Economic forces have an impact. When the Feds helped foment the Great Depression, people lost tremendous amounts of wealth quickly. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Brave academic sociologists such as Orlando Patterson of Harvard have reintroduced culture as an explanation for explaining African-American poverty. 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.

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.”

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. 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.

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. 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 11th, it will only dedicate a small part of one of three history rooms to the question of “Who did this and why.” 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.

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 11th, 1683. Our struggle with Islam did not start in the 1980s with Al Qaeda.

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.” 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 be involved. 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.

If you point out that cultural diversity is real, multiculturalists always call you racist. We do not have culturist profiling in airports because they will call us racist. The key to disarming them lays in noticing how multiculturalists tyrannize us by leaping from discussions of cultural diversity to cries of racism.

If you want security, rights, and short lines you need only scan people with Arabic sounding names who have ties to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. Period.

Instead, we go to great lengths to demonstrate our blindness to the import of culture by patting down Mom from Minnesota, Vinnie from Brooklyn, three year old children and nuns to show the multiculturalists we are not racist.

But the propensity to terrorism does not stem from genes or skin color; it has nothing to do with race. Islamic terrorism comes from the tenet of Jihad within the Koran. Whereas Jesus overtly detested any violence, Muhammad led over 60 military campaigns.

Multiculturalists and Muslims, of course, denounce the assertion that all religions are not the same as racist phobia. They express outrage at all who would suggest that cultural diversity is real.

So to show we take no notice of culture, we risk our lives. After all, proving that we do not believe cultural differences exist ultimately requires letting many young Pakistani males through customs unchecked.

If Muslims in America were truthful, they would admit that their religion has produced all of the thousands of terrorists attacks in the world since 9 -11. To show appreciation for their recent immigration here they would submit to the inconvenience of extra security checks. This would endear them to all Americans.

But, as with so many in western societies, Muslims use rights to protect anti-social behavior. All attempts at using cultural information incur aggressive lawsuits over racism from the Council on American – Islamic Relations. As a result, the Muslim presence in America means that all us Americans must have our rights greatly abridged. As a result, their freedom reduces ours.

Fear of multiculturalists calling us racist not only endangers us physically, it cows our spirit by making us accept that terrorists will forever bully us and dictate our rights on Thanksgiving. By distinguishing rational culturist profiling from irrational racial profiling, we can disarm the multicultural logic the terrorists use against us wwand salvage the freedoms for which we give thanks.

John K. Press, Ph.D is the President of the culturist Brooklyn Tea Party. He is also the author of the book Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. www.culturism.us has more information.

A globalist rather than a culturist, I suppose Stern takes no sides in the world. When the Taliban blow up girl’s schools, he is for both sides! When 9 – 11 happened, he did not see a clash of civilizations, merely a plane from nowhere hitting a building that could have been anywhere! As China buries us in debt and suppresses speech, as the Egyptians slaughter Christian Copts, he expresses no affiliation. He doesn’t identify with any culture in particular. The Olympics must have been boring for him.

We can see Stern’s contempt for culture in his new technical foul rule. Starting this season, players can get penalized for expressing emotion or complaining. And so in his perfect world corporate office sterility and decorum control all actions. Stern does not desire to see or understand cultural expression. Stern is “notorious for being a ruthless capitalist.” Profit does not come from inefficiency. Money has no loyalty. It notices nothing, not Jihad, not criminal Mexican gangs terrorizing Americans, nothing that does not impact on the bottom line.

Colbert mentioned that the sport has gone international with the Chinese player Yao Ming. Yao’s contract was negotiated by the government of China. China engages in unfair and illegal trade policies. It kills protesters and suppresses Christianity. China doesn’t have free speech or Democracy. But Stern is not a culturist. He has no allegiance to western culture. Rather would be just as happy in China. He would be just as happy to see American companies go there as stay here. It is all the same to him.

Typical of the globalist elite, Stern seems to have no connection to his product either. He has never played in a basketball league at any level. He has no connection to the sport other than being its legal counsel on drug testing and salary cap negotiations. Yet, through the logic of modern money’s dominance over all other considerations, he ends up being in control of the basketball and its rules.

Stern and his class have no allegiance to America. When the Phoenix Suns’ management made their team wear jerseys protesting their State’s immigration laws, Stern backed the protest. Top-down, the players became forced to mouth the company’s political line. And the team badmouthed the very population it represents in favor of an international perspective.

For having no allegiance to America and for shipping our jobs overseas, capitalists of Stern’s ilk should be forced to live outside of the western world. Shy of that, for his lack of allegiance to the fans, players or basketball, Stern should be kept away from the American basketball courts in our National Basketball League.

John Press, Ph.D. is the President of the Brooklyn TEA Party and the author of Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future. www.culturism.us has more information about culturism.

Multiculturalism’s failure results from its total failure to acknowledge diversity and that nations have traditional majority cultures. The mandate to ‘celebrate diversity’ requires that we ignore culture’s real impact. Merkel’s denunciation of forced marriages recognized that other cultural patterns exist. And indeed levels of crime and government dependency clearly are also higher amongst some immigrant groups than others.

But the depth of harm does not lie in such statistics, but in basic cultural outlooks. Germany has a culture that respects education and discussion. Psychologist Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, spent time studying Muslims in youth prison. He found that rather than handling conflict via dialogue, Muslim youth consider it proper to settle disputes via “physical revenge.”

The cultural tendency toward solving disagreements via violence has manifest in violent mob actions such as burning tens of thousands of cars in Paris, attacking German youth in schools, and worldwide violence over Danish cartoons portraying Muhammad.

Sane immigration policy requires noting cultural differences. It is culturist, not racist, to acknowledge that wherever many Chinese move, they excel in school and set up Chinese areas that become tourist attractions. Wherever Muslims move they make the schools rougher and create no-go zones.

In noting that other cultures have honor killing, violent ways of settling disputes, and antipathy towards free speech, Merkel has come a long ways towards noting that Germany (and the West generally) has a traditional majority culture. An implication of her acknowledging diversity is recognizing that the West alone stands for democracy, freedom of speech, the relative separation of Church and State and the sanctity of the individual.

Now that Merkel acknowledges that culture is important and has implicitly acknowledged that Germany has a majority culture, she must make one last step in achieving culturist awareness. She must recognize that Islam has been aggressively trying to conquer the West for 1400 years. History travels with cultures. Even if Chinese immigrants had the same anti-social patterns as Muslim immigrants, their lack of historical animosity towards the West would render them less of a threat.

Merkel has acknowledged that multiculturalism has failed. As such she may now be willing to discuss cultural dynamics in general. But only when she starts talking of the positive value of culturism, when she takes a western culturist stance, she can really make sound policy. At that point she will know that she must stop Muslim immigration to the West and make sure her laws and schools openly protect and promote German heritage and western values.

Officially co-sponsor our Oct. 10th rally against the Ground Zero mosque.  John Press’ contact info is on the website www.culturism.us

Click here to view the embedded video.

Abdo’s multicultural hypocrisy is common when he claims that he was irrationally discriminated against while simultaneously asking for special treatment because his cultural differences are so significant that we should pay attention to them. When facing any discrimination, after calling you racist, multiculturalists claim that culture provides no rational basis for discrimination. Multiculturalists, you see, do not really take culture seriously. But, they then turn around and tell you that culture is very important when they want special treatment.

Either we should take culture seriously or we should not take culture seriously. Aldo makes a powerful case for discrimination when he tells the media that fighting in the US military runs counter to his “maintaining his Islamic faith.”

Of course, I do not hold out much faith that we’ll learn Abdo’s lesson. Even after US Army Majory Nidal Hassan killed 13 people on a military base in the name of Islam, the military continues to enroll Muslim into its ranks. That is because politically correct multicultural thinking forbids all historical and logical thought that question its precepts by calling such thought intolerant, racist, and discriminatory.

Abdo showed just how completely multiculturalism has destroyed our ability to think when no one laughed at the obvious falsehood of his statement that, “Islam does not allow me to operate in any kind of warfare.” In no forum has he been asked about the concept of Jihad. Even Fox News blithely avoided editorial commentary on his quote that “”Islam is a peaceful religion, it’s not a religion of warfare.” And so, multicultural logic dictates that 1400 years of Islamic military expansion from Spain to India to 9 – 11 must be ignored to further the idea that all cultures adhere to the same values.

If we have any hope for learning about cultural diversity, it will have to come from Islamic media. All non-Western nations assume a culturist, rather than a multiculturalist, perspective. They routinely take their culture’s side in textbooks, international diplomacy and, even, television. While Aldo claimed that universal culture-neutral precepts embodied in Islam prevented him from being violent in our media, he told Al-Jazeera he wanted out of the US military because Islam told him he was, “forbidden to kill Muslims.” The implication, of course, is that he could kill non-Muslims.

Wanting it both ways, again, multiculturalists often take the globalist tact of invoking the “world community.” Abdo advocated stopping war in the Middle East by “coming together as a community and portraying Islam as the peaceful religion that it is.” In this explanation he calls the Islamic community his community. But immediately after he claimed we need “a spiritual approach, the community approach, the diplomatic approach” for peace in the Middle East. Herein the world community has no sides. Again, with multiculturalists and their globalist brethren, in one sentence culture exists and the next minute it melts away.

Notwithstanding Abdo’s historical and cultural ignorance, the military must assume that the very fact of War negates the ideal of the “world community.” The military, by its very nature, cannot entertain such multicultural pap.

When Private Abdo told his people via Al-Jazeera television, “I Don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims” he provided a slew of valuable culturist lessons. Cultural identity is important and conflict between civilizations persists. This statement also gives lie to multiculturalists’ universal “global community” sentiment. And, since the West’s wars will likely be against Muslims for the foreseeable future, Aldo’s honest and truthful estimation of the influence of culture on the individual provides adequate justification for keeping Muslims out of our military.

For good measure, Abdo complained that in the military, “There were racial slurs.” Well the obvious fact of the matter is that there were no racial slurs. Abdo is white. If there were slurs they were about his religion. And religions are not races. We can clear up this dangerous conflation by using the word “culturist.” The slurs referred to his culture, not his race. We should thank Abdo because he has not only shown us the irony in multiculturalists not wanting to consider culture unless they want special treatment, he has shown us how spurious their charges of racism are.

As a culturist, I concur with Private Aldo. He and the Islamic Fort Hood massacre demonstrate that Muslims should not be in our military. But to make this a policy, the military must drop multiculturalism’s blindness to culture in favor of culturism. As its very reason is fighting conflicts between civilizations, the U.S. military cannot safely entertain the multicultural platitudes that have crippled civilian discussion and reasoning. The military must separate irrational racism from rational culturism. Private Aldo declared that he could not, “Serve both the US Army and his God simultaneously.” We must listen to Private Aldo.