|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:48 am Post subject: Culture Matters |
 |
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/culture_matters.html
Indeed, it does.
| Quote: |
November 6, 2015
Culture Matters
By Surak
When in the course of human events, a great civilization commits suicide, a decent respect to the welfare of ourselves and our posterity requires that we should investigate its causes. And there indeed significant differences among cultures, and what the results may imply for immigration policy?
First, a word about the modern cult of multiculturalism, one of numerous manifestations of leftism. Multiculturalism may be defined as the following set of beliefs: 1) cultures differ from one another, but not in any meaningful way; 2) all cultures are worthy of respect and preservation, except for Western civilization, by far the worst. The contradiction of these two beliefs is no greater than their internal self-contradiction.
Comparative cultural study may take place at two points: inputs and outputs. Cultural classification often starts with inputs. Thus, we may classify cultures by two dimensions of inputs: ethnolinguistic group and religion. This produces a grid on which we may find the major world civilizations, with Western civilization, for example, sitting at the crossroads of European languages and Western Christianity. Such an approach is taken in Samuel Huntington’s classic The Clash of Civilizations.
Alternatively, we may focus on the behavioral outputs of cultures. For example, David Livermore of the Cultural Intelligence Center describes 10 dimensions of behaviors that vary between cultures: identity, authority, risk, achievement, time, communication, lifestyle, rules, expressiveness, and social norms. Recognizing these factors greatly facilitates cultural understanding, but they are not quantifiable.
We shall focus on nine outcomes that are more or less objectively quantifiable for most countries, outcomes that express values cherished in the West in general, and in America in particular. These fall mostly under the headings of life, liberty, and property.
Life: murder rate and suicide rate (World Health Organization, UN Office of Drugs and Crime); terrorism (Institute for Economics and Peace: Global Terrorism Index)
Liberty: political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House: Freedom in the World, based on compliance with Universal Declaration of Human Rights); female genital mutilation rate (UNICEF)
Property: economic freedom (Heritage Foundation, Wall Street Journal: Index of Economic Freedom); public debt as percentage of GDP (CIA)
Other: literacy rate (CIA); fertility rate (CIA); sex ratio (CIA)
(If reliable international statistics on rape had been available, they would have been added to the study.)
Each outcome is transformed to a score between 0 and 100. The results are combined to create an aggregate score for each country, and are mapped below for 143 countries. These countries were chosen mostly on the basis of large population or GDP. The highest quality of life is enjoyed towards the purple end of the spectrum, while the lowest quality of life occurs towards the red end of the spectrum.
Rather than limiting ourselves to one aggregate score, however, we can determine groups of countries that have mostly similar scores in the nine outcomes discussed above, by using cluster analysis. The results for the 143 countries fall most naturally into seven clusters, shown in the map below.
The rose cluster has an exceptionally high female genital mutilation rate, and exceptionally low economic freedom and literacy.
The pumpkin cluster has an exceptionally low political freedom score, and exceptionally unbalanced sex ratios (the Russia-Ukraine-Belarus group has not enough men, while the Arabian group has not enough women).
The custard cluster has the highest fertility rate.
The avocado cluster has an exceptionally high terrorism rate.
The blueberry cluster has an exceptionally high murder rate (especially the central American group of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, as well as Venezuela, Jamaica, Belize, Colombia, Brazil, and southern Africa).
The sky cluster does not represent any extremes among the clusters. It does contain Mongolia, the country with the highest aggregate score outside the lavender cluster, as well as North Korea, the country (along with Eritrea) with the second lowest political freedom score after Somalia and Syria.
The lavender cluster has the lowest murder and suicide rates, the lowest terrorism rate, the highest political and economic freedom, and the highest literacy. It also has the highest public debt ratio and the lowest fertility rate.
The lavender cluster includes what is generally thought of as Western civilization: most of Europe west of the former Soviet Union, the three Baltic states, Cyprus, Georgia, and Armenia; the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Moreover, it contains three Latin American countries (Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay); Israel; three east Asian tigers (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan); and an African country, Ghana.
To paraphrase Dr. John Kenneth Press, focusing on the lavender cluster of countries is most certainly not racism, but rather culturism. Indeed, the East Asian group nicely complements the Western group in this cluster, while Israel is the root from which the Western group grew.
The lavender cluster is also distinctive, in that, were the analysis to be done with a goal of three clusters, the pumpkin, custard, avocado, sky, and blueberry clusters would consolidate as one supercluster, while the rose and lavender clusters would remain separate.
Both in America or in Europe, immigration policy is central in current political discussions. Outside of Western civilization, it is universally acknowledged that every society has the right to perpetuate itself. Only within Western civilization is it argued that the society must destroy itself in order to accommodate hostile invaders.
Immigration policy should not be determined by the country of an immigrant’s current residence. However, it should be determined by the culture with which that immigrant affiliates. Islam correlates strongly negatively with values cherished within Western civilization and throughout the lavender cluster. The scatterplots and trend lines below display the relation between increased Muslim population in a country, and levels of freedom, terrorism, and female genital mutilation.
Islam is very strongly associated with a drastic decline in freedom, and a drastic increase in terrorism and female genital mutilation. The points far from the trend lines do not disprove this main point.
In the first plot, the points in the lower left corner are communist countries with few Muslims.
In the second plot, the high terrorism in some countries with low Muslim populations is still often committed by Muslims; the rising trend line merely reflects the willingness of Muslims to attack their own.
In the third plot, all countries with substantial female genital mutilation also have substantial Muslim populations.
Cultures, even religions, evolve over time. In the wake of World War II, Shintoism was forcibly reformed by the conquerors to remove the Japanese emperor as a deity. It may be that the jihad imperative embedded into Islam will finally force the world into a war against militant Islam. The Islam that survives such a war must condemn and renounce the Medinan suras, the Sunna, jihad, female genital mutilation, and rape, relying only on the Meccan suras.
The lavender cluster in general, and Western civilization in particular, have every right to restrict immigration to accept only applicants from other countries in the lavender cluster, with exceptions for non-Muslim asylum seekers; but to refuse admission to Muslim immigrants, on the same grounds that Nazi and communist immigrants have been turned away in the past (and should continue to be turned away). The rose and blueberry clusters represent abhorrent practices as well (female genital mutilation and murder). The West and the remainder of the lavender cluster should bar entry to people who do not cherish and affirm life, liberty, and property.
Surak is a patriot and a scholar.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/culture_matters.html#ixzz3qjbxfELW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West.
However, liberalism is little more than thinly-veiled communism, replacing class with race, and revolutionary rhetoric with moral rhetoric, to achieve the same goal communism was designed to achieve, which pertains to lifting up outgroups, minorities, and fringe elements in order to destroy the majority. To do this, you must demoralize the majority by reeducating them to blame their ancestors as oppressors, teaching women and men to hate each other and reverse their roles, making people morally self-police each other using communist terms like Trotsky’s word “racist,” and by overly sexualizing young people. Sexuality is indeed one of the greatest forms of control.
What you end up with is a culture totally degenerate, demoralized, and reduced to basic impulses, with women climbing over each other to enter the rat race in order to attain high status men, average men losing their provider roles and dying prematurely, hating and deluding themselves for having to conform to these unnatural cultural weaknesses to obtain women (though this is not really true, since women crave strong men and are less concerned with ideology), and all sorts of other problems. With a culture this weak, sick, and atomized against itself, it is then much easier to roll out the death knell and steamroll them by bringing in more hardened groups of outsiders.
But success in life is about adaptation, and it’s mostly the weaker who get caught in this degenerate spiral of liberalism. Europeans are highly adaptive and high-achieving, they are creative and by far the best at solving complex problems. What is needed is a new culture or a new ideology for European peoples, one that empowers them instead of manipulating their morality systems. Many of us have already found this, know what it will entail, and look forward to a future where we will once again be in control of our own destinies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is funny that you took all the time to write that in response to someone whose role here seems to be like your weird uncle who forwards emails about conspiracies, bad jokes, and chain letters.
Pumpkin, advocado, lavender, blueberry, etc. cluster? Maybe you and Trueblue should write for American Thinker, just a suggestion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon, I don’t think comedy is your strong point. Did you wish to contest something I wrote about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon, I don’t think comedy is your strong point. Did you wish to contest something I wrote about? |
Not like funny ha-ha, more like funny meaning interesting, curious, mildly amusing. I do honestly think that if you submitted that post, American Thinker would publish, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon, I don’t think comedy is your strong point. Did you wish to contest something I wrote about? |
Not like funny ha-ha, more like funny meaning interesting, curious, mildly amusing. |
I don't think Swartz would go in for observational humor. He doesn't seem like he would be much of a Seinfeld fan, for instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| He doesn't seem like he would be much of a Seinfeld fan, for instance. |
On the one hand, Seinfeld is sometimes funny. On the other hand, Seinfeld is trying to destroy western civilization. That's the kind of hard choice we're faced with here in the lavender cluster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West.
However, liberalism is little more than thinly-veiled communism, replacing class with race, and revolutionary rhetoric with moral rhetoric, to achieve the same goal communism was designed to achieve, which pertains to lifting up outgroups, minorities, and fringe elements in order to destroy the majority. To do this, you must demoralize the majority by reeducating them to blame their ancestors as oppressors, teaching women and men to hate each other and reverse their roles, making people morally self-police each other using communist terms like Trotsky’s word “racist,” and by overly sexualizing young people. Sexuality is indeed one of the greatest forms of control.
What you end up with is a culture totally degenerate, demoralized, and reduced to basic impulses, with women climbing over each other to enter the rat race in order to attain high status men, average men losing their provider roles and dying prematurely, hating and deluding themselves for having to conform to these unnatural cultural weaknesses to obtain women (though this is not really true, since women crave strong men and are less concerned with ideology), and all sorts of other problems. With a culture this weak, sick, and atomized against itself, it is then much easier to roll out the death knell and steamroll them by bringing in more hardened groups of outsiders.
But success in life is about adaptation, and it’s mostly the weaker who get caught in this degenerate spiral of liberalism. Europeans are highly adaptive and high-achieving, they are creative and by far the best at solving complex problems. What is needed is a new culture or a new ideology for European peoples, one that empowers them instead of manipulating their morality systems. Many of us have already found this, know what it will entail, and look forward to a future where we will once again be in control of our own destinies. |
Well, I know how Thomas Jefferson would respond.
It is interesting...if a university professor, one day decided to say "phuck it" and open the flood gates, and say what you wrote, the backlash would be a site to see...because it is correct.
But, why even call it "liberalism? The ideology that is hiding behind that mask is only using it as a ruse; manipulating and feeding on the emotions and impulsive reactions of those who are ignorant in what is happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
I was thinking the same thing. He should probably check the definition of the word first. Ironically the left is against neoliberalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
You write in an fairly imprecise manner, though. I am not sure that most people would recognize the words you use as meaning what you use them to mean. Also, modern dialectical code word? What exactly are you trying to say, and perhaps consider saying so in a more concise, precise, manner? I mean it is just a message board, but we should aim to have higher standards than American Thinker here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
No, neoliberalism is an actual word with an actual definition that isn't what you think it is. Please, if we're wrong, find some references to your apparently correct "broad" view of the word. When someone elects to be this creative with the definitions of words - which are fixed and objective - it makes it difficult to engage on any level that is at all subjective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
No, neoliberalism is an actual word with an actual definition that isn't what you think it is. Please, if we're wrong, find some references to your apparently correct "broad" view of the word. When someone elects to be this creative with the definitions of words - which are fixed and objective - it makes it difficult to engage on any level that is at all subjective. |
This is the neoliberal era. It's much more than an economic doctrine.
| Quote: |
A similar dynamic is observable with respect to the cultural and political content of neoliberalism, conceptualized here as a broad range of cultural and political narratives and practices.
…
Neoliberalism has a wide range of meanings in current discourse and a strong left leaning political inflection. It is used far more by those who criticize the current economic order than by those who favor it. Indeed, neoliberalism all too often serves more as an epithet than as an analytically productive concept. We make no pretense to laying down some neutral and “scientific” definition of a concept that is essentially contested and will certainly remain so. But we consider it useful to distinguish four facets of the neoliberal phenomenon: neoliberalism as economic theory, neoliberalism as political ideology, neoliberalism as policy paradigm and neoliberalism as social imaginary.
…
The neoliberal social imaginary shapes individual goals and behavior while simultaneously making neoliberal political ideology and policy paradigms seem “natural” (see Somers, 2008). The prevalence of this social imaginary, even among those whose welfare has been undercut by neoliberal policies, helps reinforce the political power of neoliberalism as ideology and policy paradigm. |
http://sociology.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/faculty/evans/Evans%20Sewell%20Neoliberalism%20DRAFT%205-17-11.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| That’s right. It’s important to remember that neoliberalism as a cultural doctrine was pushed on White baby boomer youths in the 1960s and 1970s. It was framed as a moral argument and was designed to replace Christianity by making kids rebel against it and associate it with backwardness, while maintaining the central tenets of shame and original sin. Since Christianity had lost much of its relevance anyway, modern liberalism simply took its place as the new religion of the West. |
Neoliberalism doesn't mean anything close to what you think it does. |
Wrong again, northway. Neoliberalism is an extremely broad term that was used specifically by myself (“as a cultural doctrine”) to address the pervasive Western ideology that has caused people like yourself and Catman to be so uninformed. It’s also a modern dialectical code word, but I will leave that aside for now. If losing on substance made you believe that you could win on semantics, I will again remind you that you will lose on both and to not waste my time. |
You write in an fairly imprecise manner, though. I am not sure that most people would recognize the words you use as meaning what you use them to mean. Also, modern dialectical code word? What exactly are you trying to say, and perhaps consider saying so in a more concise, precise, manner? I mean it is just a message board, but we should aim to have higher standards than American Thinker here. |
You are starting to make me regret giving your own inconsistent writing a pass; inability to distinguish between ‘then’ and ‘than,’ making incomplete arguments, etc., and it seems like you are trying to spit back the same criticism I gave you in our discussion about gun crime. So, I’m not sure if you are the right person to be lecturing me about standards and precise writing, Leon. Thanks for the advice though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
