Wednesday, 10 May 2017



Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. The use of philosophy, art, governance policy and science to honor, promote, manage and protect traditional majority cultures.
Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the philosophy, arts, policy creation and sciences that promote, protect and manage traditional majority cultures. 3. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.
This is the first of a weekly, 8-part review of culturist policies. It will become a short e-book. Any feedback you could provide in terms of ideas or presentation would be appreciated. To prepare for the policy sections, this week’s entry will define culturist philosophy generally.

Culturist Agenda

Culturism is the opposite of multiculturalism. Whereas multiculturalism undermines the traditional majority culture’s status (being a Pakistani Dilo player is just as French as being a Jesuit), culturism acknowledges and supports the West’s traditional majority cultures.

Culturists disagree with the multiculturalists’ assertion that western governments must be culturally neutral. China’s immigration laws support Chinese identity; Iran’s curriculum promotes Islam. Western governments must also enact culturist policies to promote and protect their traditional majority cultures.

Islamic immigration is the number one threat to European existence. Islam is hostile to the West’s culture and existence. Cuturists also see dire potential in The United States’ Mexican descendant population believing that some US territory is Mexican. Thus, immigration control and assimilation are culturist policy priorities.

Domestically, multiculturalism’s anti-western agenda inciting racial tensions and the West’s declining morality are two large problems. Replacing multicultural guilt with western pride can largely reverse these problematic trends. Internationally, we must stop trying to make Muslim nations western.

Traditional majority culture?

The West’s ‘traditional majority culture’ exists at embedded levels. A village’s traditional majority culture should be protected concurrently with the national culture. And, if the local culture is traditional it will be congruent with the national culture. 

A majority Muslim community in England is not congruent with England’s traditional majority culture; so culturists would seek its transformation. On a larger scale, we can condemn NAZI culture for violating the wider West’s cultural traditions.

While nationalism has a hostile relationship to communities larger than itself, culturism acknowledges western nations’ shared history and interests and so offers more opportunities for unity. 

All nations, from Mexico to Saudi Arabia, and civilizations, from Asia to the Muslim world, are, and have always been, culturist. Only the West has embraced multicultural dismantling. Western civilization and nations also have a right to be culturist.

Culturism and racism

A culturist need not deny that racial IQ, temperament, and talent differences exist. But, as cultural unity is the goal of culturism, it is much more useful to focus on the fact that people of all races can be loving, hard working, moral, friendly patriots.

Acknowledging differential racial talents can be useful in countering the fractious multicultural myth that all disparities in achievement result from ‘White racism.’ Yet - since people cannot change their race - limited benefit can come from discussing race. On the contrary, all races and cultures can greatly benefit from culturist scrutiny.

And, yes, white people should take pride in having built a great civilization. But it is healthier to view this as western pride, rather than white pride. And, fantasies of making the ‘West white again’ are divisive and dangerous. 

Public Discussion

Islam is a violent, dangerous culture. Mexicans have high teen pregnancy rates. East Asians study hard and so succeed. Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes. The White divorce rate has skyrocketed. These truths have policy implications we must be free to discuss.

Yet anytime you assert that non-White cultural diversity includes negative aspects, in order to squelch discussion, multiculturalists call you an irrational, phobic ‘racist.’ Instead of becoming defensive, we must proudly call ourselves rational culturists and reassert culturist truths. 

If we could get a politician or pundit to use the words ‘culturist’ or ‘culturism,’ they could go viral quickly. We need to discuss negative aspects of cultural diversity. Spread the words ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’ today!

Donald J. Trump

When asked about inner-city crime, Trump talks about ‘jobs.’ When asked about his Muslim ban, he says it isn’t one; it is only a ban on some dangerous nations. When asked why we need a wall, Trump never speaks of the danger of having two cultures in your nation, (let alone assimilation).

Trump, in short, would be much more effective if he could speak honestly about culture. Yet, one suspects, he is terrified of being called a ‘racist.’ He needs to come out as a ‘culturist.’ We must be able to say that America, (like other western nations), has a traditional majority culture and judge people(s) by their fealty to it.

By spreading the words ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist’ we can help Trump reach his potential. Use them today!

You can find more information at


  1. Culturalism - Civic Nationalism (i.e. cucking)

  2. Anonymous,

    While your sniping from behind anonymity is both brave and useful, I have always found strategy to be even more useful.

    So, can you propose a useful strategy?

  3. When I saw this essay my first thought was, "God, this sounds boring...something from the Alt-light." But as I sometimes do, I decided to look a bit closer at it. My interest in this articles was sparked because I have just read an essay by P.T. Carlo, Against the Trad Dads. In that esssay, with which I almost completely agree he uses the term "cultural formation" which I have asked him to elaborate on (which he has not done so as of this morning, but then I am just a small commenter). In addition to agreeing with most of his article, this term has resonated with me for days and so I was drawn to read your essay and perhaps draw out some meaning on my own. Alas, this is not the case. My original idea that this would be pretty insipid was correct. You do not seem interested in in "cultural formation" but in simply holding on to what-ever little bit of "Western Culture" you possibly can while "defending" it from multiculturism. You sound like a Republican. I predict that in five years you will have drifted so far left that you will be defending "Western Civilization" by trying to base it on multiculturism. After all we are a nation of immigrants. This essay represents left-ward drift of the worst kind. I have limited time to study and will not be wasting any more of it with this series of articles.

    1. Aodh, Thank you for your open mind. I'll look into the 'cultural formation' lead.

      Introductions are necessarily short and vague. Starting with the next article, I'll get into direct policy. Indeed, culturism holds that government must take an active role in 'cultural formation.' That is what, by definition, all culturist policies aim at.

      As for drifting, I have consistently drifted farther right. You'll see in my essay on Muslim repatriation (#3) that I offer two sorts of culturism, 'pragmatic' and 'absolute'. Absolute culturist repatriation would repatriate all Muslims now.
      Pragmatic culturist repatriation would look at people's fealty to their naturalization oaths. I started out being pragmatic (over 10 years ago now), but have so drifted that the Absolute culturist policy must be considered.

      Thanks again! John

    2. Around our table we have made it a rule of order not to bash those who agree with us on some things just because we disagree with them on many things. Richard Spencer, I'm thinking of you. There used to be a Baptist preacher in my hometown that always said, "If a hound-dog comes to town barking for Jesus, I'm going to support him." Well, maybe I will and maybe I won't. The point is not to bash your friends. In a well-ordered society there is a place for everyone who has a well-ordered conscience. Leftism is a sickness that is always with us and must be rooted out wherever possible. If I have bashed someone who is recovering from this sickness, I have not done a good thing. Also your post reads like a manifesto; not necessarily a bad thing.

    3. By the way, it hasn't been long since that I had to stand up in meetings and say, "Hi, my name is Aodh and I'm a Libertarian."

    4. Aodh, Not much to add, except to say, that I read your responses and liked them. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my future 'manifesto' style articles in this series. - John

  4. Who I am does not matter. What matters is whether I speak the truth or not.

    So you may consider the following three points.

    One, Culturalism is nothing more than civic nationalism, except with the John Press brand. There's nothing original about it. I've read your site and your articles here. You offer nothing that guys like Gavin and PJW don't already provide.

    This makes you Alt-Lite, in which case, you are submitting your articles to the wrong site.

    Two, even if we assume that Culturalism can work (it won't) and pacify non-western populations, it won't be able to turn low IQ "refugees" into high-functioning whites, in which case, Western countries will become Third World countries mainly because of the decline in the aggregate IQ of its populace as well as the loss of social capital derived from good genetic capital.

    But that's okay right? Because they all love muh Constitution and listen to Vivaldi.

    Thirdly, as for the issue of strategy. Culturalism is a very poor strategy, not because you created it but because it has been practiced for years by mainstream conservatives all throughout the West, and it has consistently failed.

    Look at Le Pen. Failed. Ukip? Falling apart. Trump. Barely won and unless he takes on explicitly pro-white policies, he won't win reelection.

    Again, your culturalism is nothing more than civic nationalism (prove me wrong), and it is a failure. Rebranding it won't change a thing.

    If you're going to argue that Culturalism is Racialism in disguise, however, then I will say that it is a poorly contrived disguise, since liberals and leftists will easily see through it, and the real right don't care. The only ones who will accept it are the cucks.

    The alternative to Culturalism is to tear down egalitarianism and universalism, which is what the Alt-Right and the New Right have done and continue to do.

    Another alternative is to de-stigmatize racism, such that being called "racist" doesn't matter (as opposed to trying to convince everyone that you're not racist).

    After all, the natural nature of man is to be racist. It was only in the past few decades that that has changed, and only because powerful forces have conspired to repress that otherwise natural urge.

    A third alternative is to tear down the incentives which lead to immigration/globalization, while simultaneously promoting explicit ethnic identitarianism.

    Other alternatives include pan-secessionism, the tearing down of mass society (which is already happening in many developed countries), networking, etc...

    So yes, there are many alternatives to Civic Nationalism (I'm not even going to call it "Culturalism" at this point).

    1. Gee... thanks for making the effort so that I can spare it myself to answer.

      It´s all about race. Proof: self-segregation.

      If I try to see what could possibly be the motivation for John´s views, I would say: ok, in big cities, there live poeple of different races, and they can take part in activities that come from one certain race. Many Europeans are interested in asian martial arts, and zen; many Asians play classical music; many people listen to black music.

      So how does that relate to self-segregation? IMO like this: people can come together in cities, and there´s an aspect of a melting pot, and fusion culture. And maybe they race-mix, and in the cities, there comes to existence a new group consisting of different races and mixed-races and yet they still feel belonging together. Ok: but what I still want, are ethnic homelands

      -> now here´s the kicker: I leave that to self-determination and natural development : if the ethnic homelands feel that they would prefer to join the cities, so be it. And if the ethnic homelands want to continue their identity, so be it.

      I.e.: I do not claim that the White race must persist: if there´s actually noone who wants to continue it. But in difference to the jewish White-genociders, I leave that to the peoples themselves. I do not impose a genocide agenda upon them like the White-hating jews and their satanical plans (cf. Talmud). So we´ll see what people decide: if they want to give up their ethnic identity, or if they want to maintain it (and we´ll also see how those feel who end up mixed-race. They can tell interesting stories of how they have no other wish in life than to actually be white and really belong to the Whites. If such statements could have an effect on the decisions of the not-racemixed Whites...? )

    2. Anonymous and Peter,

      In the article (which is necessarily concise), I discuss race leading to different outcomes. And, that honesty about this is important because it undermines the multiculturalist notion that all different levels of achievement come from White racism.

      Peter intuits that I have lived in big cities all my life. And, the idea that we're going to continue as a nation without including non-Whites is much more of a non-starter than Le Pen, (my brave anonymous). And, there are patriotic Blacks (not all of whom listen to Vivaldi). Any solution must take advantage of this.

      And, stopping mass immigration as a Civic Nationalism message is what got Trump elected. He now needs to take the next step and be culturist. This is different from Civic Nationalism in that it doesn't say all cultures belong: quite to the contrary.

      Lastly, I am amazed that since 'freedom of association' is guaranteed in the Constitution, it is so challenged by the Left. I believe in zero racial gerrymandering and that, I believe, would lead to some White enclaves wherein Anonymous' public program could finally be spoken of publicly.

    3. "And, the idea that we're going to continue as a nation without including non-Whites is much more of a non-starter than Le Pen."

      You're thinking of the state.

      And the answer to the multicultural issue is to break up the state (which is already ongoing by the way). Tear it down and rebuild it along racial lines, as it was once was.

      Nation is race and ethnicity. Non-whites do not by definition belong to the same nation as whites.

      "And, there are patriotic Blacks (not all of whom listen to Vivaldi)."

      "Woah! Check out this dank black guy with a Trump hat! Fucking Based!"

      They can be patriotic to their own nation and their own state.

      "Any solution must take advantage of this."

      No, it doesn't.

      "And, stopping mass immigration as a Civic Nationalism message is what got Trump elected."

      Stopping mass immigration is both racialist and civic nationalist, and it's more the former than the latter. Stop being disingenuous.

      "He now needs to take the next step and be culturist."

      Implying there's a difference between your garage ideology and civic nationalism.

      "This is different from Civic Nationalism in that it doesn't say all cultures belong: quite to the contrary."

      You're just being disingenuous.

      Civic nationalism is the idea that you can take a Chinese guy make him wear a beret, speak French and smoke cigarettes and he'll be as French as the actual French.

      "If he adopts French Culture, Zhou-Jin-Qua can be just as French as Jacques and Jean."

      That is Civic Nationalism. You know what that reminds me of? John Press' 'Culturism.'

      You haven't addressed any of my points, Press. You just side stepped them.

      Culture comes from race, and trying to separate one from the other is BS.

      Again, let me give you some advice. You are submitting your articles to the wrong site.

      The Alt-Right has always been racialist from the start. Look at the comments. No one here wants it.

      Culturism belongs on the sites, like the Federalist. Go peddle it there.

    4. Anonymous, Can you list 5 to 10 steps that will lead to your good outcome of separation after the State? I can see none that don't just end in death and a loss of civilization.

      I used to go to a racialist group. But, as I pointed out to them, the fact that you must meet anonymously shows your plan is a non-starter.

      So, I assume your first step in your vision would be "I come out in public." Number two, "then . . . " Or do you actually think the Turner Diary is a real prospect?

    5. And, if your plan is unreal, and all you have to offer is sniping at others, who have workable plans, your LARPing is more damaging than being a cuck.

    6. Again, you haven't addressed any of my points. Just sidestepped them again.

      "Anonymous, Can you list 5 to 10 steps that will lead to your good outcome of separation after the State?"

      There isn't one. Low intensity conflicts now exist. Your rebranded civic nationalism won't solve that. Fighting back will.

      "I can see none that don't just end in death and a loss of civilization. "

      With your rebranded civic nationalism, the West is certain to become a Brazil, which guarantees eventual death and loss of civilization.

      "I used to go to a racialist group. But, as I pointed out to them, the fact that you must meet anonymously shows your plan is a non-starter."

      Anonymity is more powerful than you think. It has its limits, but it is not as harmless as you think.

      The Podesta emails, the Macron leaks, Pizzagate were all carried out by anonymous nationalists, which is more than I can say for your garage ideology.

      "So, I assume your first step in your vision would be "I come out in public."

      No, coming out in the open is the last step if at all. The first step always involves seizing power, and building alternative institutions.

      The vast majority of the world's major companies are controlled by anonymous institutional investors and hedge funds.

      A significant portion of most modern governments are controlled by secret deep state institutions.

      If you think seizing power requires coming out into the open and proclaiming this or that idea then you don't understand how the world works at all. Sure, coming out is important for gathering support, but that is the last step.

      "your LARPing is more damaging than being a cuck."

      So you admit that you're a cuck?

    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    8. Also, since you are asking for plans, there are plenty of them if you know where to look.

      - The chans (which are very racist) have formed their own hacking communities.
      - The neoreactionaries (who are also racialist btw) are formulating their own theories and schools of thought.
      - Sites like TRS are organizing networks of people.
      - Generation Identitaire and Casa Pound are growing.

      These groups have no need for a rebranded civic nationalism

  5. Where does "culturism" claim that culture comes from? Is it genetic, environmental or an interaction between the two? And in the latter case, which one preponderates?

    1. Culturism uses a lot of bio-social coevolution theory (though it doesn't appear in this series). So, a) culture is a way we mark our group off from others. b) culture is a way of passing on survival options non-genetically. That's a wide nutshell.

      Now, you may be asking about genes putting culture on a leash? Absolutely. I am convinced that future study will show a genetic underpinning to the Muslim propensity to violence. In fact in my series on r/K theory and biohistory, (on this site), criticized biohistory for totally ignoring such human biodiversity.

  6. I would just like to point out that "Culturism", from what I am reading here, would fit very nicely on the center-left side of the French National Assembly circa 1794. "Culturism" appears to be nothing more than Enlightenment Liberalism, somewhat to the left of the ideas that predominated in Yankeedom after the Civil War.

  7. While the author argues against Islam and 3rd world immigration in general I'd like to know how we deal with feminism and the victim culture. They both seem intertwined to me. Maybe these points can be addressed in future article.

    1. That's a good question, since I consider Islamic and other 3rd world immigration more of an immediate threat, I focus on it more. In this series, the article on 'Culturist rights and individual rights" will touch on civic morality a bit.

      That said, I have to go teach now. But, it is such an interesting discussion. I think the bio-sciences are now getting rid of the idea of total equality between genders. I also believe that, as r/K theory predicts, we need some testosterone via events to stir our collective manhood.

      In terms of victimhood, the multicultural SJW, revenge against the Whites narrative pushes victimhood. But, if we see cultural differences as the result of cultural / racial differences, a) the call for equality diminishes and b) cultural differences will be a source of cultural self-critique, not of blaming society.

      I hate both parts of the term 'social justice'.

  8. "Replacing multicultural guilt with western pride can largely reverse these problematic trends."

    Hey sure, I'll just wave my magic wand over here, ignore the hostile control of ALL media, divorce pride from race, and, voila!, "western pride" is back, baby! Non-whites will never be proud of Western Civilization. An Italian is prouder of his country's cultural accomplishments than a Swede, and vice versa. Obvious. If that's so, how can you expect a Hindu to be proud of English History?

    Besides, chauvinism is bad. Culturalism actually wants to deracinate non-whites and make them fit into a white supremacist model. It's open to the same critique the Left used to dismantle our societies. At this point, only a racial separation will work, and then we needn't be chauvinistic over each other. Why don't civic nationalists understand they're the real white supremacists? Because culture is another word for unseen biology. Camille Paglia is wrong. This little critique is going nowhere. Race will trump everything in the coming decades.

    1. Sebastian,

      I would ask you, "Do you not think that the Leftist control of media, government and universities has had an impact?" If so, then why would our taking the tools the reins of power and opposing them, not also have an impact?

      No. It is not a magic wand. It is an institutional policy of having our government protect our traditional majority culture. It is a way of reversing the dominance of multiculturalism.

      Open borders have a psychological impact. No? So why wouldn't closed borders have a psychological impact? Do you not agree with closed borders? If so, then why does it appear that you will only tolerate one answer to every problem: separation? If you want separation, wouldn't you want closed borders beforehand? Then why do you argue against steps in that direction?

  9. All, the spelling is 'culturism' not 'culturalism' (which is another word in the literature). I'll answer more after work. Thanks for the input.

    1. Nobody cares what your garage ideology is called. There's already a term for it: Civic Nationalism (or to use a less pleasant term, Cucking).

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. It's not western civilization, it's white civilization. New Zealand is about as far east as you can get.

    Culture is a product of race. No white race, no white culture. Trying to save a culture without saving the people that are alone capable of maintaining it is insane.

    What's wrong with saying whites have as much right to homelands and self-determination as every other race?

    I want to be divisive. I want to force everyone to declare whether they are pro-white or anti-white. What's wrong with that?

  12. Eyeslevel,

    I am an American. And, about 20% of our population is "Hispanic not-White," and about 13% black. These are very rough figures to make a point, don't hold me to them. But, it seems very unlikely that the 40% non-White population will get with your program.

    The ratios may be such in Finland, however, wherein your strategy might work. But, outside of a very few minimally populated nations, a white nation can only happen via secession or civil war. And, I think either is a bad option.

    Now, as to your genes argument: it seems that, America (and likely Europe) is doomed to an underclass. Whites and Asians will dominate the scientific / managerial classes. But, for unity's sake, this must be a matter of meritocracy. But, as I said in the article, there is not shame in admitting / and it can be helpful if, we acknowledge that different races have different talents - on the whole.

    So, I partly agree with you. I just don't believe we'll stop immigration, be able to unify our societies based on a purely racist argument.

    1. "And, I think either is a bad option."

      One way or another, conflict is inevitable.

      Civil war and secession are inevitable.

      Trying to prevent it with civic nationalism 2.0 will not work.

      "Now, as to your genes argument: it seems that, America (and likely Europe) is doomed to an underclass. Whites and Asians will dominate the scientific / managerial classes. But, for unity's sake, this must be a matter of meritocracy. But, as I said in the article, there is not shame in admitting / and it can be helpful if, we acknowledge that different races have different talents - on the whole."

      If you think this works then go to Brazil. That's what your culturism looks like.

      No one in the Alt-Right wants you, Press. You're just an old boomer cuck.

    2. "40% non-White population will get with your program. "

      They won't get with yours either. Exceptional non-whites who like Western culture are just that exceptions. They make up a very small portion of their population.

      What you don't understand is that non-whites come to Western countries for the money and pussy, not the "culture."

      They like their culture, and once they have demographic power, they will ram that culture down your old throat.

      I just don't understand why Colin let's you post here.

  13. Borders can change. Populations can move. There will be a separation.

    There is no point trying to save a culture without saving the people that can sustain it.



by Alt-Right News The Florida spree shooter story just keeps getting crazier and crazier... but in a good way...I