional majority culture in the Middle East - Islam. Ahmadinejad and the Muslim world’s refusal to give up any of their territory should inspire us.

Instead, the West fought for the establishment of the Islamic state of Kosovo in Southeastern Europe. We did so in the name of “human rights.” Ahmadinejad’s philosophy is better. Outside of necessary trade, Iran does not give Israel any money. They know that non-Muslim nations are their competitors in a global battle for survival. We, by contrast, give Palestinians money because we wish to avoid, by whatever means necessary, the impression that we are taking sides. In his United Nations reply to Iran’s President, Obama declared that he supports Israelis and Palestinians alike. Like Ahmadinejad, we must acknowledge that we have enemies and not support them.

Obama also champions the culture blind philosophy of multiculturalism. As if channeling all other western politicians, in his United Nations response to Ahmadinejad, Obama declared, “we believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values – they are universal values.”[iv] As all multiculturalists and neo-cons, he boldly proclaims that cultural diversity does not exist, has no impact on politics, and has no place in our policy decisions. This culture-blind logic, of course, underpins our continued efforts to turn Afghanistan into democracies and pumping of billions of our dollars into enemy regimes in the Middle East, as well as our culturally neutral border policies.

Ahmadinejad, by way of contrast, has been telling us that cultural diversity exists. During his visit to the United States he supported a move by an Iranian religious foundation to increase the reward for killing Salman Rushdie for blasphemy. He calls homosexuality a western disease.[v] As such he proudly attempts to inform us that Islam is a different culture with different and opposing values to ours. Yet, our politicians deny cultural diversity exists, even while murderous riots denouncing free speech have spread across the Muslim world. We must reject multicultural blindness for the culturist position, by beginning to notice the extent of cultural diversity and taking it seriously.

President Ahmadinejad and the Muslims rioting across the Muslim world are trying to disabuse us of globalist and multicultural illusions. We need to listen to them. It is time to renounce the globalist vision that claims no international struggles for dominance exist. We need to clear our palates of the multicultural lie that cultural diversity does not really exist or have any place in our policy decisions. What our leaders call ‘universal values’ are not universal, they are western.[vi] We must take a culturist position. We must heed Ahmadinejad’s culturist declarations that the West has a particular culture and Islam is against it, and adjust our policies accordingly.

Dr. Press is the author of the book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. He is also the inspiration behind the British political party the National Culturists.

[i] National Journal Staff, “Full Text: President Obama's Speech at the United Nations General Assembly,” http://news.yahoo.com/full-text-president-obamas-speech-united-nations-general-102500744--politics.html, Sept, 25^th, 2012

[ii] Charbonneau, Louis, Reuters, “Update 6 – In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be ‘eliminated,’” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/un-assembly-ahmadinejad-idUSL1E8KO5BL20120924, Sept. 24^th 2012.

[iii] The Israel Project, “Israel by the Numbers on the Eve of its 58^th Year of Independence,” http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=2356049, May 1^st, 2006

[iv] National Journal Staff, “Full Text: President Obama's Speech at the United Nations General Assembly,” http://news.yahoo.com/full-text-president-obamas-speech-united-nations-general-102500744--politics.html, Sept, 25^th, 2012

[v] “Iran’s President Ranges Far in Interview, Talks Israel, Slams Homosexuality, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/index.html, Sept., 25th, 2012

[vi] Charbonneau, Louis, Reuters, “Update 6 – In New York, defiant Ahmadinejad says Israel will be ‘eliminated,’” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/un-assembly-ahmadinejad-idUSL1E8KO5BL20120924, Sept. 24^th 2012.

The Culturist ATLAH World Missionary Church

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:43:00 +0000

I had a very culturist morning. The day began when I visited my friend in Harlem. Harlem is a traditionally black community in New York City. It spawned a lot of great jazz musicians and has fame as the location of the explosion of arts in the 1920s that went under the name of the Harlem Renaissance. And, I have always loved it for its proliferation of African-American churches.

Upon leaving my friends home, I entered the ATLAH World Missionary Church. The name reminded me of Allah, but I did not know what to expect. All I knew was that the music coming from inside seemed unreal in its power and complexity. Upon entering, I found I was probably the only white person there. But, I was told not to linger in the way back, but to take a seat up with the parishioners. The twenty or so women in the choir were headed by a large woman, who hit every note with power. If you know American culture, you know the music, you can imagine the scene.

One of the first utterances of the slightly rotund minister, Rev. James David Manning, was “I love this country. I am patriotic. I love Jesus first. But I love this country second. And, I don’t want to live anywhere else other than right here.” The church had a large American flag in the back. I expected him to say “But, . . . “ and qualify his message. But, he went further and condemned the American Civil Rights activist Al Sharpton and Barak Obama, by name, for spreading messages that framed African – Americans as victims. Recommended getting out of public housing and churches starting jobs programs. He spoke of gentrification and said the locals had only themselves to blame.

Then the uber eloquent Minister told the crowd that you cannot curse America and then want your kids to have pro-social feelings. If they grow up blaming America as an oppressor, they will not want to contribute to its well-being. The church members were hypocrites if they followed the democrat line and told their children that anyone owed them anything. He denounced the ne’er-do-wells who populate the neighborhood as victims of these messages who did not know their own power. His African American audience learned the culturist message that the patriotic belief system was the way forward.

Then the Minister took a very interesting turn. He said that Satan had gotten into people. I as an atheist I rolled my eyes. But, this master of speech had earned my respect so I quieted my mind and listened. He said that an ecumenical bug had been spread. And church leaders now said that all Gods were equal. We were supposed to respect Hare Krishnas, Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims. He said that fights between Methodists and Presbyterians were tough and constantly divided Christians and were par for the course. But, nowadays preachers tell him he’s supposed to sit down and agree with a Muslim and agree that all gods are the same. No way. He would work with them. But Jesus was the way truth and light, and he would not pay respects to any foreign religion.

The very survival of this church, the very format that gets practiced weekly in Harlem churches represents the survival of culture. But being of this tradition, the ATLAH World Ministry Church likely recognizes more than others, that the responsibility for maintaining community rests with that community. Others do not pass on pro-social messages for us. The schools are supposed to. But, their multiculturalism, at best, tells us that others paths and our way has no more merit than any other. At worst it tells us that our very land is poisoned for being having had slavery and being Eurocentric. Refreshingly, the ATLAH World Missionary Church will not go down this path. They praise their culture, they pass on pro-social messages, both patriotic and local, to their members via exhilarating traditional means.

www.culturism.us

American Thinker Reader’s Anti-Jihad Policy Suggestions for SION

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:21:00 +0000

On 9/16/12 American Thinker ran the article “A Plan to Stop the Islamization of the World is at Hand.” This article heartily praised the organization Stop the Islamization of the World (SION) as the world’s leading anti-Jihad organization. And it lauded the inaugural meeting of SION’s International Freedom of Speech Congress (IFSC) held on 9/11/12.

However, it was argued that the IFSC would have more impact if their meetings supplemented the focus on speeches with policy formation. As such, my American Thinker article proposed 11 policy planks that the IFSC could consider. After 175 comments many were revised, deleted and added. Here are the 21 policy ideas that we, the American Thinker community, think the IFSC should consider adopting as policy.

We believe the IFSC should:

1) Stand for the immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into western nations.

2) Denounce the violation of any rights or the harassment of any peaceful Muslim citizens in the West.

3) Reclassify Islam from a religion to a political organization for the purposes of law.

4) Call for an investigation into the CAIR and other Islamic advocacy groups under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.

5) Undertake regular inventories of mosques in the West to look for pro-violence materials. Furthermore, we support surveillance of mosques where more than 5 % of the materials advocate violence.

6) Close down any mosque which advocates Jihad.

7) Call for the immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West. And, proposes to make foreign funding of mosques in non-Islamic nations illegal.

8) Oppose the use as spiritual mentors in prisons by any person associated with either mosques that advocate violence or terror affiliated organizations.

9) Initiate deportation hearings against non-citizens who promote Jihad in our nations.

10) Make clear that we oppose the cultural blindness of multiculturalism and are not racist, the IFDC promotes the words “culturism” (the opposite of multiculturalism) and “culturist.” Recognizing the importance of diversity, announce that we are a culturist movement, not a racist one.

11) Support culturist profiling at airports and in hiring practices when national security and public safety could be compromised.

12) Require curriculum to describe the violent tactics of Muhammad and the 1,400-year conflict between Islam and non-Islamic nations and peoples. This curriculum should also be used in museums and memorials which touch upon the topic of Islam.

13) Make the foreign funding of Islamic Studies departments and faculty positions in our universities illegal.

14) Advocate that we not accept students from Islam dominated countries to enter into any fields of study which would endanger national security or be used to military purposes.

15) Adopt the policy of disproportionate response whenever our property or citizens are harmed.

16) Support a culturist foreign policy wherein we make decisions that take cultural affiliation into account. We must side against Muslims who are ethnically cleansing Christians.

17) Call for a halt of foreign aid to Islamic nations.

18) Demand the revoking of UN resolution 16/18 and any other resolutions that might limit the freedom of speech.

19) Either lobby to have the UN to declare all Jihad a crime against humanity or totally withdraw from the UN and ask it to relocate to another nation.

20) Recommend that nations pursue a policy of energy independence with the aim of defunding Islamic expansion.

21) Prohibit the use of Sharia-based law or practices in any western court, nation, or any government functions in said nations.

The preceding suggestions do not represent the official policy of SION or the IFSC. Neither do each of these policies represent the views of the forum moderator, John K. Press. We recognize that the leadership of IFSC will formulate policy on behalf of the IFSC. And, if the IFSC formulates policies, we rank-and-file Jihad activists will ultimately enthusiastically support the final policy platform. We hope that they do.

Dr. Press is the author of the book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. He is also the inspiration behind the British political movement the National Culturists.

Reflections of the SION International Freedom Defense Congress

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:16:00 +0000

On September 11th, 2012, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer hosted the Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) International Freedom Defense Congress (IFDC). For this they deserve praise and thanks. I offer the following idea as a constructive suggestion.

A congress is a deliberative body. Rather than deliberation, we heard wonderful and inspiring speeches from activists, artists, and researchers working on the problem of the growing influence of Islam. True to the name, I would have liked to have had a portion of the event dedicated to debating and crafting an IFDC platform.

Among suggested policy planks, the following might have emerged:

1) The IFDC stands for the immediate halt of immigration by Muslims into western nations.

2) To make clear that we oppose the cultural blindness of multiculturalism and are not racist, the IFDC promotes the words “culturism” (the opposite of multiculturalism) and “culturists.” Recognizing the importance of diversity, we are a culturist movement, not a racist one.

3) The IFDC promotes regular inventories of mosques in the West to look for pro-violence materials. Furthermore, we support surveillance of mosques where more than 5 % of the materials advocate violence.

4) The IFDC supports culturist profiling at airports and in hiring practices when national security and public safety could be compromised.

5) The IFDC advocates deportation hearings against non-citizens in our nations that promote Jihad.

6) The IFDC calls for the immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West. And, the IFDC propose to make foreign funding of mosques in the West illegal.

7) The IFDC denounces all violence.

8) The IFDC denounces the violation of any rights or the harrassment of any peaceful Muslim citizens in the West.

9) The IFDC calls for curriculum and Islam related memorials and museums to describe the violent tactics of Muhammad and the 1400 year conflict between Islam and non-Islamic nations and peoples.

10) The IFDC denounces the use of western dollars and lives to attempt to turn Islamic nations into Western nations. And the IFDC denounces sending western foreign to Islamic nations generally.

11) The IFDC denounces the use of Sharia-based law in any western court or nation.

To be sure, these platform planks would have engendered difficult debates. Some would have been removed. Some would have been added. The order would have garnered discussion. We would have to work tirelessly to agree upon wording. But that is what congresses do.

This released final IFDC platform would have reduced the media’s ability to spin the reporting against us. It would provide a platform for western political parties to either adopt or refute. And, it would provide a litmus test for western politicians.

John K. Press, Ph.D.

www.culturism.us

National Culturists Greeting

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:28:00 +0000

For those who don't know, a group named the National Culturists has been formed in Britain. They are modelled on my book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. Recently, they had their inagural event. As I couldn't go to Britain, I filmed this video to thank them for their efforts.

At heart, it asks you to use challenge multiculturalists by using the words 'Culturism' and 'Culturist' today.

National Culturists Emerge

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:32:00 +0000

Today I learned of the formation of a National Culturists political organization in Britain. They are actively spreading the words "Culturism" and "Culturist" in an effort to protect Britain. Mr. Jack Buckby, an acitivist and political science major at the University of Liverpool, serves as the Chairman of the National Culturists. He spoke at the European National Movements Conference on culturism, and is setting up university chapters, which may perhaps ask for culturist courses along side the multicultural offerings.

The National Culturists website carries a video of Buckby's capable speech. He suggested that we adopt the terms "culturism" and "culturist" to win back the public dialogue. Even in Britain, multiculturalists call anyone who points out that diversity can account for significant differences in meaningful characteristics such as educational and economic attainment "racists." Cultural diversity is real and important. When we spread the words, Buckby tells the conference, we can take back the dialogue.

The National Culturists have grown rapidly. Many political parties have taken to the terms "culturism" and "culturist" under their leadership. They are not a political Party. They have gotten members of various Party's to agree to join the moment in spreading the words "culturism" and the "culturists." They have also networked with Churches and Pagans as these comprise the traditional majority culture of Britain.

In a video, Jack Buckby says he welcomes all who support the maintenance of the traditional majority culture, regardless of religion or cultural background or sexual orientation. This provides a worthy culturist goal of including all who respect, if not seek to assimilate into, the traditional majority British culture. And, were more time in the video, Buckby might have noted that to protect British and Western culture maintains the world's only safe havens for LGBT persons.

In sum. I like this new National Culturists organization.

Dr. John Kenneth Press

www.culturism.us

You are Left or You are Left Behind; Multicultural Cruelty

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 03:12:00 +0000

The following was printed in American Thinker on April 25th, 2012

Dear Conservative Friends,

Below I have reprinted one of the most painful letters I have ever received. Sandra and I (as all names herein, this is a pseudonym) were the only two people in our doctoral program cohort for three and a half years. As a team of two, we took the same courses and endured the same abuse from the same professors. We would eagerly share gossip and insights after every class and commiserate after every intellectual and emotional hurdle. Through our frequent meals and shared struggles we became very close. In the letter below, Sandra tells me that her "integrity as a global citizen" demands that she no longer communicate with me.

After reading the letter below, imagine Sandra's openness on a hiring committee! The domination of academia's multicultural dogma means that Americans cannot discuss Islam, immigration, or many other vital topics without being called "racist." I have tried in vain to explain that sustaining the West provides the greatest hope for women, LGBT folk, and freedom of conscience; after the West falls, Western "human rights" values will not predominate. Protecting the West is progressive. This chilling letter shows the extent to which multiculturalism is a cult and not system of beliefs open to debate.

You should learn from my mistakes. I stepped down as the head of the Brooklyn Tea Party when two of my oldest friends threatened to never speak to me again if I continued to advocate "culturism" as an alternative to multiculturalism. Even after I stepped down, one of them immediately disowned me. Another has remained friends, but we no longer discuss politics. I had suspected that Sandra would not speak with me due to political disagreements. As the letter conveys, I greatly overestimated the extent to which people's hearts can override indoctrination.

Revenge partially motivates my reprinting of this letter. I am bitter at what multicultural dogma has done to my nation and to my friendships. I hope that in years to come, Sandra will look up this letter and see what a horrid "humanitarian" she was, call me, and apologize. But I also hope that somehow a liberal will read it and realize how personally cruel liberal dogmatism has made him or her. Then perhaps we might begin to restore some tolerance for a diversity of opinions. Our nation, our hearts, and some friendships might get rescued in the process.

* * *

Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2012 13:42:25 -0400

Subject:

From: Sandra.multiculturalist@msu.edu

To: pressjohn@hotmail.com

Dear John,

Writing to you having finally finished all the candidacy requirements, proposal defense, and am looking forward to a summer of dissertation writing. It must seem like a lifetime ago when we were in classes together. Jack Franklin and Adam are still plugging away as well - although neither of them make it to Jefferson Square all that much. There is new student in the program - Jim Bernstein, so a warped form of the entering class of Fall 2006 lives on.

I received your facebook request and notice of your publication and thought that I should actually write you back rather than avoid the topic. As you know, it has been my idea that backing away was a gentler form of conflict than direct confrontation, however I have more recently discovered that the other party cannot read my mind and communication would save years of misinterpretation.

So basically I was approaching our relationship on a very familiar level with the thought that I don't have to approve of all that my family members believe and do in order to maintain relationships with them. I was very fond of you and really felt like we were comrades-in-arm having survivor hazing from historians in all shapes and forms -be they real, would be, or historian of education.

In the process of becoming a doctoral candidate my bubble was burst and I began to realize that the relational framework in which I lived in was not enough and I have begun to take responsibility for the political consequences and social implications of my own thoughts and actions. This shedding of my more provincial self, therefore, lead to a more nuanced look at my associations and actions. I could no longer approve-by-association your public work to rally against building a mosque downtown, your concept of Americanization, your tea-party work, blog postings, etc. I had to begin to consider our relationship not fraternally but as colleagues.

So frankly I cannot approve of your politics and maintain my own personal integrity as a global citizen. I apologize if this sounds hurtful as I do have a tender spot for you. I feel as if we grew up together in a certain sense - bumping into the sharp edges within this rabbit hole called NYU. I fondly remember the steps we traveled together; I am grateful for the company at the time; and I wish you well in the future.

All my best,

Sandra

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/you_are_left_or_you_are_left_behind_lessons_in_multicultural_cruelty.html#ixzz1t71zjd4P

Frances Kellor, Citizenship, and Me

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 20:50:00 +0000

I just finished writing my newest book, Founding Mother: Frances Kellor and the Quest for Progressive Democracy. And the end of this book has occasioned some personal philosophical reflecting. You see, Frances Kellor argued that citizenship required political participation. Personally, she dedicated her life to designing and implementing social reform. And, I have lived by these precepts too. But my friends just want to have fun. Is that okay?

In some ways circumstances call me to action. If your neighbor’s house were on fire, would you not feel compelled to act? Well, I believe the nation is going up in flames. Therefore, I am compelled to act. Kellor’s impoverished upbringing likely led to her making her first two books about defending exploited women. My sense of emergency and her despair over injustice provide legitimate motives to social action.

Kellor implicitly denigrated domestic life. She did not overtly say that women should leave their homes. But she did descry domestic values that focused more on rumors of fidelity than those of tainted milk and immigrant exploitation. She sought to shake women out of their private worlds via engaging them in basketball. Women particularly needed to switch from the private to a public orientations to reach their potential and help America reach its.

Kellor’s private life is partially obscured. She lived with her girlfriend Mary Dreier for 47 years. And they took vacations together. But her private letters rarely mention activism and her activism only implicitly addressed her lesbian romance. Kellor founded the National Urban League and international arbitration, ran the Americanization program, two Presidential campaigns and more. She had no children as she dedicated her life to public service. And for that she deserves our respect.

But people in my life watch T.V. and never mention politics. And, without engagement I personally feel useless and unimportant. Perhaps my constant striving for a cause has a touch of insecurity attached to it; I want to matter. Writing Founding Mother, and so sharing Frances Kellor, gave me a sense of doing something important for the public. With its completion questions about public life and identity come to the fore.

At what point do we, Kellor and I, let people rest and live as private citizens? Television is passive. But do I consider all who watch it worthless? How much public activism must one mix with their meaningless private consumerism and family raising to be considered a good citizen?

John Kenneth Press, Ph.D. is the author of Founding Mother: Frances Kellor and the Quest for Participatory Democracy. www.franceskellor.com has more information.

Open Letter to Pastorius and the Infidel Blogger's Alliance

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:17:00 +0000

Infidel Blogger's Alliance, your globalist, open border, neo-con, and yes – multicultural – ways have failed! As a contributor, I therefore beg you to change the Infidel Blogger’s Alliance Declaration of Principles. On the upper right of the permanent IBA page we see the following words:

THE PARALLEL GOVERNMENT  OF THE ENTIRE WORLD

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

By postulating universal values, you ignore the importance of cultural diversity. You claim that every person in the world holds the same values and only bad governments holds them back. You sound like a multiculturalist as you tell us that all cultures believe in the same values deep down. If that were true, every Muslim who immigrated to the West would embrace the love of liberty everyone, apparently, wants.

How are those open borders based on universality workin’ out for ya?

Your globalist values back our “everyone is an American deep down” foreign policy. With this ideal we have sunk blood and treasure in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. “Regime change” for democracy in the Muslim world proves the importance of cultural diversity. Thirty years of imposed tolerance in Egypt and it is primed for fundamentalism.

How is that “breaking skulls” to make Muslim nations leftist workin’ out for ya?

Expensive regime change is bankrupting our nation. And when the West goes broke, “human rights” and the universals you believe in will die. China nor the Organization of Islam Conference will protect them. Why are we quoting the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights anyway? To protect “human rights” we have to protect the West with border laws based on our selfish needs.

How is that membership in the U.N. workin’ out for ya?

Rather than universals, the West must embrace its cultural uniqueness. The easiest way to defeat multicultural globalists is to spread ideas that convey the opposite: “Culturism” and “Culturist.” So here is our new Masthead. Vote or contribute now!!

PROTECT THE WEST!

The West has a special vision and a right to protect it. We are not an Islamic nation; we are not a world nation; ours is a Judeo-Christian-Enlightenment nation. Embracing culturism, every non-Western nation from China to Mexico to Saudi Arabia acknowledges their traditional majority culture and designs their border laws accordingly. We too have a right to be culturist.

Sex, Horror, and Enlightenment

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:56:00 +0000

E. Michael Jones, of Culture Wars magazine, writes fascinating conspiracy histories. They show how sexual liberation has been used to undermine our population’s self-control and make them more pliable subjects. The tawdry details in his escapades through the sexual madness of Kinsey and the Marquis d’ Sade always entertain.

In Monsters from the ID he locates the origins of Horror films and porno in the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, in getting rid of God, leaves only pleasure and pain to guide our morals. In this vacuum, figures like Sade see nothing wrong with cruelty. When people leave the natural family structure, and pleasure guides men, porn arrives.

Mary Shelly’s was ensnared by Percy Shelly and Lord Byron’s incest laden escapades. Her mother, the author of the Vindication of the Rights of Women, had also been abandoned with child in the midst of the French Revolution. It was within the motif of crossing the boundaries that Shelly wrote Frankenstein.

Frankenstein’s picks up where God is abandoned; he gives life. Science in the absence of man creates a monster. This monster represents the nightmares that happen when we take God out of the pictures. He is a child of lightening, science, and madmen; a product of Enlightenment ethics.

Last night I saw Mozart's Don Giovanni at the Met. Though Mr. Jones does not reference the opera, it perfectly illustrates his point. Don Giovanni loves 1000s of women. He relentlessly lies to get them, mocks love and even kills. His deceits, as Sade’s, are boundless. To restore order, a ghost of a victim needs to reappear and take him to hell.

Jones’ claim that porn comes out of a pure pleasure / pain moral landscape, was always a bit elusive. And, as my deeming him a “conspiracy historian” implies, I have not entirely bought his argument. But Don Giovanni is a horror opera. The Ghost in a form of a statue that kills the lead, is as frightening as Freddie Kruger. As such, the opera provided powerful evidence for and illustration of Jones’ thesis.

www.culturism.us

An Open Letter to Mr. Lawrence Auster

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 22:59:00 +0000

Mr. Lawrence Auster publishes the blog View From the Right. Recently, he stated his basic credo in an article entitled “Why the Truth About Black Dysfunction is So Important.” As he has many followers, I think it important that I challenge his racist position with a culturist one. While I applaud his dedication, his racist suppositions set back our shared desire to defeat multiculturalism.

Mr. Auster's writing focuses on the out of proportion level of violent crimes committed by Black people. And, he documents the double standard in reporting such crimes well. He argues that the Western belief in racial equality, leads us to conclude that all differences in attainment and violence must reflect white racism. This guilt over inequality leads us to “denial of the truth of Black anti-White violence, denial of the tyrannical murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration” destroying our nation.

As a culturist I agree with many of his premises and goals. Blaming all inequality on the West has caused our guilt and embrace of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does cause us to ignore the perils of Islamic immigration and take the blame for the educational and economic achievement gaps between Whites and Asians and other minorities. But Auster’s racist premise destroys his usefulness.

By replacing his racist view with a culturist view – by swapping out genetic determinism for a cultural explanation – he can actually help right out nation. His view offends nearly everyone who reads them and exasperates social divides.

Mr. Auster wonders why people chaffe at his “endlessly repeated stories” of “black criminality and failure.” It is because the vast majority of Black people are wonderful law abiding and productive citizens. I am certainly not alone in having many Black colleagues with fabulous work ethics whom I respect and Black friends who I love. As such, his constant smear can only infuriate and alienate the majority of us who have such relationships.

The dysfunction in Black culture, that which leads to crime, is cultural. It only occurs in certain pockets of the population. The Black population was not as violent in the 1950s or before that. In fact, the Black marriage rate was higher than the current rate for Whites in the 1950s. Crime and divorce are not genetic. These changes since the 1950s were not caused by genetic mutations.

As people cannot change their genetic make-up, Mr. Auster's racial lens cannot effect any good policy outcomes. On the other hand, a culturist lens can allow us to have necessary discussions about the cultural roots of social maladies. The problem now is that our society calls all judgmental distinctions between ethnic groups "racist." Therefore, as Mr. Auster is, all who discuss such disparities are immediately and completely marginalized.

From a cultural vantage point, we can discuss the dangers of Islam. With this vantage point we can work to strengthen both Black and White cultures (the falling off of White culture is missed nearly all of Auster's analyses). And, the overt cultural reference of the word culturist, can help distinguish this hopeful and helpful analysis from the futile and divisive racist one. Furthermore, the ubiquity of the word multiculturalism can help its opposite, culturism, spread quickly. I am culturist, not racist. And, while I appreciate his goal of defeating multiculturalism, Mr. Auster's racist analysis undermines our progress.

www.culturism.us

Ken Burns' Prohibition Doc and Culturist Corruption

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:15:00 +0000

This Ken Burn's documentary ad has appeared all over NYC. The tag line "How did a nation founded on rights ever go so wrong?" has deep problems. Here are some questions / debates it invites.

"A nation founded on rights?" When does Mr. Burns date the founding of our nation? Many people confuse the founding of our government with the founding of the nation. Okay, technically we were colonies beforehand. But, our national character started well before.

I like to date the founding of our nation with either 1607 or 1620. The Puritans, who landed in 1620, did not set up a system based on rights. They came here to found a nation purer than any before. If you were a drunk, the community would lessen your status. And, they could even take you children away or publicly punish you.

Jamestown started in 1607. They had a bit of individualism going. But they quickly discovered, as the Puritans already knew, that individuals are dependent on the community. If people did not stand guard or work, they would be killed by starvation and hostile indians. Our nation, was not 'founded on rights.

Well what if you take the 1776 date? Still, 'rights' did not trump all. Many colonies had official religions. And, the Founding Fathers did not set up a system of anarchy wherein no one had any limits and everyone had a protected right to be anti-social. We, again, impact each other. A democracy or republic is not a system of government if it means the community can never define itself or regulate accordingly.

Prohibition had good attributes. Perhaps a bit of a spike of crime and corruption, now apparently to be sensationalized by Burns, happened. But drunkenness went down. Hospital visits due to alcohol, such as poisoning and drunk driving, went down. Wife battering went down. Men spending all their family's proceeds went down. I am certain deaths from drunk driving went down.

Ken Burn's ad shows that he is a terrible historian. The ad already announces that he will only engage Prohibition as a nightmare. Real historians debate. But with 'rights' based thought, all impositions become evil. Responsibility is restraint. Everyone has a right and the people can make no rules.

If Burns studied history, he'd note that a law such as Prohibition could only happen in a Puritan-based culture. That would lead him to see that our nation was not simply founded in 1776. He might read their writing wherein they say that license without responsibility doesn't lead to liberty; it leads to national suicide. But like most modern historians he probably considers the Puritans "so wrong" too for having violated rights.

We need to reclaim our sense of public good when creating values. We need to recognize the truths the Puritans told us and not just justify our anti-social mores with 'rights talk.' We cannot simply subsidize irresponsible behavior due to rights. We need to proudly reinsert our cultural heritage into our legal system. One must inform the other.

www.culturism.us

Our Debt is Only a Symptom of Cultural Problems

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:51:00 +0000

If we do not address culture, the Debt Ceiling debates are meaningless. Debt is a symptom of our cultural meltdown. Perhaps that is an overstatement. But, if we wish to become solvent again, emphasizing cultural solutions will get us farther than emphasizing economic fixes. Without such culturist discussions we will never pay down the debt and are essentially doomed.

Economic forces have an impact. When the Feds helped foment the Great Depression, people lost tremendous amounts of wealth quickly.[i] This collapse did not happen because of attitudinal change on the part of America’s population. And one could argue that economic explanations have new relevance as our nation careens into a black hole of debt. Yet in truth, economic analyses ballooned our debt and culturist analysis provide the only way of permanently reducing our debt.

We need a culturist analysis to attack inner-city poverty. But the fear of being called racist has long kept sociologists from discussing this perspective. Thus government money and social programs enable, rather than expose the economically unsustainable nature of single parent, low education, drug using, prison-esteeming culture. The truth is, the long ascendancy of economic explanations and fear of looking at culture have not helped alleviate African – American poverty. And no way forward exists but having difficult discussions about cultural contributors to poverty.

For full economic recovery, the long dominance of the economic explanation in our schools must end. Multicultural education refuses to make any judgment on cultures. Bereft of cultural content, schools’ exclusive focus on economics leads them to call for ‘social justice.’ The idea that all inequality must reflect unfairness leads to constant talk of ‘oppression’ in education theory.[ii] That this economic multicultural perspective promotes anti-social behavior can be seen in the 2011 National Association for Multicultural Education’s choice to have revolutionary terrorist William Ayers as their 2011 keynote speaker.[iii]

Teaching ghettoized African-American children that they are oppressed and should rebel and that personal responsibility cannot alleviate their class situation, maintains poverty. That replacing this economic model’s hegemony will improve our economy can be seen in the high number of Asian students excelling in America and the economic productivity of their home countries.[iv] Thus a culturist approach will allow us to make every ethnic group feel more responsible for their educational and economic success. Whereas multiculturalism does not consider the potential negative impacts of culture, culturism can show communities – and our country – the way out of poverty.

In making the rational connection between culture and outcomes, by admitting that culture is important and reaffirming that this is not a racial argument, we may also be able to sanely speak about the borders again. Latinos have grossly higher teen pregnancy rates and lower educational achievement than average Americans. Muslim immigrants pose a much higher risk of terrorism than Japanese immigrants. But our fear of discussing culture for fear of being called racist kills such discussions in their cradle.

Immigration restrictions made on a culturist basis will give all Americans, of every cultural background, a sense of the connection between cultural rectitude and prosperity that has long defined our public character. Thus, people refusing entitlements out of shame could once again become a proud moment for Americans. Structural economic interpretations argue against such sentiments. Adjusting our attitudes towards responsibility, pride, work and entitlements, is the only way politicians can again take us towards fiscal sanity.

Finally, a culturist analysis can even speak to corporate responsibility to our nation. Businessmen who undermine our borders and send jobs overseas are putting an economic perspective over a cultural perspective. We have to remind them that they have a responsibility to the nation that raised them. Furthermore, when all is said and done, international cultural diversity means our American business leaders will not feel comfortable raising their children, living, and retiring in other nations. This cultural analysis might help them identify with our nation again.

I do not argue that economic theory is useless. We need to understand how the Fed's quantitative easing will cause inflation and thus steals from all of us. And this article has cursorily addressed the horror of jobs going overseas. And we, of course, need to reduce our government spending. But long-term recovery requires growth. Cutting spending will require weening from government. Neither of those can happen if we do not renew our committments to individual responsibility in the name of sustaining our nation.

Brave academic sociologists such as Orlando Patterson of Harvard have reintroduced culture as an explanation for explaining African-American poverty.[v] Schools of education need to follow suit. And our politicians need to stop calling everyone who discusses culture racist. We can do our part by demanding that culturist explanations for our current problems get aired by using the words culturism and culturist whenever multiculturalists call our nation racist.

[i] Brian Domitrovic, Economic Crisis, Then and Now, Lecture at the Hyatt Regency, Indianapolis, IN, 10/10/09 http://www.isi.org/lectures/lectures.aspx?SBy=lecture&SFor=ec90805d-7af8-4adb-a889-2b7f1b60ba79

[ii] Pedagogy & Theater of the Oppressed Conference, http://www.ptoweb.org/

[iii] The National Association for Multicultural Education: Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice and Equality, http://nameorg.org/ 2011 conference

[iv] Educational Attainment in the United States / Race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States#cite_note US_Census_Bureau_report_on_educational_attainment_in_the_United_States.2C_2003-0

[v] Orlando Patterson, “A Poverty of the Mind,” New York Times, Op-Ed Section, 03/26/10,

Amy Winehouse Culturist Re-Post

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:38:00 +0000

This is a repost of an article published here in November of 2009. RIP AMY

Today I heard Amy Winehouse heard for the first time. That is, I have seen her many times, but I never saw a performance that grabbed me more than it just illustrated her tragic wastiness. But her version of Marvin Gaye’s “I Heard it Through the Grapevine,” with Paul Weller of the Jam, was a stunning virtuoso performance. She missed nothing, but remained both vicious and wild, yet controlled to the point of perfection in pitch, with clever metered vocal fills. And even the fade-outs from her competent co-vocalist happened at the prescribed time. But her final intonation of the chorus, when she went quiet, it was like hearing the subtle twang of Mae West in her prime.

With reason, many could conclude that Winehouse is deleterious to the success of western civilization. She is a role model of potentially disastrous impact. She makes drugs and the refusal to go to rehab sexy. And culturists know that youth follow those with status. That is why we need values leadership from positive and popular role models. I would much rather those who took care of their families and diligently pursued their studies in the name of western civilization getting glamorized. I would much rather see the artistic elite banish junkies for shame's sake. But that would cost us the Rolling Stones, Billie Holiday, and many other artists. It would make the West much more like communist China. And that, I would not like to see.

Winehouse brings a very interesting cultural mishmash to the table. She is definitely Jewish, her music is clearly derivative of African – American soul tradition ala Motown, she has the biker chic that tattoos bring, and – most of all – she embodies that ennobling yet defiling self-destruction, Ziggy Stardust-style tragedy of the burn out and crash of the chosen one, the rising star style. While she presents no role model, she represents a vamp, a type, a trope, that we can all share joy in. In her way, if teachers want to use her for edification, she even ties us back to the 19th century romantic tragedy of the romantic Goethe's Lotte who died for love. She is a sacrificial lamb to our deep cultural longing for bonding through her familiar formulaic romantic cultural mish mash.

Unlike the more electronic pop idols, Winehouse reminds us of the jewels of western culture and the romance of the individual self. And, perhaps, in a multicultural world where the divided West refuses to see it has a culture to protect and offending Islam may soon become a crime, her drunken iconic presence is a culturist good

BUY CULTURIST JOHN'S NEWEST BOOK !

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:46:00 +0000

In dramatic fiction Prison Wars illustrates the death of society when it contradicts culturist principles. Watch as charismatic pop spiritualists become social terrorists. Thrill as men’s desires drive society off the cliff. Scream as media and government actively take place in our corruption and end.

Fortune Magazine assigned Martin Sanger to profile entrepreneurs. But Quentin Longus wasn’t like the other’s he had met. Quentin’s transformative calm taught Martin to relax. And this calm allowed him to agree to Quentin’s offer to cover Prison Wars.

Prison Wars games pitted teams of prisoners against each other in battles to the death. And the ratings reduced every other show to irrelevance. The State said nothing as the television proceeds for Prison Wars helped pay off its debts.

Freddie Jackson became the games’ first criminal star. His winnings allowed him to spend his life sentence in a private mansion with private guards where he’d broadcast shows and film porn. His contributions to the movement revolutionized consumerism.

The mad philosopher Les Christiansen also emerged from Prison Wars. As Quentin’s philosophy coach he took the ethics of Prison Wars and turned them into popular movements for democratic reform. His wicked plots consciously pushed society to the brink and over.

Attracted by fame, power, and raw lust, Martin Sanger took the job of cultural leader and official publicist for Prison Wars. Along the way he came to peace with many aspects of his masculine power. And ultimately Sanger wrote Prison Wars in order that future societies might not follow ours into apocalyptic destruction.

In the year 2023 John Kenneth Press’ investigations led him to a copy of Martin Sanger’s manuscript. As a culturist and the author of the book culturism, as a proud American, and one who mourned the destruction of Western civilization, he thought it his duty to publish Martin Sanger’s manuscript.

Save Western civilization. Follow Martin Sanger and Quentin Longus as they embark on a rock star life style that ultimately engulfs all of society in explosive popular mayhem and decadence. Find out first hand, what it is like to party your soul into oblivion. Learn of the wages of sin before it is too late for all of us.

PRISON WARS IS NOW AVAILABLE ON AMAZON AT

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097857771X

The Veil Ban and the Academic Study of Nationalism

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 13:18:00 +0000

Culturism, the opposite of multiculturalism, holds that traditional majority cultures have a right to define, defend, and promote themselves domestically. This article will explore culturist theory’s relationship to several academic positions on nationalism. And it will ultimately use the example of the French ban on veils to do so.

This week France began enforcing a ban on face concealing veils. Violators must pay a fine and take a citizenship course. The easy point to make is that, despite one woman’s claim that these laws were “racist,” they have nothing to do with race. These laws address culture, they are culturist. And while racism is ridiculous, if cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational.

Liah Greenfield and others have created a paradigm wherein nationalism starts in England as Civic Nationalism, which incorporates individual rights. By the time nationalism spreads to Germany, we have Collective Nationalism, which tends to be authoritarian. And in between the two we have France’s mix of both types. And since the West exported nationalism, and many nations are built upon resentment of other nations, many are anti-Western.

Greenfield’s approach denies the impact of thought in culture. China’s Confucian background goes further in explaining its willingness to adopt deference for leaders than it’s being supposedly created after England. The humanistic thought of Shakespeare and the Scottish Enlightenment, as well as Jefferson’s writing, display cultural paradigms that manifest in Civic Nationalism. The Civic Nationalism is not due to England being first. It results from cultural thoughts. Rather than reflecting an absence of cultural influence, Civic Nationalism is the product of a culture.

The term ‘nationalism’ should be supplemented by the term ‘culturism.’ Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith debate whether nations are largely new or grow from earlier cultural precedents. Most scholars side with Anderson concerning newness. Whereas nations, defined as direct overlaps between state governments and cultures, may be newish, such debates rob us of the ability to include the histories of civilizations.

Christendom has been under siege by Islam for over one thousand years. The common argument that nationalism proper began in England in the 1600s, leaves out the fact that the Muslims took over Spain from 711 to 1492. They overran the Byzantine Empire and nearly took Vienna. Whereas the birth of nations may be recent, the clash of civilizations is not. Tribalism relied upon cultural unity. Cultural cohesion did not begin with nations.

Nationalism as a tool of analysis and common ideology, leaving out transnational concepts, is especially dangerous. France and England are different nations, but both represent the West. Again their being close to Western Civic Nationalism, shows this. Just as the term ‘umma’ unites Muslim nations, the term ‘culturism’ can include Western culturism and thereby provide a useful analytical category. For reasons this article will spell out later, we must be able to discuss categories beyond national ones.

Culturism, in taking culture seriously, also allows discussions of culture that the value neutral term ‘nation’ does not. The assumption that Civic Nationalism exists free of cultural content facilitates multiculturalism. In the multicultural model, citizens – regardless of culture – unite in agreements about liberal rules of democratic participation. This view denies the importance of cultural diversity and strips it of any significant meaning. It assumes that no cultures could or do disagree with liberal civic premises.

Craig Calhoun has argued people contain subjective multiplicities. This, for him, lessens the relevance of national culture, because, for the most part, underneath, we have many similarities. But this argument assumes a space away from culture. It assumes love and friendship, have the same meaning across cultures. It posits a culture free identity behind the shallow trinkets of cultural markers.

Culture does directly impact people. Not only do Japanese people have more familiarity with Japanese culture than, in Calhoun’s example, Norwegians, they speak a different language. And this does not only does this seep into the individual on obvious levels. Cross culturally, social relations have a much different flavor, the assumptions are different, in these two cultures. When we consider even more extreme cultures, this similarity via occasional overlap argument elides many important considerations.

Phillip Gleason said, “To be or to become an American a person did not have to be of any particular national linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality and republicanism.” Yet Americans have long discriminated against immigration from non-European cultures precisely because they saw a specific linguistic and religious background as essential to our liberties.

This analysis will strike some as racist. But race has very little to do with it. The 1924 limit on Jewish and Italian immigrants, our Protestant majority’s long fear of Irish Catholics, had little to do with the biological notion of race that scholars frequently project into the past. These laws were culturist. Americans have traditionally believed our civic nationalism resulted from cultural traits, as much as culturally neutral universal Enlightenment based truths.

Scholars who have left large scale history and the ideological component of culture and, indeed cultural impact at all, out of the discussion, can solely see the Islamic veil ban as oppressive. For them the Islamic veil is symbolic of nothing. They can see no clash of civilizations. They remain more committed to deconstructing nations than to reifying them, and so they see this effort as misaligned with the fact of nationalism being a modern fiction.

A few errors come from this neutral stance. First nations are, as Benedict Anderson shows, “imagined.” But this imagination is perpetuated in institutions. It not only appears in Michael Bllig’s view of the banal nationalism of flags in banks, and commercials that assume French identity. Going back to Cardinal Richelieu, this imagined community is in laws that promote the French language and view of history in schools. The imagined community sprouts from the seemingly universal civic laws backing monogamy and outlawing honor killing. Culturist laws sustain all nations.

The idea of the state as a culturally neutral enforcer of civic ideals reflects Enlightenment and multicultural assumptions. But the Enlightenment is specific to the West and few important nations on earth would consider adopting the multicultural neutrality of those in the West. China and Saudi Arabia’s governments are culturist. They implement immigration and other laws to preserve and promote their traditional majority cultures. Western nations have done the same traditionally. As a result, the world is not getting more diverse, the West is. The idea of the legal cultural neutrality of one’s State is a Western aberration.

As western culture is civic, the Islamic veil ban violates our values. Without a very strange culture in our midst, the civic nationalism seems culturally neutral. Such a move would naturally evoke huge protests. It is only with the entrance of a culture that challenges freedom of speech, individuality, and rights for women, that we understand the Western specificity of our civic culture. And so to maintain our sense of freedom, we are forced to consider violating our own precepts.

The ban may have some impact. Much of our Western ontology and philosophy appear in our individual clothing choices. To dress the part is to assume the role. Yet, fundamentally, Islamic doctrine is inconsistent with Western values. And so the dream of a secular French Islam requires an abandonment of basic Islamic tenets. Creating such an Islamic - Western amalgam will prove stubbornly difficult and prone to inner conflict. But militant forces are encouraging Islamic cultural separatism in Europe. Without some overt engagement, the prominence of Western values will decline.

France’s Islamic veil ban provides fertile ground for scholars. In fact, the law carefully avoids specifying that it is a ban on Islamic veils to maintain the separation of mosque and state. From a culturist point of view, this makes sense as you do not want to relinquish such a cornerstone of the modern West. At the same time, as other nations, our laws should recognize, defend, and promote our traditional majority cultures. And so we see a struggle between Civic and Cultural Nationalism. Histories of such struggles in Western lands would prove useful. Which tact better preserves Western culture needs debating. We need to recognize the importance of cultural presuppositions make ours part of the discussion. Feigned impartiality removes scholars from their place in the public. We need guide the West as it confronts multiculturalism.

To have such debates we must revise some notions. Using the words ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist’, we can make clear that we’re discussing ramifications of cultural diversity, not racial stupidity. Craig Calhoun and others have noted that all cultures have minorities. This does not, however, erase the fact that they also have traditional majority cultures. Calhoun’s observation buffers us from hysterics and dreams of homogenized states. However, it should not serve to ban us from making culturist observations. We cannot accept bans on criticizing Islam. A free society needs to be able to discuss cultural diversity if it hopes to remain free.

Scholars’ pretense of objectivity, ironically, displays their Western orientation. Western cultures’ basis in individualism undercuts our ability to take groups seriously. As such our inquiries into nations ignores similarities to tribalism or conflicts between civilizations. And, as Ernest Gellner does, the nation gets reduced to a purely modern contrivance, historical and cultural common sense get overlooked, and scholars dangerously exempt themselves from discussions of culturist laws such as France’s Islamic veil ban.

Change the National 9 - 11 Memorial and Museum

noreply@blogger.com (john press) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:01:00 +0000

Immediately after 9 -11 New York Mayor Giuliani rejected Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s money because it came with an insult to America. Bin Talal is currently funding the Ground Zero Victory Mosque.[i] And now a worse insult! Bin Talal is helping to write the National 9 – 11 Memorial and Museum at Ground Zero!

Less then a month after 9 – 11, at an early 9 – 11 memorial event, bin Talal attempted to give Giuliani $10 million for disaster relief. But bin Talal simultaneously suggested that we look at our American policies that justified the attack including our support for Israel.

Giuliani rejected the assertion that good justifications existed for the 9 – 11 attacks and refused the money. America’s mayor said, "To suggest that there's a justification for [the terrorist attacks] only invites this happening in the future. It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous.”[ii]

Though rebuked by Giuliani, bin Talal did not give up promoting his dangerous ideas. Six years later the prince started funding Georgetown’s Middle Eastern studies program.[iii] And now, members of Georgetown’s Middle Eastern studies department are serving as advisors in writing the history section of our National 9 -11 Memorial and Museum.[iv]

Involvement of Georgetown’s department that the offensive bin Talal funds, does not necessarily prove malfeasance. But the confirmed involvement of Princeton’s Near Eastern Studies department, with their pro-Islamic colleague Amaney Jamal, brings additional discomfort.[v] And, what Alice Greenwald, Executive Vice-President for Programs of the National 9 – 11 Museum and Memorial, told us at a Manhattan Community Board meeting merits grave concern.

While the National 9-11 Memorial properly eulogizes the tragic loss of life on September 11^th, it will only dedicate a small part of one of three history rooms to the question of “Who did this and why.”[vi] Ms. Greenwald told the Community Board that her Middle Eastern advisors had told her not to use the word “Islam.” Instead, she explained, they will use the word “Islamist” specifically to distance the connection of the 9 – 11 attacks with Islam.[vii]

Besides the dearth of time dedicated to why we were attacked, the exhibit’s timeline greatly concerns this western culturist historian. The one solitary documentary film in the exhibit will explore the roots of Al Qaeda. Ultimately, we must worry that the film being prepared will only tie the 9 - 11 attack to the American funding of Afghani fighters. Thus, as Bin Falal would have it, the exhibit will lay the root causes for 9 – 11 at the feet of America.

A wider timeline would note that Islam has been attacking the West for nearly 1400 years. Islam took Spain for seven hundred years. And after Islam destroyed the Christian Byzantine Empire, it gave Constantinople its current name, Istanbul. Islam might even have taken the rest of Europe had it not been repelled in the Battle of Vienna on September 11^th, 1683.[viii] Despite what Bin Talal might say, our struggle with Islam did not start with the 1948 founding of Israel and it did not start with America's support of Al Qaeda in the late 1970s.

According to Ms. Greenwald, the National 9 – 11 Memorial will also chronicle “previous terrorist attacks, on U.S. targets on the U.S.S. Cole and the African Embassy bombings.” But instead of just focusing on the U.S., a map showing the global scope of the over 15,000 Islamic terrorist acts since 9 – 11 would create a different impression. A focus on Islamic jihad in Europe, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand or India would undercut Bin Talal’s idea that Islam only targets America for its crimes.

The National 9 – 11 Memorial and Museum needs to openly tell us which scholars in these Middle Eastern departments will be advising them. Furthermore, we western culturists request that pro-western scholars, such as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, Ms. Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America, Mrs. Wafa Sultan, or Congressman Allen West to help write the Memorial's history section. It would be a dangerous shame if our national memory of 9 – 11 was given to employees of the man who insulted us on 9 – 11 and is building the Mosque at Ground Zero.

Please watch the video preview of the National 9 - 11 Memorial and Museum given by Alice Greenwald at the top of the video section of www.culturism.us. Join our facebook site, "Western Historians Must Write the 9 - 11 Memorial at GZ," and help spread the word.

John Press, Ph.D.
President - Brooklyn Tea Party
pressjohn@hotmail.com
www.brooklynteaparty.org
www.culturism.us

[i] John Cook, “News Corp’s number-two shareholder funded ‘terror mosque’ planner,” August 30, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100820/bs_yblog_upshot/news-corps-number-two-shareholder-funded-terror-mosque-planner

[ii] CNN, “Giuliani rejects $10 million from Saudi prince,” October 11, 2001, http://articles.cnn.com/2001-10-11/us/rec.giuliani.prince_1_saudi-prince-alwaleed-bin-israeli-withdrawal-criminal-attack?_s=PM:US

[iii] Korade, Matt, “Saudi Giving at the Heart of a Great Debate over Middle East Studies,” Congressional Quarterly, April 11, 2008, http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5046

[iv] Alice Greenwald told the author of this article this after a Community Board One meeting, 12/13/2010, 6 pm, in New York City.

[v] Larcom, Geoff, Princeton Professor Breaks Down Perceptions of Muslim-Americans in U.S. [on Amaney Jamal]  Focus EMU Online (Eastern Michigan University News) February 2, 2010, http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/9085

[vi] See the footage of the 9 – 11 Memorial and Museum presented to the Community Board One at www.youtube.com

[vii] Alice Greenwald told the author this during the question and answer session following the 12/13/10 Community Board One meeting in which the national 9 – 11 Memorial and Museum plans were presented.

[viii] The Battle Of Vienna, wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna